Why Bush is going to win the election

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IIvan, Apr 19, 2004.

  1. IIvan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    #1

    Link

    I saw this in my local paper this morning, and I was so annoyed that I thought about it all day, and finally posted it here. People who think like this are going to elect Bush in 04!

    First- What threat did Saddam pose to America? To the best of my knowledge he has never attacked us in any way, and we have never been able to prove that he had any ties to Al Qaiada. He is not stupid- he would not have attacked America becasue he knew he would have lost.

    WMD- I prefer to trust the fact that we HAVE NOT FOUND ANY WMDs in Iraq over the hope that we might find some still...even after weve been seaching for a year...

    John Kerry's WEB OF LIES (TM) wtf is that? I have hardly heard a thing from the mans mouth, and he's not the one who lied to America and the UN about "Nucular weapons". Kerry has not used brief popular anguish to pass bills limiting our rights or begin a campaign against "evil" and "terror". What is one thin that Kerry has lied about? Osama would back Kerry? what does that matter? The foreign leaders who support Kerry are mostly the ones that are tired of seeing the US ****ing around in various parts of the world with questionable motives.

    Finally- Im sure this guy really knows what Gore would have done on 9-11?


    Anyone care to stick up for this letter?
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    the only thing which can re-elect bush is fear. rove & company know this and look for them to up the fear factor as the election gets closer. expect a few adjustments of the terror threat level.
     
  3. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #3
    Well, the article seems a bit harsh, but I've seen columns like this in my campus newspaper, except they're titled "why Bush is going to lose", they are extremely pro-kerry, and we get about two a week... They don't do much to help either side, except to inspire anger and irrational attacks.

    Although I will say Kerry has been less than clear in almost every issue brought up... His claims of support by foreign leaders didn't help at all, and his vietnam and anti-war pasts don't exactly paint a pretty picture for a presidential candidate. He's a politician, and he'll do what politicians have to do to get elected.

    As far as Saddam Hussein goes, he was a murdering ****head. That part is clear. WMD's or not, what's been done has been done. You can't elect someone else this November, and forget about Iraq. Is the world a safer place now that Saddam's out of power? I think so, and others will think the opposite, but each person is entitled to their own views. I compare Saddam to a beehive growing in your walls. You exterminate him now, and get stung once or twice, or you can wait until the hive gets out of control, and you're stung to death. We must stay in Iraq until a stable system of government has been established, and thugs aren't trying to take control of the country.

    I have my own issues about John Kerry, as does this guy, apparently. He seems to have gotten tired of the conspiracy theories thrown out by the left, and sites like moveon, and people like Michael Moore. Of course, he chose a bad way to express his ideas. Sure, it'll get people's attention, but I really don't think it'll do much to help his cause among people who don't know which side they're going to vote for.
     
  4. IIvan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    #4
    It looks like the terrorists have bought themselves more trouble than they ever imagined...with the Bush propaganda machine...

    OH WAIT!! Were not actually fighting terrorists! We're waging 100 billion dollar wars in oil rich desert countries while the Bin Laden family is allowed safe transport from our country...My bad

    Man this administration has really put one over on many of our citizens... :(
     
  5. IIvan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    #5
    If we actually cared about getting rid of Saddam....don't you think we would have just killed him instead of spending billions and reducing parts of Iraq to rubble?
     
  6. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #6
    Bush and the republicans keep skirting this issue, I think because if they spoke about it frankly they wouldn't actually gain any friends. Saddam needed us and our money to buy his oil, even if he could he would not have attacked America. He would however give money to those that attack America. He was a danger to Israel. I could and would take out Israel if he thought he didn't have to worry about the US. He could and would take out Kuwaitt if he didn't have to worry about the US. In Israels case they are our ally and they are our foot in the door in the middle east. Makes it easy to side on Israels side time and time again.

    I can see a scenario where Saddam in the future gets nuclear missile technology fires a shot into the ocean and then does a blitzkrieg into Kuwait. The day after his war with Kuwait started he would then tell the US "if you interfere I will nuke Israel." Afterwords he would have no problem selling us his oil including the oil gained from Kuwaitt. But far afterwards he would then attack Israel and threaten nuclear war if we interfered. He would work on organizing the Middle East until they were under his control and use that to strong arm the world. Whether or not he could have pulled it off doesn't matter.

    We had to take him out before he got nuclear technology for if we waited till afterwards he would've been too dangerous to takeout. He could've started a Genocide campaign to remove all Jews, Kurds, whatever and there would've been nothing we could do without risking hundreds of thousands of military lives as well as millions of civilians. Yes Israel probably has Nuclear weapons. But I doubt we would ever have to worry about going to war with Israel. N. Korea a different and much dangerous problem for they already have nuclear missiles and S. Korea would pay the price if we went in right now.
     
  7. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
  8. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #8
    this is what the cia, delta force, and seal team 6 know what to do best

    but rumsfeld the idiot makes the special ops community conventional and less specialized and not free to take decisive action

    sure, he talks big with spec ops, but that's politics
     
  9. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #9
    Bush is going to win the election because SlyHunter represents the average American more than does the average Mac user (liberal or conservative).

    I just wish the "average American" would learn about spell check.
     
  10. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #10
    Well don't forget, it wasn't quite that easy. The guy was not often seen in public, and when he was, much of the time it was one of his impostors. Even before the war, he rarely slept in the same place two nights in a row.

    It may have been about oil, but I also don't underestimate Bush's ability to simply blunder into a war with the wrong enemy. Bush wanted to get Saddam, and he manipulated the facts to suit his purposes.

    As far as that original letter to the editor, yeah, that guy is out of touch with reality. Unfortunately, there are enough stupid and/or gullible people like that to get Bush re-elected, no doubt about it. Heck, look at all the stuff Bush has screwed up, and he's still running neck and neck with Kerry in the polls. What the hell does it take to get rid of a bad leader??
     
  11. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #11
    I had this argument with my sister. Why could we not have sent in the ultra secret spy's so secret you have to have a security classification to even know the security classification to know of their existance. Why could we not have assassinated him.

    You think the fallout from the UN countries from attacking Iraq was bad it would be much worse if anyone found out we used assassination in this case. There would be no guarantee who would replace him, no controls, no chance to build a friendlier government in Iraq. And theoretically many more civilians would be killed in the combat afterwards of all the folks who wanted to be in charge fighting each other.
     
  12. G4scott macrumors 68020

    G4scott

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #12
    There is one simple reason why taking out Saddam in a special ops mission would've been a disaster. The power struggle afterwards, and the uprising of the terrorist community.

    By attacking Saddam and his assets, we reduced the chances of terrorists sympathetic to Saddam to organize in Iraq and strike against the US.

    Also, if we had just taken out Saddam, one of his evil sons, or someone else would've seized power, and that probably would've been a bloody struggle. Then we'd just have to deal with the problem again down the road, and Iraq would worse off then before. The Iraqi people have been brainwashed for years, and it's going to take years to undo the terror Saddam has done, physically and emotionally. The people of Iraq wouldn't revolt on their own, because they'd be afraid of the government murdering them and their families.
     
  13. IIvan thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    #13
    You may be right- but we (Bush) were willing to alienate the UN and cause lots of casualties anyway...so why not save the lives and infrastructure, and give out scholarships with the money instead? We surely could have taken out most of his regime with only a fraction of the resources spent on this war.
     
  14. trebblekicked macrumors 6502a

    trebblekicked

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #14
    it...it boggles the mind. really it does.

    just sad sad sad sad sad.
     
  15. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    No, they'd be afraid because the last time we asked them to rise up, they did and we sat back and watched them get slaughtered. That's one reason for there to be a fundamental lack of trust among them now.
     
  16. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #16
    Obviously, it's still very hard to predict how things will go in this November's election, but this recent CNN poll indicates that Bush's lead over Kerry continues to increase.

    Nice. If you can't counter the other side's argument, try a personal attack instead.
     
  17. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    #17
    So encouraging someone (for the second time) to use spell check is a personal attack? I guess the other hundred some posts don't count as arguments either?
     
  18. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #18
    actually the special ops community is far more deeper than shooting small arms with great stealth and accuracy

    they bring in information which is then used to create positive relationships with the population and forward thinking decision making

    many special ops people are working with iraq right now and if done in a quieter way, instead of with brute force and a major uniformed military presence ala george bush, maybe iraq would be further along in becoming a safe democratic state in the middle east

    it's hard to work with a country after having blown them up and killed their citizens...we made enemies of many who before held no issue against the usa

    might does not always make right

    the main problem with iraq was saddam and his sons...bombing iraq with shock and awe was not the only answer to taking the dictator out...many innocents died needlessly...the press rarely goes into the cost of war with how it affects the civilians because long after the soldiers leave, it's the battered civilians who have to continue on with lost and injured loved ones

    for a second, put yourself in the shoes of iraq...let's say you hate and fear george bush because he's unfair and brutal...but then let's say a country comes in and captures him but first bombs your country and capital and kills innocent civilians, most of who were against him...and then let's say that country brings in a major military force right into your neighborhood and arrests so called insurgents

    now how would you feel about your occupiers...even if you hated your own brutal leader?
     
  19. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #19
    UGH.

    I can't even begin to describe how badly that scares me. Another 4 years of Bush?

    Are people blind as to what is going on right now?
     
  20. Neserk macrumors 6502a

    Neserk

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2004
    #20

    Technically, he can't be re-elected. One has to be elected in the first place ;)

    I'm thinking he'd only get elected if the elections were fixed, like when he was appointed.

    I've noticed that "they" are expressing more concern about domestic terrorism :rolleyes: considering its source it is no surprise they are trying to scare everyone into voting for Bush *yawn*
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    For God's sake, keep your voice down! Next thing you know, he'll be running for a third term "because the first one didn't count". :eek: :eek:
     
  22. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #22
    worthy of the Onion, sir
     
  23. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #23
    So using your logic it would be completly legal to vote Bush into office for Two more terms.
     
  24. SlyHunter macrumors newbie

    SlyHunter

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Location:
    Florida
    #24
    Thru out the day I heard Kerry has agreed to hand out his military record. Later I hear Kerry only handed out part of his military record if you wish to see the rest show up at his campaign office and he'll let you look at it there. The Boston Globe sent a reporter and was told no they don't have records there go away. Later Kerry announces some records were stuck at the Pentagon and he will release them after they do and after reviewing them.

    I heard surmised that the missing military records may include bad reports from his commanding officers.

    Wierd none of this was reported in the Boston Globe or if it was I can't find it on their online web site.
     
  25. amnesiac1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Location:
    Europe
    #25
    yes, and that has already been pointed out two posts up, but it was a complete joke. I often wondered how supporters of Bush really live with themselves when they support a president who Cheated his way into power.
     

Share This Page