Does bush suck? Options

[EmeraldKnight]

I think we've deviated a little too far from the topic.. so far that i cant even tell what the last cohesive argument is...

[WildGriffin]

So I can better poke at you Steven?

I think we've deviated a little too far from the topic.. so far that i cant even tell what the last cohesive argument is...

Go with it.

[EmeraldKnight]

Go with it.

You mean like this?

[Spirited Away]

You mean like this?

Anyway... haha. back to bush and also to why and how our posts actually were on topic:

The finding of sarin gas proves that Iraq is not at all innocent of the charge of having WMD. Though not WMD, the gas can be just a lethal in mass killing. Not everything Bush does is pointless.

Someone mentioned that the war is the cause of the deficit. I disagree. The deficit is due to many other events, the biggest ones being the recession and tax cuts.

Pointy objects are for me to poke fun at "Griffin". Debates aren't all serious.

[EmeraldKnight]

The finding of sarin gas proves that Iraq is not at all innocent of the charge of having WMD. Though not WMD, the gas can be just a lethal in mass killing. Not everything Bush does is pointless.

still.. the findings came far after.. and after desperate attempts at searching in order to prove the war legit, i still say that his motives for the war were primarily cuz of the oil

Someone mentioned that the war is the cause of the deficit. I disagree. The deficit is due to many other events, the biggest ones being the recession and tax cuts.

Yeah.. but the tax cuts were still Bush's fault, and the war definitely helped the deficit a lot

[Spirited Away]

still.. the findings came far after.. and after desperate attempts at searching in order to prove the war legit, i still say that his motives for the war were primarily cuz of the oil

Hey, if it helps our economy to keep the gas price level down, then I'm not complaining. But also, he indirectly liberated the Iraqis from an opressive tyrant who killed his own people. (I know I'm digging my own grave by saying so).

Yeah.. but the tax cuts were still Bush's fault, and the war definitely helped the deficit a lot

Are you telling me that you don't like the tax cuts? When I get my pay check, I appreciate every dollar I can keep. Actually, it's not his fault at all, and here's why:

Many presidents in the past have promised tax cuts, why? Americans like to hear it. We, as citizens, motivate our presidential candiates to do the things they do to get our favors in the voting booth. If many Americans say they want tax cuts, then by golly, the only way to get into our hearts is to give us tax cuts.

[EmeraldKnight]

Hey, if it helps our economy to keep the gas price level down, then I'm not complaining. But also, he indirectly liberated the Iraqis from an opressive tyrant who killed his own people. (I know I'm digging my own grave by saying so).

Gas price level down? how are they down??!!!! maybe since you dont have to put up with $2.50/gallon gas prices..... and the tyrant thing, i agree with, but i dont see why we had to waste our resources to help them.. i mean, there're plenty of countries out there with dictators that killed their own ppl, why not invade them? cuz they dont have oil

Many presidents in the past have promised tax cuts, why? Americans like to hear it. We, as citizens, motivate our presidential candiates to do the things they do to get our favors in the voting booth. If many Americans say they want tax cuts, then by golly, the only way to get into our hearts is to give us tax cuts. 

Sadly.. that's how politics work.. and thats how economics dont.. see, by promising and giving tax cuts.. he makes the ppl happy.. but also happily unaware of the huge deficit we're accumulating.. i'm for the tax cuts... but i dont think that bush made the right decision when he combined tax cuts with a very costly war

[*kryogenix*]

and the tyrant thing, i agree with, but i dont see why we had to waste our resources to help them.. i mean, there're plenty of countries out there with dictators that killed their own ppl, why not invade them? cuz they dont have oil

no, we don't invade them because they haven't kicked out UN inspectors and we don't have evidence of them having WMD's when they aren't supposed to.

Sadly.. that's how politics work.. and thats how economics dont.. see, by promising and giving tax cuts.. he makes the ppl happy.. but also happily unaware of the huge deficit we're accumulating.. i'm for the tax cuts... but i dont think that bush made the right decision when he combined tax cuts with a very costly war

well, by cutting taxes, people are more likely to spend money. and during wars, in the past, the economy tends to do better.

[ComradeRed]

no, we don't invade them because they haven't kicked out UN inspectors and we don't have evidence of them having WMD's when they aren't supposed to.



well, by cutting taxes, people are more likely to spend money. and during wars, in the past, the economy tends to do better.

Wars are a SHORT-TERM boost to the economy. If it's not built on a solid consumer confidence base, it quickly results in economic collapse, because it destroys real goods and strengthens the government control of the economy.

Hence teh devastating recessions in the 1930s and 1950s.

Moreover, if you look at gas prices right now, the instability caused by the War on Iraq is causing major inflation in Mid East-tied commodities. Plus, OPEC might take economic action against us as well. This is NOT going to help the economy.

Uninspiredfay, Sarin gas is what I like to call a WLD -- A weapon of limited destruction. It's category should be no different than a machine gun or a high-explosive shell -- things that we agree that nations ought to be allowed to have.

Machine guns can cause alot of lethal killing. In fact, in this war, more people have been killed by machine guns than sarin gas.

Come to think of it, if you measure a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" in terms of potential to kill, then having a lot of Weapons of Limited Destruction achieves the same effect. After all, we've killed alot more people with WLDs than Iraq has with WMDs. Or than ALL OTHER NATIONS combined have with WMDs...

[Spirited Away]

Gas price level down? how are they down??!!!! maybe since you dont have to put up with $2.50/gallon gas prices..... and the tyrant thing, i agree with, but i dont see why we had to waste our resources to help them.. i mean, there're plenty of countries out there with dictators that killed their own ppl, why not invade them? cuz they dont have oil

This instability in prices is short term. When we achieve whatever it is were out there to get, everything will settle down again, and prices will be 'normal' again (whatever that may be). If you consider this high, then what do you think about gas prices in the 1970s, when a gallon cost about $6.00?

What I meant was that Saddam was a bonus. We're there to quell down whatever suspicions we have about Iraq and terrorism, WMD, what not, and he was in the way and posed a threat.

Which other countries aren't we attacking? You tell me, and I will endeavor to tell you why we don't attack them.

Sadly.. that's how politics work.. and thats how economics dont.. see, by promising and giving tax cuts.. he makes the ppl happy.. but also happily unaware of the huge deficit we're accumulating.. i'm for the tax cuts... but i dont think that bush made the right decision when he combined tax cuts with a very costly war

Have you forgotten about the recession? I disagree with you about how economics don't work that way. Economists hate taxes because they create dead weight loss (DWL), which is a bad thing. Tax cuts, or less tax, minimizes the amount of DWL, therefore it's a good thing. There are other things to consider than just "happiness" of the people when it comes to tax cuts. Even though this tax cut is... rather reckless, it does have a positive side to it.

Uninspiredfay, Sarin gas is what I like to call a WLD -- A weapon of limited destruction. It's category should be no different than a machine gun or a high-explosive shell -- things that we agree that nations ought to be allowed to have.

ComradeRed, I agree that compare to a real weapon of mass destruction, sarin gas may seem trivial. However, weapon of mass destruction is also trivial if it is not used, or not threatened to be used. Something like sarin gas is dangerous because it was threatened to be used, or have been used in the past. Saddam used it in the 1980s to kill many, many people. That's why I considered it more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction. There's a good chance that it will be used in that manner again.

[strice]

you consider the nukes stored away trivial? do you considered a holstered gun trivial?

[Spirited Away]

you consider the nukes stored away trivial? do you considered a holstered gun trivial?

Did you make sure to read my whole post before asking me that?

If you mean to say that I consider WMD that are not used to be less threatening than sarin gas that is supposed to be used then yes. Two things, one is not being used, and the other is. And I consider the one being used more dangerous than the one stored away. Compare them to each other, and the one being stored away is more trivial.

Potential threat is not as threatening as the threat that's being carried out.

[ComradeRed]

This instability in prices is short term. When we achieve whatever it is were out there to get, everything will settle down again, and prices will be 'normal' again (whatever that may be). If you consider this high, then what do you think about gas prices in the 1970s, when a gallon cost about $6.00?

What I meant was that Saddam was a bonus. We're there to quell down whatever suspicions we have about Iraq and terrorism, WMD, what not, and he was in the way and posed a threat.

Which other countries aren't we attacking? You tell me, and I will endeavor to tell you why we don't attack them.




Have you forgotten about the recession? I disagree with you about how economics don't work that way. Economists hate taxes because they create dead weight loss (DWL), which is a bad thing. Tax cuts, or less tax, minimizes the amount of DWL, therefore it's a good thing. There are other things to consider than just "happiness" of the people when it comes to tax cuts. Even though this tax cut is... rather reckless, it does have a positive side to it.



ComradeRed, I agree that compare to a real weapon of mass destruction, sarin gas may seem trivial. However, weapon of mass destruction is also trivial if it is not used, or not threatened to be used. Something like sarin gas is dangerous because it was threatened to be used, or have been used in the past. Saddam used it in the 1980s to kill many, many people. That's why I considered it more dangerous than weapons of mass destruction. There's a good chance that it will be used in that manner again.

Prices were high in the 1970s because of the OPEC embargo.

There isn't an OPEC embargo and prices are still going up.

There is NO link between Iraq and terrorism. Al Qaeda has been trying to overthrow Saddam since the First Gulf War.

Countries that have WMDs OR terroist links that we aren't attacking:
Iran
Syria
China
North Korea
Israel
Pakistan
India
Sudan
Egypt
United Kingdom
France
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Algeria
Tunisia
Libya

and I can think of a lot more.


This tax cut IS a good thing. But when you cut taxes, you ALSO HAVE TO CUT SPENDING. Bush isn't doing that very well.

The biggest killer in war is BULLETS. But I don't think anyone is going to argue for banning them. Sarin Gas is a Weapon of Limited Destruction. If you have a lot of WLDs, in terms of killing power that equates a WMD, which is what I have been saying all along: Having alot of WLDs equals a WMD.

[Spirited Away]

This tax cut IS a good thing. But when you cut taxes, you ALSO HAVE TO CUT SPENDING. Bush isn't doing that very well.

The biggest killer in war is BULLETS. But I don't think anyone is going to argue for banning them. Sarin Gas is a Weapon of Limited Destruction. If you have a lot of WLDs, in terms of killing power that equates a WMD, which is what I have been saying all along: Having alot of WLDs equals a WMD.

Wow, you sure do your research. . Sure teach me a thing or two.

There needn't be an opec embargo, once the oil market is stabilized, there's no need to fear high prices. I would consider that since Iraq is such a vast oil field, it is a great influence to price makers in this market.

There isn't evidence that there is no link between Iraq and terrorism, of course, there isn't enough evidence to say that there are either. But you can't prove either one. If any of us want to blame this war on someone, blame it on FBI intelligence. They do the investigations, they provided that there were connections between Saddam and terrorist groups. But who's to say that they findings are wrong? We don't know the truth.

I'm surprised, most the countries you've listed... why we're not attacking most of them is common sense. UK? Israel? China? France? Russia?
I agree that there are lots more countries, and I do not doubt there are terrorists activities going on the US right this moment either.
In your opinion, which one holds the most threat? More so than Iraq did when Saddam was in power?

Aside from war there is a rising need in government spending for health care (medicare medicaid), education (the whole problem in georgia being an example)... war is not the only problem.

Handover is June 30th... I suppose we can expect violence to escalade..

I don't understand what you're arguing for. I agree "having a lot of 'WLDs' equals to a WMD"...

[juliar]

Sarin Gas is a Weapon of Limited Destruction. If you have a lot of WLDs, in terms of killing power that equates a WMD, which is what I have been saying all along: Having alot of WLDs equals a WMD.

Exactly. That means that when we get sarin gas, and alot, they have a weapon of mass destruction. Therefore attack is justified.
Are you changing sides?

[strice]

out of pure curiosity, i want to ask you this. say, i built an enormous hammer, the size of california, and some how managed to drop it on iraq. would you consider that a WMD?

[Spirited Away]

out of pure curiosity, i want to ask you this. say, i built an enormous hammer, the size of california, and some how managed to drop it on iraq. would you consider that a WMD?

Well, if it can kill a 'massive' amount of people, then I suppose it can considered as such.

[EmeraldKnight]

out of pure curiosity, i want to ask you this. say, i built an enormous hammer, the size of california, and some how managed to drop it on iraq. would you consider that a WMD?

hahaha

Exactly. That means that when we get sarin gas, and alot, they have a weapon of mass destruction. Therefore attack is justified. 

So you're saying that possessing a weapon of mass destruction justifies us attacking them? I dont see us attacking all those other countries with biological or nuclear weapons

[strice]

hey guess what we're the only ones to use a nuke on another country

[ComradeRed]

Exactly. That means that when we get sarin gas, and alot, they have a weapon of mass destruction. Therefore attack is justified.
Are you changing sides?

They also had a lot of rifles, so technically that would be a mass destruction weapon too. That doesn't mean an attack is justified.

An attack is only justified if that country is imminently about to attack you.

[EmeraldKnight]

They also had a lot of rifles, so technically that would be a mass destruction weapon too. That doesn't mean an attack is justified.

An attack is only justified if that country is imminently about to attack you.

I completely agree.. we shouldnt be overly paranoid, i mean.. if we attack every country that poses a threat to us, we'd be declaring war on most of the countries in the world

[ComradeRed]

I completely agree.. we shouldnt be overly paranoid, i mean.. if we attack every country that poses a threat to us, we'd be declaring war on most of the countries in the world

...which is historically indeed what we have been doing since 1941. And where has it got us?

Big Government. Spending never before seen. No more Constitutionalism. Other countries think we're the world's biggest security risk. Our foreign policy is hard to manuever. We pay millions to teh United Nations a year.

[juliar]

hahaha

So you're saying that possessing a weapon of mass destruction justifies us attacking them? I dont see us attacking all those other countries with biological or nuclear weapons

It does justify, because alot of you have been saying that we went into Iraq WITHOUT reason. I'm just rebutting that argument with waht you people have said.

[ComradeRed]

It does justify, because alot of you have been saying that we went into Iraq WITHOUT reason. I'm just rebutting that argument with waht you people have said.

Without GOOD reason, better?

Hitler had a reason for attacking Poland. Two actually: A polish Jew assassinated a German official in Paris, and a few members of the Polish army had an incident with German border patrols at a Radio Station.

[juliar]

Without GOOD reason, better?

Wouldn't you think it would be a good reason if a country that your father had opposed ten years earlier is suddenly discovered to have lethal weapons, most probably used against you?

Hitler had a reason for attacking Poland. Two actually: A polish Jew assassinated a German official in Paris, and a few members of the Polish army had an incident with German border patrols at a Radio Station.

So Hitler's reasons were good reasons, better than Bush's?