Bush - Impeached! Or Not?

To be completely frank: I dislike Bush. I think he's an idiot. I mean, come on! he's said some really moronic things

Huh? I wonder if he was kicking himself after that...

anyways, my dislike for Bush is due to a few things, namely his insistance that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Still haven't found anything. If he proposes another attack on a middle-eastern country i'll scream. I'd rather not have more troops die because we think that they have weapons.

My opinion: Impeach the bugger!

 

Valkyrie,

I am sure that Bush is very upset that you think he commits sodomy and that you don't like him.

He probably is crying right now, commiserating with the 75%+ of the US the population who give him a positive approval rating.

The fact that he has said some illogical things is well documented in other threads on this board if you care to search for them, but be aware, you will read about quite a few from (making a safe assumption) your hero Bubba. The lack of ability to speak publicly, especially off the cuff, is not an indication of intelligence. I mean, look as some of the quotes from “the smartest woman in the world”.

Wow! Now that I look at it, I will take the bumbling of Pres Bush over the wrath of this ***** any time

Sorry Tal, not trying to bypass the filter, I actually cleaned them up from the way they came off the website. Please advise if you want me to attempt to clean them up some more!

 

To be honest they did find weapons of mass destruction or at least the
(MOBILE WEAPONS LAB TRUCKS) to make them. The UN was told by Sadams People that they don’t have any (MOBILE TRUCKS) that can make chemical weapons.

But that President Bush did send in the American troops, we now Know the truth, that Sadam was plying France as its Sugar daddy. By getting the Socialist French to stop any hard sanctions on Sadam.

The scary thing is that these (MOBILE WEAPONS LAB TRUCKS) were going to Iran, when they got stopped by American troops.

So once again France let a modern day (Hitler) (Sadam) get away with things, and left it up to America to save the day.

God Bless Bush!

 

The only large WMD wich has killed millions of "innocents", is still being used..

It has power to destroy economies, laying nations in waste and forcing the population to (amongst others) terroristic acts.

And no, the big bad guy ain't North Korea or Iran or some obscure african/asian/south-american nation half of the world has never heard of.

It's being used by the western world, (wont go namepicking) and it's called embargo

 

About the two posts above this one, starting from the top down.......

As far as talking about the trucks, Bush has and so has the "TV News." This made clear Bush was right. Also Sadam used “weapons of mass destruction” ((Chemicals)) on five thousand Kurdish villagers in Iraq as seen on CNN and told by the U.N. in the nineteen eighty’s.

The Iraq people, who lost love ones to Sadam, and his chemicals, will tell you that “America” did the right thing by taking him out. The majority of Iraq people, our glad to be in their new democracy.

Now as far nationalism, I would say that history shows “France” did not stand up to Hitler in time. They even tried to make concessions to the tyrant. So America understood the mistakes of France, and took Sadam out!
((God Bless America!))

Now for the last post…..

If you are trying to say, that it’s every country duty to trade with North Korea, or others like them. Well lest just put it this way, If some dictator wants to spend all its money on weapons, so that its people will starve. Then that is not the responsibility of any other country to support this despot through trade.

 

Actually "France" stood up to Hitler more than two years before America did. And the Iraqi people, who lost loved ones to Saddam, are already tired from losing other loved ones to George.

God bless the third world, it needs it!


But I guess we are now

 

Agudo -- Your comments reminded me of what a Russian journalist once commented on regarding propaganda. Note that I'm parapharsing: "In Russia there is a lot of blatant propaganda, but most of the Russian people don't believe it; in America the propaganda is more subtle, but the Americans tend to believe their government's propaganda."

 

As for the last couple of post you’re Embarrassing yourselves with such unfounded statements! WHY ?

France never did anything but talk to Hitler and give Poland away.As far as Iraqi people who have lost loved ones in the war, just remember GERMANY is a better place now, because we stood up to Hitler; and a lot more civilians died in that war!

Also in Iraq, they dig up tens of thousands of bodies of innocent people murdered by Sadams government, for doing what you practice everyday {Freedom of speech}

Besides ignoring my statement, that Sadam killed Five thousand people with ((Chemical)) weapons, on ordinary civilians as seen on CNN and by report from the U.N.

The Iraqi people in America, and in the majority of Iraqi, say that they are happy that America came to free the country from the evils of Sadam.

The only Iraqi, who hate Americans, are those who lost their jobs in the government of Sadam and fanatics.

Now as far as propaganda from TV in America, lets just say it’s very liberal, and almost imposable for a conservative president to use them in anyway.

((God Bless Bush and the world ))

 

Hope you guys are having fun debating the thief in chief, because you are going to have four more years of it when he is re-elected.

 

In Cambodia they dug up hundreds of thousands, maybe over 2 million died. Was there any outrage on the part of Americans? No, not really. Pol Pot died of old age, before he could be brought to trial. Why? Because there was no oil there. Go figure.

 

(((About the last post above this one)))

I can see what your saying but.....

Cambodia did not have Chemical weapons either, and the Vietnam war had just happen.
America was not in a hurry to go back there.

But that does not mean that after
SEP 11 America has not learned its lesson about waiting to long.

[ June 15, 2003, 07:08: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

 

((((((((about the post just below the post that is two posts above this one))))))))

Dude you're killin me. If you want to respond to someone, say "@ (insert their name here)." As in:

@ Agudo the Archmage of Light

Dude...yer killin me. And...

We had plenty of opportunities to go after Pol Pot. The man only died about 5 years ago. Viet Nam had nothing to do with it. We didn't because A) we had nothing to gain economically or politically in Cambodia; and B) Pol Pot's regime wasn't openly threatening us or anyone else. Yes he was slaughtering his own citizens, but many administrations, particularly the Clinton administration, had a policy of "pet and play nice" with regard to dictators of other nations. They just kinda hoped the people would rise up and take their country back, and for that reason they didn't want to get involved. That's my understanding anyway.

[ June 15, 2003, 08:25: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

@ Agudo

I wonder why you think this? Could it be that American TV/Newpapers/other media only interview and publish the interviews of those who are for the American Invasion?

If i remember my history right Frace did not give away Poland. When Germany invaded Poland Frace and England decleared war against Germany.
So you are saying that Germany is a better place because you stood up to hitler. You is refering to USA is it not? Aren't you forgetting about all the other countries that stood up to them? It was called World War Two for a reason, you know.
You are right in one point there, a lot more people did die in that war. But if you ask some people they will say it is because of USA joining the war late, not because of germany.

This was one of the reasons for the first gulf war. Nothing like this (to my knowledge) has happened since then.

In some cases it is good to wait. Look at the cubain missle crises for example. What would have happened if USA didn't wait? Well lets say USA wouldn't be USA any more.

 

(((About the two post on the first page at the bottom)))

I agree what ((Rabbit)) said, that the liberal Clinton presidency, let some former dictators get away. But Clinton did stand up to Milosavich (Not sure on the spelling).

As far as ((Rabits)) media comment, that the Tv only shows pro American people is not true. They also show former Sadam supporters hating America, but those at this point are the minority, the majority do support us ((temporally)) in their country.


((Now for the second post))

**********************************************
Said by “Rotku”…… *****You are right in one point there, a lot more people did die in that war. But if you ask some people they will say it is because of USA joining the war late, not because of Germany.****
***********************************************


Well Rotku your right!!!! I believe that America was to closed-minded about the outside world, and should have been in world 2 sooner.

Also about who was in the WWll...it was really England, Australia, and America not France, because they had been put under the German flag with in days of a surprise attack.

But your statement above that I quoted also invalidates your last one. (See below)

************************************************
***In some cases it is good to wait. Look at the Cuban missile crises for example. What would have happened if USA didn't wait? Well lets say USA wouldn't be USA any more.***
***********************************************

I understand what your saying, that the Big Nukes they had would of been death to everyone.

But I believe if America, took out Castro on the Day of Pigs, then we would not have this problem about Nukes.

[ June 16, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Agudo Archmage of Light ]

 

Another way to interpret the Second World war would be, the young and new nations fighting against eachother for dominance.

-Japan
-Germany
-USA
-Russia

Whereas the old world, former big powers who have become only medium sized, compared to their rivals, tried to keep up the status-quo, which was bound to fail.

- British Empire (UK, India, Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong-Kong and on and on...)
- France

All other nations which had the unpleasant experience of being made to a battlefield, are merely footnotes.

 

Agudo - The only thing that is liberal about Bill Clinton is his wife -- also soon to be your first woman prez (hope that's better, Death Rabbit, and I understand what you mean).

 

About as likely as Clinton choosing Ann Coulter as a running mate.

 

@ Agudo
Possibly slightly

There are many many other countries which participated. And IIRC it took much over a year for France to be completly over run. In fact it was never completly over run, just like Iraq will never be. The only way to completly over run a country is by convincing all its' occupants to let you stay there and not to fight against you. Right throughout WW2 there were frence resistance fighters who fought against the Germans.

This maybe true, but do you think they'll show every one they interviewed. Ok, lets say that they (the TV) only showed people who thought USA should have occupied Iraq. How many people would believe this? It's much more relistic if they showed a few people who thought USA was wrong going in there and a lot of people who thought the opposite. Which would you be more likely to believe.
They may interview, lets say, 100 people. Of these people only 10 might support USA. The TVs will show these 10 but maybe only 5 of the other 90 who don't support USA. Understand? Good.


Oh and Agudo
If you don't mind it's not ((now for the second post)) or what ever, it's @ whoever. Much faster and easier to read. And there is also a quote option under the "Add Reply" button. This will save you having to write a lot of those star thingys and it looks better as well. Thanks.