The Bush thread

[DocFrance]

Originally posted by Loony BoB
EDIT: I do agree that it's good Saddam is gone, but I disagree that Bush should receive the praise for it. That's like having a person across the road hoarding weapons, so you bomb his house, destroying the neighbour's house (ie, citizens) while you're at it, and then you steal his stuff. Sure, you've saved people from what would have been their death, but should you be praised for how you did it?

Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Big D]

[q=DocFrance]Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.[/q][q=Garland]The US is busy clearing away boulders (a good and necessary task), whilst the rest of the world refuses to help, yet eagerly criticizes. The rest of the world wants dictators deposed (in Lybia for example), yet does nothing. The US deposes dictators as it sees fit (as the two heroes removed the boulders as they deemed fit), and recieves only criticism.[/q]I disagree with both of these statements. The recent US-led war in Iraq had a typically appalling number of blunders which killed many thousands of innocent Iraqis. Faulty intelligence which led to civilian buildings being bombed, or trigger-happy forces attacking 'suspected terrorists' at whim. If Hussein had been deposed by a truly international co-operation, there'd be less outcry from all but ardent pacifists. As it was, though, Bush demanded that the UN bow down and obey its will to wage war, then criticised the UN fro refusing to violate its own rules. Now that the war is over and Iraq needs rebuilding, Bush is demanding that the rest of the world aid in the reconstruction efforts, yet his government is also dictating who may or may not lend support to the humanitarian effort. Really, it's not so much what Bush does that upsets people, but rather how he does it. The approach that "you must do everything I say, you must obey my rules even though I don't" is one that's kind of offensive to independent countries and their citizens.

[DocFrance]

Then why don't other countries go out and do what's right? Why doesn't a coalition force led by the UK, France, and Germany go depose of Kim Jong-Il? Why is it that nearly every, if not all, humanitarian efforts or battles for freedom for other nations are led by the US? Is no one else willing to step up and take a swing? If these other nations don't like the way Bush is "ordering them around," why don't they just say "Screw Bush, let's deal with these tyrants ourselves?" They don't - all it is is good men doing nothing.

[Garland]

That's sort of my point as well. I don't always like HOW the US goes about handling problems, but I can balance that somewhat by knowing that at least the US does in fact solve problems. To throw another movie reference in here - Braveheart vs the Scottish nobility. Braveheart didn't always do things the right way, and the nobles were always keen to point that out, but is that worse than the nobles who would've done nothing but talk? Stalling for time, holding peace talks, trying to make a deal, appeasement: you can rephrase it a multitude of ways, it's still doing nothing. And it's a common phrase that "you can't get something from nothing". Sometimes it's better to do the wrong thing with good intentions than to do nothing at all.

[Loony BoB]

Originally posted by DocFrance
Your analogy makes it seem like US forces went on a rampage, shooting everything that moves and carpet-bombing cities into dust. Quite the opposite happened, really. That's certainly making a mountain out of a molehill.

How so? I'll clarify a bit by saying that Bush is the bomber, the guy hoarding weapons is Saddam and the neighbours of Saddam are his citizens. Haven't more citizens been killed than army troops? I think that's fact, but I'm not sure. I could be wrong on that account. Either way, the analogy still works.

[Burtsplurt]

Originally posted by DocFrance
battles for freedom

I'd rather be alive than free.

[Moose Knight]

It almost sounds like you were saying that there's a link between software companies hiring overseas and immigration in your first post, Unne. Which of course there isn't.

I especially don't like how you used the phrase "Invite a couple hundred thousand truckloads over the border." What if we had this same Xenophobic attitude toward immigrants during the Irish potato famine or even during WWII? What if we just told all the suffering Jews in East Europe that they couldn't come to the United states? What if we told them that their horrible life in their country was their problem to fix, as we do now to Mexicans?

Immigrants aren't "stealing people's jobs" or any other equally stupid excuse some old conservative cook comes up with for getting fired. If someone got fired because the company hired an immigrant in his place, then that means that the immigrant was willing to work as hard or harder for less money. That is a basic principle of our country - that the hardest workers should be the ones who get hired.

This differs from what software companues do, because even if a software worker was willing to work for the same meager wages of a person from India, they still wouldn't be able to be hired. Software companies don't hire immigrants, anyway.

[HOOTERS]

I think Bush is a moron.

That is all.

[Doomgaze]

Originally posted by Burtsplurt
I'd rather be alive than free.

Something is very wrong with you, then.

[DocFrance]

Originally posted by Moose Knight
It almost sounds like you were saying that there's a link between software companies hiring overseas and immigration in your first post, Unne. Which of course there isn't.

I think you might be responding to the wrong post, here.

Originally posted byBurtsplurt
I'd rather be alive than free.

Obviously, you have no idea what it's like to not be free. You should be glad there are better men and women than yourself out there keeping you free, you miserable creature. If you'd rather be alive then free, go spend some time in a cage where your captors enslave and torture you. But hey, at least you're still alive, right?

[Big D]

Why do so many people ingore the 'no flame' warning in this forum?

*Closes thread*

It's so easy to be tolerant of others' beliefs - "This is what I think, and these are the reasons, but if you believe differently then that's up to you."
Try it.