Why Bush is a horrible president, And why the war is pointless Options

[XxNenAxX]

...Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

These are MY opinions on war. You DON'T have to agree.


point 1--Something that really bugs me is that every one is always like "I remeber 9/11" [(and I do and I feel great empathy)] when referring to the war in Iraq. Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL! Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO. Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy (i don't remember exactly. and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence.

point 2--- Another thing that I've had on my mind is why we Americans won't leave the Iraqi way of living alone. And how we are killing thousands of I raqi people. Thousands! And the reason they are fighting back is not because they "have to" or because they "have weapons of mass distruction" . They are fighting because we are killing there families. Did you know that only 2% of Iraqi people consider Americans lliberators.

point 3---Further more, I can't help but wonder why we [America] are not considered terrorist. Iraq are terrorist because they bomb us, yet we aren't terrorist when we bomb them?? That doesn't seem fair.

point 4--- Bush is killing a countless number of people. The last I heard it was about 900 soldiers that have died. And I can't help but wonder WHY? The war is POINTLESS. Do people not understand? We are fighting for a cause that is non-existent. I know that they did not live under peace and that the women are beat, and I agree that that is wrong. But, that is the way they live. It might seem "immoral" for us, but it is how they live. And we could have helped there government in a different way besides just going and bombing everything.

point 5--- Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing. Does he not understand that war means death? and before 9/11 he only spent about 45% (I don't remember the exact percent, it was around there) doing work. All he did was vacation. WHen he found out that the world was under a terrorist attach (when the second plane crashed) he was at a elementry school listening to the teacher read for 7 minutes before leaving to do anything about it. He was a cheerleader in high school (i just thought I had to add that)

Everyone should go see ferenhiet 9/11. It is very good.

[ComradeRed]

The government intreprets the law however they want every single day.

The people that do so are called judges. Do you really mean to tell me the United States Supreme Court follows the strict, word for word letter of the law?

If we followed the word for word meaning of the law, abortion would be illegal, and I'd be one happy camper.

Nope, I'm saying that they SHOULD insofar as is possible... especially the Tenth Amendment.

When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.

The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.

The simple fact that we're humans with morals is the reason slavery is now abolished, not necessarily that the slaves and their supporters had the firepower to do it themselves.

I agree completely. And since everyone should be, as you say, treated the same under the rule of law, so must the government. In other words -- the government (an actor in society) MUST obey the law to the same extent that you and I must -- which means pretty strict adherence to the letter, if not exactly.

And slavery WAS abolished by firepower -- haven't you ever heard of the Civil War?

One agency wasn't given the sole right of interpretation.

Maybe you've heard of the Congress? It's both conservative, and liberal, and because Bush was successful at showing that further diplomacy was useless and that an attack would not hinder the war on terrorism, Congress approved.

And it hasn't, we've literally crippled Al-Qaeda, and we've given one of their biggest supporters (Hussein) the shaft.

You are aware that Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow Hussein right? Religiously fanatical Al-Qaeda and secular Hussein are strongly opposed to each other. Bin Laden's stated three goals in the late 90s were: 1) Destroying Israel, 2) Removing Western Troops from Saudi Arabia, and 3) Overthrowing Hussein. We've done two of those for him.

That's an extreme hyperybole, because I don't see the United States becoming a dictatorship for quite some time.

0.7% of our population in jail, the VAST majority for victimless crimes, proves that the United States, has, in fact, become an oppressive government.

?!?!

Not to pick nits about numbers, but the Islamic Republic News Agency reports:

"For over 20 years, under the leadership of Hussein (succ. Ahmad Hasan al Bakr),
appx. 1,200 citizens died per week as a direct cause of Hussein and the Baath party."

Excuse me, but I'm quite positive we've dealt out as much death waging war as this man did ruling a country from day to day.

Corresponding to this, Hussein threatened the entire world, not just his own people.

Hillary Clinton was quoted saying "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Hillary Clinton is a moron, firstly. Secondly, Hussein WAS a bad guy... I agree... but it wasn't our business going in. We don't represent the Iraqi people.

Any dictatorship with biological and chemical destructive capabilities threatens the entire world.

So why don't we invade North Korea? China? Vietnam? Israel? Carnegie Mellon University? etc.

A threat is not an action. A person walking down the street with a gun threatens the entire community, but it isn't proper to take action unless it becomes imminent or if he actually does something.

Biological and chemical destructive capabilities are not that destructive ... my high school biology lab could count as posessing these sort of weapons. Classifying weapons is really misleading -- especially when you consider that rifles do the ssame thing bio weaposn do.

I'll do my reading up on FDR, because I really don't know much about him, except for the fact that he was considered one of the best presidents (2nd to Abraham Lincoln according to C-SPAN).

Also that his economic policies saved capitalism in the country.

He did not save capitalism, he was a as a matter of fact a socialist. Look up the Tennessee Valley Authority, something that was blatantly Soviet.

Hitler would be ranked Germany's best leader if he won World War II.

Drugs create a deadly black market, and are illegal. We're not oppressive by sending violent drug offenders to prison, we're getting them off the streets and away from your child, cousin, nephew/niece, sibling, grandson, etc.

No, the WAR ON DRUGS creates a deadly black market. Is there a deadly black marekt surrounding tobacco? No. Alcohol? No.

I'm all for sending violent offenders to jail, but there is no reason to send nonviolent ones to jail because they never did anything wrong.

I don't think we need to be on a commission for "human rights" that offers countries such as Pakistan and the Sudan membership, anyway.

But the fact that we incarcerate 0.7% of our population, as opposed to 0.2% in most free nations, shall that our nation has become fairly oppressive.

No, your logic has run eschew.

In global, international business, if one nation owns a monopoly on a certain business, it throws it to the forefront, which is good for it's national economy.

Of course, and I agree, in small business, and national capitalistic affairs, monopolies can be very damaging to small business.

Incorrect. This was perhaps true to an extent in 1700, and this was the whole idea behind mercantilism and colonialism, but notice that mercantilism and colonialism failed -- all the major colonial powers were not able to retain their monopolies on foreign goods, precisely because they were harmful to their domestic economies.