Misleading statements on the war

iamthewalrus109 · 10-12-2004, 09:48 AM

When it comes down to it, on an issue of character and style of governance, the buck will never stop with George Bush. Bushies can blame bad intelligence and faulty intel unitl their blue in the face. The bottom line here is that George Bush is commander and chief, and he still refuses to take responsiblity for this endeavor in Iraq, plain and simple. If there is bad intelligence, then he fell for it, and that's all that should matter. He shouldn't be out there saying, "well so did everybody else", he should take responsiblity for it like a man. This is a mark of a true lack of character, he simply takes no responsiblity for "his" decision. Maybe this belies the fact, that it wasn't his decision, that this is truly a card board cut out administration, a store front with some deviant, pernicious wizard of Oz character pulling the strings.

-Walrus

Kitsune · 10-12-2004, 10:29 AM

I had a long, civilized talk with some of my co-workers who plan on voting for George Bush several nights ago. I usually leave politics out of the workplace, but this was the first chance I've ever had to have a face-to-face, normal discussion with people with a political view different from my own. No one got angry, the conversation was kept fairly intelligent, and everyone kept an open mind. In fact, all of us openly admitted when we didn't understand a subject or a certain aspect of it. I learned a lot and what came of it surprised me.

All of us agreed that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Two of the pro-Bush voters, however, noted that their support for going into Iraq has actually increased since their feelings on it one year ago while the others indicated that they felt there was no strong need for an investigation or trial for those that provided the intelligence. One person said that it was more important to stick with what decision had been made and remain strong rather than have it questioned. Another said that it is obvious that the US never planned to reveal their real reasons for going into Iraq and that it had more to do with international stability than what was told to the public.

All of us agreed that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, but when I questioned why the US isn't going into African countries where genocide rates are equal to or surpass those that existed in Iraq, one person said that there was no reason for US forces to intervene because "those actions do not pose a threat to the United States." When I asked why the US hasn't intervened with military force in a country that does pose a threat, North Korea, they replied that this is why the US is quickly developing a missile defence program, something they feel confident in and they know Kerry is against.

None of them had read nor understood the implications of the Patriot Act, yet they supported it because they felt it was important to defending the United States against terrorism. When I noted to them that many sections of the laws passed directly affected their rights, they admitted that it was "probably worth looking into". One noted that in order to protect freedom, sometimes "you have to give up some up for the greater good".

What were their biggest issues with voting for Kerry?

They were concerned more with US self sufficiency than the errors in the war. One noted that if we would be finally able to produce all of our own oil and stop purchasing food we don't need from other countries (such as wheat from Russia) that international conflicts would solve themselves and wouldn't happen, the middle east would suffer due to lack of business, etc.

"Kerry doesn't have the leadership skills needed to protect my children."

They felt Kerry was a traitor because he spoke out against US actions in Vietnam and that they could never, in their right mind, vote for someone who would ever speak out against his fellow soldiers.

Above all, however, they were most concerned with taxes. Gas tax, joint filing taxes, estate taxes, etc. Being self employed, my taxes are always bad regardless of what laws are passed, but in what was probably the only angry words uttered during the entirety of the conversation, I got to hear how nearly violent these people were when it comes to how threatened they feel by being taxed.

I learned many important things with regards to how a lot of pro-Bush voters think and what is important to them. I understand, now, that no matter what came out in the debates that people aren't going to change their position and that, really, a third debate isn't needed. I even found out that when it came to many subjects, we really didn't think too much differently and actually agreed on most topics regarding this election. The major difference, though, is that while I found the misinformation concerning the war and citizen's rights violations to be the most important aspects of these elections, they felt these were nothing to worry about compared to their safety and their money. Yep -- I made a generalization, there, but I do not fault them for these feelings. A lot of them, I could tell, are voting for their person of choice because of media bias. Guess which channel they watched while declaring all other media outlets to be bias?

The quote of the night came from an ex-marine, himself: "One thousand dead really isn't a lot of people."

iamthewalrus109 · 10-12-2004, 11:17 AM

Reading the quote that finished the last reply was quite disheartening. This is probably from someone who thinks abortion is wrong, but a 1,000 deaths of young service people is just fine. The level of hypocracy is astounding. Low taxes, but let's dump another 87 billion into a flagging war effort. It just makes no sense, they want lower taxes, but yet want to wage an aggresive war on terror. They want a robust economy, but don't care to realize that bad relations with other countries and a long term war does nothing to line their pockets. Sure the arms industry, construction firms, and few other folks make out, but all non war reltated industries are in ruin. Meanwhile international trade agreements and corporate subsidies, bleed this land dry of all it's products, ceading the workers that create it from really making any profit on whatever good or service that they create or provide. It's a circle of paradoxes, one that drive this country into the ground I'm afraid.

-Walrus

10-12-2004, 09:48 AM	#1
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Bottom line is..... When it comes down to it, on an issue of character and style of governance, the buck will never stop with George Bush. Bushies can blame bad intelligence and faulty intel unitl their blue in the face. The bottom line here is that George Bush is commander and chief, and he still refuses to take responsiblity for this endeavor in Iraq, plain and simple. If there is bad intelligence, then he fell for it, and that's all that should matter. He shouldn't be out there saying, "well so did everybody else", he should take responsiblity for it like a man. This is a mark of a true lack of character, he simply takes no responsiblity for "his" decision. Maybe this belies the fact, that it wasn't his decision, that this is truly a card board cut out administration, a store front with some deviant, pernicious wizard of Oz character pulling the strings. -Walrus

10-12-2004, 10:29 AM	#2
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	I had a long, civilized talk with some of my co-workers who plan on voting for George Bush several nights ago. I usually leave politics out of the workplace, but this was the first chance I've ever had to have a face-to-face, normal discussion with people with a political view different from my own. No one got angry, the conversation was kept fairly intelligent, and everyone kept an open mind. In fact, all of us openly admitted when we didn't understand a subject or a certain aspect of it. I learned a lot and what came of it surprised me. All of us agreed that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Two of the pro-Bush voters, however, noted that their support for going into Iraq has actually increased since their feelings on it one year ago while the others indicated that they felt there was no strong need for an investigation or trial for those that provided the intelligence. One person said that it was more important to stick with what decision had been made and remain strong rather than have it questioned. Another said that it is obvious that the US never planned to reveal their real reasons for going into Iraq and that it had more to do with international stability than what was told to the public. All of us agreed that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, but when I questioned why the US isn't going into African countries where genocide rates are equal to or surpass those that existed in Iraq, one person said that there was no reason for US forces to intervene because "those actions do not pose a threat to the United States." When I asked why the US hasn't intervened with military force in a country that does pose a threat, North Korea, they replied that this is why the US is quickly developing a missile defence program, something they feel confident in and they know Kerry is against. None of them had read nor understood the implications of the Patriot Act, yet they supported it because they felt it was important to defending the United States against terrorism. When I noted to them that many sections of the laws passed directly affected their rights, they admitted that it was "probably worth looking into". One noted that in order to protect freedom, sometimes "you have to give up some up for the greater good". What were their biggest issues with voting for Kerry? They were concerned more with US self sufficiency than the errors in the war. One noted that if we would be finally able to produce all of our own oil and stop purchasing food we don't need from other countries (such as wheat from Russia) that international conflicts would solve themselves and wouldn't happen, the middle east would suffer due to lack of business, etc. "Kerry doesn't have the leadership skills needed to protect my children." They felt Kerry was a traitor because he spoke out against US actions in Vietnam and that they could never, in their right mind, vote for someone who would ever speak out against his fellow soldiers. Above all, however, they were most concerned with taxes. Gas tax, joint filing taxes, estate taxes, etc. Being self employed, my taxes are always bad regardless of what laws are passed, but in what was probably the only angry words uttered during the entirety of the conversation, I got to hear how nearly violent these people were when it comes to how threatened they feel by being taxed. I learned many important things with regards to how a lot of pro-Bush voters think and what is important to them. I understand, now, that no matter what came out in the debates that people aren't going to change their position and that, really, a third debate isn't needed. I even found out that when it came to many subjects, we really didn't think too much differently and actually agreed on most topics regarding this election. The major difference, though, is that while I found the misinformation concerning the war and citizen's rights violations to be the most important aspects of these elections, they felt these were nothing to worry about compared to their safety and their money. Yep -- I made a generalization, there, but I do not fault them for these feelings. A lot of them, I could tell, are voting for their person of choice because of media bias. Guess which channel they watched while declaring all other media outlets to be bias? The quote of the night came from an ex-marine, himself: "One thousand dead really isn't a lot of people." Last edited by Kitsune; 10-12-2004 at 10:33 AM.

10-12-2004, 11:17 AM	#3
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	And what's going to pay for war Reading the quote that finished the last reply was quite disheartening. This is probably from someone who thinks abortion is wrong, but a 1,000 deaths of young service people is just fine. The level of hypocracy is astounding. Low taxes, but let's dump another 87 billion into a flagging war effort. It just makes no sense, they want lower taxes, but yet want to wage an aggresive war on terror. They want a robust economy, but don't care to realize that bad relations with other countries and a long term war does nothing to line their pockets. Sure the arms industry, construction firms, and few other folks make out, but all non war reltated industries are in ruin. Meanwhile international trade agreements and corporate subsidies, bleed this land dry of all it's products, ceading the workers that create it from really making any profit on whatever good or service that they create or provide. It's a circle of paradoxes, one that drive this country into the ground I'm afraid. -Walrus

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)