Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Mr Farrius

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Mr Farrius

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Well if the situation is unknown, maybe the president might have wanted to find more info about it? Could he have found out more about the situation in North Dakota? No. He ran trying to save his own hide and you know it. A good leader would have rushed back to Washington, gotten his briefing and quickly thought about what to do without regards for his own safety. Nonsense, but then again you were thinking hypothetically. The terrorists undoubtedly would have known if the President was in the White House if they really wanted to kill Bush by bombing it. At that time, Bush wasn't in the White House, so they probably wouldn't bomb it, once again, assuming that Bush himself is in danger. But they wouldn't really know when Bush would be coming back, so to coordinate an attack on the White House based on that would be stupid. Air Force One is accompanied by military aircraft so there's no real threat there. Bush made a lot of Americans lose respect for him, there's no denying that fact. A leader who is concerned only for his own life is no leader at all. Is it stupid for someone to dive into a raging river to save someone else's life? Is it stupid for someone to risk one's life? Apparently, you think so. In Bush's case, he had to risk his life to take charge of the situation by returning to Washington but he couldn't do it. He is a coward who ran from the situation, hoping in the future that despite this pathetic act of incompetence, people like you would sympathize for his safety.
  2. When I said that Bush screwed up, I meant he screwed up in a way that blatantly showed his unworthiness of being a leader, especially a president of a country. No true, worthy leader can sit idly while his country is in a state of chaos. Even Al Gore wouldn't have done that.
  3. Don't you people remember? Anything that displays an shred of liberalism is automatically fake and not credible. I remember someone on this forum once saying the WashingtonPost was garbage. Anyways, I would like to hear one conservative on this forum instead of, skipping around the issue, attempting to prove that Fahrenheit 911 was "spliced," all that ridiculous nonsense, to address some of the issues in the movie. Like our President sitting dumbly for 7-9 minutes while knowing that the WTC and the Pentagon were bombed. Like all those shockingly close relations that the Bush family have with Saudis? How the Army targets lower-class young people to fight in Iraq while the rich kids sit at home? Or can you not adress those points? Or are you traumatized because your beloved Bush screwed up? Even better.
  4. Yea yea, we've heard that before about all liberals. My, I'm so convinced now. Michael Moore is the biggest lair ever, all those video clips must have been made up.
  5. The Florida school room scene wasn't the only reason to see the movie. I was particularly appalled by the following: -how the U.S. government allowed family members of Osama Bin Laden to leave the country right after 9-11, while the rest of America was stranded. -how Congressmen did not read the Patriot Act before it was signed. -how American soldiers themselves did not know why they were in Iraq, while conservatives ranted on about how American soldiers knew they were fighting a just cause (just like Vietnam) -how the government preached to its people that the U.S. was setting up a democracy in Iraq while its soldiers infiltrated Iraqi homes, terrorizing innocent families, much like the British had done to Americans before the Revolutionary War. (sounds like Vietnam) -how innocent civilians in Iraq were bombed in places that had no militiamen. (much like Vietnam) -did I mention the Florida schoolroom scene where Bush, aware of the plane bombings, sat reading My Pet Goat while people were burning to death inside the WTC and the Pentagon? If this documentary can get a "leader" like Bush out of office, then I'm very glad it was revealed to the American public.
  6. KK, I don't have any thoughts on that but Bush apparently does. "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -Bush, Washington DC, July 26, 2001 The U.S. aids countries that it sees as profitable. If it doesn't benefit the U.S., the U.S. has no reason to give it any aid. Why do you think the U.S. is trying to rebuild Iraq for itself? So in the future it can say, hey, we rebuilt your country, give us some of that oil. Hence, an indirect form of control. You can still refuse to believe that, you can still go on to believe that the U.S. has solely good intentions in rebuilding Iraq, so go on. I'll just feel sorry for you because you obviously won't realize that government is a lot more clever than you think.
  7. Maybe "slave" is a bit too far. But nations that depend so heavily on the U.S. such as Canada are controlled by the U.S. There is an indirect power that the U.S. possesses over countries it aids. Surely you realize that the U.S. can politely ask a nation to do something for it, in return for all of its services, or else. Or not to do something, like how South Koreans can't develop nuclear weapons. I wonder, does the U.S. really consider South Korea an equal ally, or is it just a lower puppet?
  8. What a load of bunk. They will support S Korea as long as it remains profitable to do so. Cheap goods come in to the US from S Korea and expensive weapons go out. It is what the US is good at. My mistake Lonius. Your modification is indeed correct, which will clear up Stoker's confusion. How could I have ever thought that the U.S. would care for all democratic nations simply because they were democratic. Like Canadians KK. For instance, Stoker's reply: We are slaves of America in an indirect way. Perhaps you would know that.
  9. Caesar, that was a horrible, horrible example. While a car wreck is an accident, Iraq was a war. The more appropriate example would be if someone was out to kill you, and ran into you with a car. It wouldn't make sense for that person to try to fix your car would it? Iraq can get all the money it needs from places beside the U.S.
  10. No. I'm not saying that the U.S. should be expected to protect South Korea. It will, but only because of geostrategic reasons. Surely you realize that not everyone in any nation will succumb to the power that another holds over them. I'd rather live in a country that is influenced by only itself and not any other, rather than one that depends so heavily on the protection and aid of another. Yes, some will "bite the hand that feeds them," like me. We want no foreign government to control us in anyway. Anyways, going back to the topic. South Korea is not standing strong in the face of terror. Rather, it is terrorized by the North so they want American support. To sacrifice their own people to do so, is very disappointing.
  11. I'd like to see both of you go to Iraq right now, get kidnapped, and watch your country turn your back on you, while you get your head cut off with a knife. The attempt by South Koreans to win more support for the U.S. is unnecessary. The U.S. will make sure Korea isn't run by communists, regardless of what the South Koreans do, as long as they stay democratic.
  12. When the cause is worthy, when there appears to be a near end, then it seems more reasonable to give all to support. That's not the case in Iraq. A myriad of government officials have stated that the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon. The South Koreans, are just going to be wasting troops, simply because the government needs the backing of the U.S., which I find pretty demoralizing for both the troops and the people of that country. Now South Korea is about to bring Asia into the conflict and soon the Muslim world will grow to despise them as well.
  13. America built itself on its own, why can't Iraq? It's time the United States stopped its policy of warring on nations and building them back up for them, at the expense of its own citizens. Why can't Iraq rebuilt itself? Since when did nations require that the U.S. help out with every step of their reconstruction? Frankly, I think the Iraqis can do it, they just need the right leaders. BD is right. As long as the U.S. continues to impose itself on Iraq, democracy will become something hated, not wished for.
  14. It's quite sad isn't. Bush is such a bad leader that we'd be willing to vote for another bad leader just to get him out. But I agree, in the meantime, I'll vote Kerry, just so that I can afford my gas and I can live in a country that isn't hated by almost everybody in the world.
  15. In an attempt to win the favor of the U.S. South Korea has shamelessly left one of its own citizens to be beheaded with a knife. What are they doing? The government's decision to leave one of their own to die in a foreign country has bred mistrust and anger from the whole nation. I for one, would not feel safe as a Korean citizen in Iraq, or anywhere dangerous for that matter, since my government seems to care more about winning the favor of a powerful country than my life. Btw, anyone notice how the majority of the population in GB, U.S. and SK all oppose the war in Iraq? In other words, very very few actually support it.
  • Create New...