Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Bad president(s)?

Originally posted by gods_son:

---

i really wont get to deep into this being that i am tired but i just need to give my 2 cents.

a few questions someone might be able to ansnwer this for me

1)how many of you guys have left this country and went to a 3rd world country just to see how many of these people live?

---

Pick a continent (with the exception of Australia) and I'll glady give you at least one example of where I've been and what I've seen, both good and bad.

Originally posted by gods_son:

---

2) why do they hate united states so much(keyword united states not you or i)

---

Envy that the same opportunities and luxuries AREN'T afforded their country, for the most part...
...Which is USUALLY a condition brought about the corruption, misrule, ethnic hatred, ignorance of their own government.

Many countries of course point to the massive debt they've piled up and blame anyone but themselves for it. It's easier that way. It's human and political nature to put the blame on everyone else's shoulders except the one that should be bearing it...

I'll not say that US policy has been entirely benign (it hasn't in a number of cases), but it's a FAR cry from the "Devil" that most countries claim.

Originally posted by gods_son:

---

3) everything united states is involved in what do it get out of it?

---

What are you trying to say here?

Originally posted by gods_son:

---

there are so many more questions that need to be asked. its disgusting how i hear people all the time arguing about this whole bush thing. there is so much hidden behind our history. we know what we are told. what is it that we don't know? when 9/11 occured where was the president? im sorry but this country dont really care to much about you because if a nuc hits us we are all going to be gone and only a chosen few which are considered "elite" are going to be hiding in a moutain somewhere.don't believe me look into it.

---

OK.

I've absolutely NO clue as to where you were going with that, but OK...

Originally posted by gods_son:

---

i am not going to bash the man(bush) there are few people that i believe would be worst then he is. some of you guys need to think and ask questions don't go by what cnn is telling you. i have traveled alot and i talk to people and many of these countries hate the united states.

---

So have I and I've found out that it depends on who controls the media, the level of education (or ignorance) in that society and a WHOLE slew of other things that have little to do with what the US did or is doing to their country. Damn-well near half the 3rd-world expects a handout from wealthier entities, regardless of their stance on human rights, governmental corruption, political and/or social reform. The fact that they very well may need and require this assistance doesn't preclude them from the FACT that they need to shape up before ANYBODY starts pouring money or support into that political entity. Otherwise, it's like giving a junkie money; you're just feeding a BAD habit and making matters WORSE.

The UN Assistance programs, The Red Cross and other orgainizations like that I've no beef with in terms of their non-political support that they offer the needy, just so we are clear on this.

It's the long-term loans, economic and infrastructure assistance and aid that so many countries rail about and when they are shunned for their abysmal governing policies, they turn to their state-controlled media and concoct some sob-story about how the US is "holding them down"...

Propaganda runs both ways. Don't let your sympathies blind you to this fact. I've seen it in Africa, Central and South America and in Europe...

Originally posted by gods_son:

---

there is a book out there that spoke alot about this years ago and the man that wrote it got killed by his own people (cia)and guess what??????the book is not available in your local library, they wont even know what it is that you are talking about. if a man that tried to tell you the truth about your beloved country got killed and they tried their best to stop this book from being published and then made sure it would'nt getting into alot of people hands. it just doesnt sound right......look into it guys its a eye opener

---

LMAO! Drop the name of the book here, or will you have Virginia Farm boys pouncing through your doorway to "take you away"?

Originally posted by Jeb Hoge:

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Israel knocked out an Iraqi nuclear reactor facility back in the early '80s for the SOLE purpose of preventing Iraq the ability to manufacture of weapons-grade Uranium. No one screamed bloody-hell over that move.

---

Actually, ironically, at the time the US *did* scream bloody-hell and postponed a shipment of F-16s over the action. Granted, it was well before Hussein apparently lost his mind, but the international community wasn't that chuffed with Israel. The Israelis, to their credit, basically said "yeah, whatever" and it turns out they were right.

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

Since this isn't a discussion on the war I'll digress. My sentiments on the rush to war without an accurate assement or acknowledgement of the lack of a real imminent threat from attack by Iraq has been noted. (I'm sure Jato will still mention something on tons of unaccounted for whoopie cushions and the imminent threat of a devastating paintball attack by Iraq anyway but that's his prerogative).

---

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
-- Aldous Huxley

Learn it and learn it well...

Originally posted by BP:

---

But....this administration has been a resounding failure in post war security in Iraq and short sightedness in a plan, funding, and gaining international support for rebuilding Iraq.

---

I've been more than just a bit disappointed about the ransackings and sites left unmonitored by the US, I'll give you that. However, we are all but at the infantcy stages of reconstruction in Iraq and you in your infinite wisdom have already hung the jury on our reconstruction abilities? We're barely into month 4 or 5 in what will probably be a 5-6 year process!! Reconstruction is an iterative process; only a FOOL would pretend to precisely know what would be needed in terms of capital, resources and time!

We are going to the UN for assistance (they'll pony up; it's just a matter of time). Other countries are lending assistance outside the UN charter, though as is typical, it's few and far between.

Originally posted by BP:

---

And the questions still remain. Has the threat of attack by terrorists (which are affiliated with an organization and not a specific country or gov) really been reduced by the war?

---

LMAO! Nope, Afghanistan CERTAINLY wasn't involved in propping up Al-Qaeda! And as much as I hate to admit it, we are safer Stateside than before, as US troops in Iraq make for a much more promising and accessible target.

Originally posted by BP:

---

The weapons Iraq (supposedly) had have not been found, which means they could already be in the terrorists hands. In addition to that, on top of all the people (extremists) that already hated us there are surely a throng of fence sitters that are now likely to have given into the hate for the US due to our deteriorating international relations. Thank you Mr. Bush.

---

We could go over the weapons issue till the cows come home. As far as international relations go, being liked universally usually means you sit, and do nothing (say, Switzerland) for the most part. There's a difference between political dislike and HATE and if the US is known for who politically HATES it, we are in good company...

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

I've been more than just a bit disappointed about the ransackings and sites left unmonitored by the US, I'll give you that. ...Reconstruction is an iterative process; only a FOOL would pretend to precisely know what would be needed in terms of capital, resources and time! only a FOOL would pretend to precisely know what would be needed in terms of capital, resources and time!

---

No doubt. But this is just an example of how we could've benefited from taking more time to correctly plan for the issues. The direction of progress in Iraq is more difficult to change once it's started on the wrong path. We're now seeing just some of the repercussions of the shoot first ask questions later policy.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

We are going to the UN for assistance (they'll pony up; it's just a matter of time). Other countries are lending assistance outside the UN charter, though as is typical, it's few and far between.

---

I suspect the assistance we're looking for will be much more difficult to come by due to the administrations effective finger to the rest of the world when we first went into Iraq without UN support even though their support didn't matter then, but it does now. As a result WE are having to pony up the money to keep things going in Iraq and how much will it balloon to!! Talk about investing in everyone else's future but your own.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

LMAO! Nope, Afghanistan CERTAINLY wasn't involved in propping up Al-Qaeda! And as much as I hate to admit it, we are safer Stateside than before, as US troops in Iraq make for a much more promising and accessible target.

---

You must be joking. Do you think we've destroyed or severely handicapped terrorists organizations, their recruiting, or potential funding? Only a fool would believe that Al-Qaeda exists only in Afghanistan.

"...the questions still remain. Has the threat of attack by terrorists (which are affiliated with an organization and not a specific country or gov) really been reduced by the war?"

You cannot answer or speculate on this. It is yet to be seen.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

We could go over the weapons issue till the cows come home.

---

The important point is THAT'S THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR!. And we still can't account for the wmds nor do we know where they are or who might have them now. Before we knew or had a very good inkling they were still in Iraq. Right?


btw...I think we're headed off on a tangent from the original topic of this thread.

Originally posted by BP:

---

No doubt. But this is just an example of how we could've benefited from taking more time to correctly plan for the issues. The direction of progress in Iraq is more difficult to change once it's started on the wrong path. We're now seeing just some of the repercussions of the shoot first ask questions later policy.

---

I disagree. One can't correctly plan for reconstruction for ANYTHING until the damage of war has been done. Base plans can be put into place (which were), but again, it's an iterative process; one that constantly needs revisiting and revising as needs change. It's like planning for a tornado; NO ONE knows how much damage will ultimately be done nor do they know exactly what will be needed. Again, funding was earmarked and planning started early on, but the expectation that the US should have had EVERY nuiance and hiccup mapped out to the nth degree before rolling into Iraq is pure fantasy.

It just doesn't work that way. It NEVER has and it NEVER will.

By the way, NOTHING would have changed the French, Russian and German thoughts on invasion, no matter how well we planned, so getting de facto support from the UN would have been impossible, given certain key member's economic ties to Iraq and the political game that was being played.

You are also assuming that we've taken the wrong path with Iraq in the first place...

Originally posted by BP:

---

I suspect the assistance we're looking for will be much more difficult to come by due to the administrations effective finger to the rest of the world when we first went into Iraq without UN support even though their support didn't matter then, but it does now. As a result WE are having to pony up the money to keep things going in Iraq and how much will it balloon to!! Talk about investing in everyone else's future but your own.

---

That goes without saying, though failing to garner support from a few key members in the UN doesn't the ENTIRE world make. We had and still have enough support from UN members, though not the UN body itself.

The reason UN support matters now is that we've gone in and done the "dirty work" for them; we did what the UN said they would do through resolution upon resolution. The UN as a governing body has mostly been a joke; expectations to the contrary are absurd. Hoever, they are good at police-work and recovery and rebuilding activities.

THIS is why they have an obligation to get involved. They've cleaned up countless messes beforehand without hardly a posture or whine; yet, when it comes to the US, they pout and rail (oops, I mean FRANCE and the Russian Federation under the auspices of the UN do so)...

Although they pretend they do, France doesn't speak for the entire world on this issue...

Originally posted by BP:

---

You must be joking. Do you think we've destroyed or severely handicapped terrorists organizations, their recruiting, or potential funding? Only a fool would believe that Al-Qaeda exists only in Afghanistan.

---

I'll not let you get out of this one. You asked for a political entity tied to terrorism; YOU GOT ONE! Nowhere did I say they were the ONLY one or the ONLY place, either; nice try, though.

As for your question, yes we have crippled a not insignificant portion of their infrastructure and funding via a number of operations inside and outside of Afghanistan. Recruiting? No clue, as that's difficult by any standards to track.

Originally posted by BP:

---

"...the questions still remain. Has the threat of attack by terrorists (which are affiliated with an organization and not a specific country or gov) really been reduced by the war?"

You cannot answer or speculate on this. It is yet to be seen.

---

It's easy to see. EVERY day that goes by in this country that doesn't see a terrorist attack is yet another day that our policies are working and some of the target has been passed on from our civilians to those that serve in Afghanistan and Iraq. There's a BIG bullyseye placed on the back of every GI over in the Middle-East now and it's causing terrorist organizations to allocate resources accordingly (one less nut going for the states and one heading for our troops is one less we have to worry about). It makes me sick to my stomach to think about and it kills me that this is indeed the case, but its pretty cut and dried that this is what is occuring...

Having said, that, I'll not deny that there's a 100% statistical probability that we WILL see another attack on US soil. The measures we are taking are meant to prevent as many potential attacks as we possibly can; NOTHING can prevent all. Of course, once one happens, the numf**ks in the media will immediately bring into question the efforts that have gone into securing our borders from this theat, totally ignoring reality that it's IMPOSSIBLE to stop such things, only prevent a large number of them happening more often...

Originally posted by BP:

---

The important point is THAT'S THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR!. And we still can't account for the wmds nor do we know where they are or who might have them now. Before we knew or had a very good inkling they were still in Iraq. Right?

---

How do you expect the US to IMMEDIATELY account for WMDs when Iraq didn't account for them in the first place? When they played "hide and seek" for over 10 years and lied, misdirected and screwed around on the topic? That's why we are looking for them! We've gone in around in circles on this; it's apparent that neither one of us is going to convince one or ther other on the contrary.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

I disagree. One can't correctly plan for reconstruction for ANYTHING until the damage of war has been done.

---

That's a cop out. They definitely could've planned better than what has been done as far as policing, protecting, and planning on where the funds would come from. Knowing the economic state of Iraq I refuse to believe that bush couldn't have known and planned better for the rebuilding process.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

The reason UN support matters now is that we've gone in and done the "dirty work" for them; we did what the UN said they would do through resolution upon resolution.

---

I don't believe they had a chance to enforce their resolutions and I mean the one that got the inspectors in Iraq before we told them to leave and took over. So we can't say they didn't do their job, cause we cut them off.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

THIS is why they have an obligation to get involved. They've cleaned up countless messes beforehand without hardly a posture or whine; yet, when it comes to the US, they pout and rail (oops, I mean FRANCE and the Russian Federation under the auspices of the UN do so)...

---

I seem to have missed the part where they said if you cut us off and don't let us finish the job you pressured us to start we'll come in and clean up the mess you made. I see why they don't want anything to do with it.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

I'll not let you get out of this one. You asked for a political entity tied to terrorism;

---

No I didn't. I was making the point that there isn't one. Which means that by attacking a nation suspected of being tied to a terrorist organization is really hypocritical since there are so many nations tied to and supporting terrorism.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

As for your question, yes we have crippled a not insignificant portion of their infrastructure and funding via a number of operations inside and outside of Afghanistan. Recruiting? No clue, as that's difficult by any standards to track.

---

Crippled? lol. Ok. Keep believing that. Unless you meant adding fuel to the fire. I guess what Israel is doing with middle east crisis is working too huh. ...Sorry wrong discussion. If you were honest with yourself it's not hard to infer that they believe this is a holy war and the Islamic sentiment that was half way positive towards the US immediately after 9/11 has changed tides.

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

It's easy to see. EVERY day that goes by in this country that doesn't see a terrorist attack is yet another day that our policies are working and some of the target has been passed on from our civilians to those that serve in Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

So the US soldiers as martyrs to the administrations policy is accpetable to you?

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

How do you expect the US to IMMEDIATELY account for WMDs when Iraq didn't account for them in the first place?
Time will tell.

---

It's not that I expect us to account for them right away. But I do expect that all of the evidence the administration had that Iraq was massing wmds before we went to war would be able to be proven much sooner. I don't know...but it seems it should be taking so long since the UN inspectors covered a lot anyway, but not everything. And if they're that well hidden to me that seems they wouldn't have been so easy to use.

And if we cannot account for something, anything, related to the TONS of wmds they're suspected of having, then it's a no win situation for Bush cause either they didn't have them which makes the reasons for going to war invalid, or they gave them to someone else which means the supposed threat is still the same and we screwed up by letting it get away.

Again. All I'm saying is that the adminstration could've done a much better job first off by letting the inspectors finish their job, and then by preparing for post war Iraq better than it was. But I have a hard time beleiving much effort and planning went into post war Iraq, even though this was Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Time will tell.

Originally posted by BP:

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

I disagree. One can't correctly plan for reconstruction for ANYTHING until the damage of war has been done.

---

That's a cop out. They definitely could've planned better than what has been done as far as policing, protecting, and planning on where the funds would come from. Knowing the economic state of Iraq I refuse to believe that bush couldn't have known and planned better for the rebuilding process.

---

I'm sure your extensive experience in nation rebuilding drew you to tthat conclusion.

Originally posted by BP:

---

That's a cop out. They definitely could've planned better than what has been done as far as policing, protecting, and planning on where the funds would come from. Knowing the economic state of Iraq I refuse to believe that bush couldn't have known and planned better for the rebuilding process.

---

For Christ's sakes, COME ON! You can't have it both ways! One minute you claim that this administration KNEW nothing on WMD in Iraq, then you turn around and expect that SAME administration to know what buildings were going to be destroyed, what facilities and sites would be deserted by the Iraqi Army, what pipelines would have shoddy valves and need maintenance, precisely how much food, water and necessities to truck in, MONTHS in advance of the actual event?!

You think we've got satellites checking the status of water lines and sewers instead of mapping the land for any possible hidden dumps, sites or facilities? What PLANET are you from!? If you think this is an inept administration, fine. Think it all you want. Just be consistent in your expectations.

War is fluid, ever-changing! Rebuilding after the fact is EVEN more so!

S**T! We know the economic status of EVERY state in the NATION (have it almost down to an art) and when acts of terrorism or a natural disaster rolls through, NO ONE tries to plan down to the level that the media and Bush-haters are expecting! I'll say it again; it's an iterative process. We had a rough idea of what it would take, but NO ONE knew how many more times a pipeline or building was going to be sabotaged, blown-up, torn down or repaired!!!

It's NO different when the government makes estimates on damages and plans for a relief effort when a natural disaster strikes...

Originally posted by BP:

---

I don't believe they had a chance to enforce their resolutions and I mean the one that got the inspectors in Iraq before we told them to leave and took over. So we can't say they didn't do their job, cause we cut them off.

---

Quit picking and choosing which UN "goat rodeo" to ride with here! They are one in the same, as Iraq NEVER came clean even in the last moments when we demanded that they do so. There are MISSING agents. Iraq didn't account for them, as they were supposed to do!

F-A-C-T.

So 12 years wasn't enough time, even when for most of that 12 years the access to Presidential compounds and other "off-limit" sites was never granted, documents were either censored or ended up missing, a final tally of chem/biochem weapons was ALWAYS (and is to this day) incomplete, and we had the Iraqis threatening, lying, distorting and doing as MUCH as they possibly could to make the inspections an absolute failure?

When does common sense kick in, tell you that THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING and that they VIOLATED over a dozen UN Resolutions mandating their compliance otherwise consequences would follow?

If we have politicians in office that think like this, no wonder things look like they are going to "Hell in a Handbasket".

Originally posted by BP:

---

I seem to have missed the part where they said if you cut us off and don't let us finish the job you pressured us to start we'll come in and clean up the mess you made. I see why they don't want anything to do with it.

---

I DIDN'T miss the part where the UN Security Council UNANIMOUSLY voted to take action against Iraq if they didn't come clean after 12 years of screwing around and playing "hide and seek", then have certain council members back out when they figure out that unpaid loans to Iraq are at threat (as well as the lucrative "food for oil" program) as well as putting up with a potential ethnic and popular backlash at home...

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

I'll not let you get out of this one. You asked for a political entity tied to terrorism;

---

Originally posted by BP:

---

No I didn't. I was making the point that there isn't one. Which means that by attacking a nation suspected of being tied to a terrorist organization is really hypocritical since there are so many nations tied to and supporting terrorism.

---

Then what in the hell was Afghanistan? Why had Hussein promised $25K payouts to the families of Palistinian Hamas suicide bombers? Why was he harboring known Egyptian and Sudanese terrorists?

The Al-Qaeda links were shaky at best, though its a FACT that Hussein had ties to terrorism.

Originally posted by BP:

---

Crippled? lol. Ok. Keep believing that.

---

Please count on your fingers the number of terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11 and put the answer in your next post. Our crackdown HAS made a difference.

Originally posted by BP:

---

Unless you meant adding fuel to the fire. I guess what Israel is doing with middle east crisis is working too huh. ...Sorry wrong discussion. If you were honest with yourself it's not hard to infer that they believe this is a holy war and the Islamic sentiment that was half way positive towards the US immediately after 9/11 has changed tides.

---

Not every Muslim is a screaming, raging militant. And the bastardized concept of Jihad that the militants constantly refer to and lean on is a sham and more and more Muslims are coming to know this, even though there probably exists more animosity toward the US and our recent actions.

Originally posted by BP:

---

So the US soldiers as martyrs to the administrations policy is accpetable to you?

---

I never said it was this administrations policy, I said that it is what the situation has BECOME.

Originally posted by BP:

---

It's not that I expect us to account for them right away. But I do expect that all of the evidence the administration had that Iraq was massing wmds before we went to war would be able to be proven much sooner. I don't know...but it seems it should be taking so long since the UN inspectors covered a lot anyway, but not everything. And if they're that well hidden to me that seems they wouldn't have been so easy to use.

---

That's the conundrum of this entire war. I was surprised as anyone that our troops weren't getting aerosoled with stuff when they were 60 miles outside of Baghdad. Why did Hussein spend 12 years playing the "shell game" with UN weapons inspectors and fabricate roadblock after roadblock after roadblock if he had NOTHING TO HIDE? There's only two answers: He HAD SOMETHING TO HIDE, or he was suicidal.

Originally posted by BP:

---

And if we cannot account for something, anything, related to the TONS of wmds they're suspected of having, then it's a no win situation for Bush cause either they didn't have them which makes the reasons for going to war invalid, or they gave them to someone else which means the supposed threat is still the same and we screwed up by letting it get away.

---

Then the buck gets passed back to the UN for f**King around for 12 years and miserably failing their purpose in the first place.

Originally posted by BP:

---

Again. All I'm saying is that the adminstration could've done a much better job first off by letting the inspectors finish their job, and then by preparing for post war Iraq better than it was. But I have a hard time beleiving much effort and planning went into post war Iraq, even though this was Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Time will tell.

---

I'll agreee that only time will tell, but on the other points: