Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Sam

Bush Must Go

Recommended Posts

Guest Sam

Bush must be voted out of office in 2004. All canadiens sould agree, as does most of the world and most of the US. If you disagree, please explain why. Here's a great site:

**Admin Note**

Site Removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Bush MUST be re-elected. Then he can complete the task of ending abortion in the USA, and move ahead on faith based initives replacing state based welfare, and his refom of the education system, putting more power in the hands of parents.

The Republicans must finish the job of undoing all the damage done by the Klinton regime.

Deficits are sometimes neccesary, especially when the nation needs to place all the resources neccesary at its disposal to fight a war, and give its soldiers the best possible chance of survival. The economy went through a down period as well, caused partially by the cyclical nature of economies in general, but exacerbated by the effects of 9/11, so it was neccessary to go into debt to keep the economy from actually collapsing. It was a matter of National defense in the true sense.

The economy is now showing signs of growth, and is expected to grow in the next quarter as well. And with permanent tax cuts, it will flourish.

Once we are through the rough patch, the deficit can be eliminated as no longer neccessary.

I am a fan of Ronald Reagan, after growing up wacthing the near decline of the US under the Carter adminstration, when the US was on bended knee, and watching it rise again to a level suitable to its status as a superpower, which resuklted in the fall of Communism, making the world a safer place. I think GWB might well be remembered by posterity as possibly as good, if not a better President than Reagan, if he stays the present course toward defeating enemies without, to wit the threat of terrorism and fundamentalist Islam, and the threat from within, ie: the liberal assault on judeo-christian values and civilization.

A Howard Dean Administration will be tantamount to revisiting the Carter years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see Bush defeated in the next election but I doubt this can be done although the issues are there to do it.

The following can be used against Bush in the next election:

•the continuing American casualties can be used against the administration

•the case for going to war in the first place – faulty evidence re: Iraq attempting to buy fuel for nuclear weapons from Africa

•the size of the current deficit

•the tax break to the rich

•ignoring domestic issues

•turning world opinion against the US

With a strong leader the democrats could pull off a victory. I don’t see anyone on the horizon just yet who’ll inspire the voters but it is a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod,

I am convinced that the evidence they had for war, ie: WMD that could be used directly by Iraq, or passed on to other parties who would harm people in the west was accurate, but I also believe that Saddam had hidden his arsenal, probably in Syria, so he could play the PR game he did, using the Useless Natterers to make him look clean, and to humiliate the Americans when they did come in. They will be found, Oh yes. When and where are the only questions. The fact that they USED such weapons on their own citizens who happened to be of the wrong ethnicity is proof that they had such a program, and that they were prepared to actually use them.

What, are we supposed to wait for them to use their weapons against us first before we act?

That, in my view is the height of irresponsibility. GWB's actions removed a dictator who was a proven threat to the region, and possibly other countries, and who masscred hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who deigned to disagree with him.

I've explained why the deficit is neccessary. Sometimes doctinaire fiscal conservatism must be cast to the wind, such as in a case of war, a war which had really been officially on since 9/11 when thousands of people were attacked and murdered by fanatical terrorists bankrolled and supplied by hostile regimes such as Saddam's.

The tax break was for all Americans paying taxes. If you pay more, your break will obviously be larger.

GWB has not ignored domestic issues: I'd say homeland defense is pretty important. And tax cuts also serve to kick-start the economy by putting money back into peoples' pockets.

BTW, one big problem in the US economy, and which has caused this adjustment to take place is the enormous credit card debt that was piled up by people during the "let the good times roll" Clinton era. Comes a time when cards get maxxed out and it's payback time. I'm convinced that that contributed greatly to the economic trouble. If you want proof , just look at all the advertising for debt consolidation loans.

cares what "world opinion" says about the US? Much of that is motivated by envy. They want what Americans have, only one problem: They think they are entitled to it without working for it.

Any country worth its salt will take the steps it deems neccessary to protect its citizens, and economy against the acts of terrorists.

The Dumbocruds don't have the money to pull off a win: Barbara Streisand and herilk from Hollyweird and the Trial lawyers can only contribute so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note on the deficit: allowing for inflation, the US national debt at its highest is no larger than that of Britain in 1815. At that time, the national debt did not stop the massive rise in British economic and world power and her uninterrupted hegemony until 1870 - at which point British power began to be encroached upon by a rising Germany, and America itself.

In this light, the debt itself cannot be described as "bad" unless you also take into account the strength of the economy and the ability to pay it. The Austro-Hungarian empire had a relatively far smaller debt in the 17th Century, and yet the interest payments alone were eating over half of all government revenues. That is a deficit problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the british empire no longer exists.

Well spotted, Pellaken. :rolleyes: However, it was not due to national debt. In fact, despite the large debt in 1815, within a few decades Britain had become the world's largest net creditor nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps not, Pellakin but a good case can be made that the Children of the British Empire do live on and attempt to follow the best of its traditions. And the point of Hugo's statement was that the Empire survived another 100 years after its deficit reached that percentage.

Very well said, Neal F & Hugo.

Mod, one of the reasons its called a tax cut for the rich is that almost 50 % of Americans get nothing from the cut. The small catch is, thou, that those people are not paying anything in taxes in the first place. How can you reduce their taxes below zero?

Your other points were:

•the continuing American casualties can be used against the administration

•the case for going to war in the first place – faulty evidence re: Iraq attempting to buy fuel for nuclear weapons from Africa

•the size of the current deficit

•the tax break to the rich

•ignoring domestic issues

•turning world opinion against the US

Jacksonian America understands the math of combat despite the media attempt to turn Iraq into Vietnam. There is no bag limit on terrorists in Iraq and while Americans bitterly regret every casualty, we understand that Iraq is flypaper - "bring 'em on!"

We Americans do not understand why the rest of the World does not understand that Iraq is but a Battle in the War against Terrorists. A great deal of political BS was spread in an attempt to create cover for Tony Blair, at the UN and in England plus intelligence gathering is a gray foggy practice, full of uncertainty - that the media and Democrats are making so much of this simply demonstrates how out of touch they are with middle-America. For Iraq, think D-Day and a Beachead in enemy territory.

The deficit is a paltry percentage compared to that of WWII.

The tax break issue is another attempt to stir up class warfare in America and it will not fly when we are joined, rich and poor alike and determined to kill our enemy. The economy is well able to survive without meddlesome politicians messing it up and the President is correctly focused on external enemies.

"Turning World opinion against the US" - that's a feature, not a bug! The more the usual suspects "whine" about what he is doing, the more his numbers go up. The "elite" get all atwist over this but not most of America.

Could President Bush loose a bid for re-election - my crystal ball is no better than anyone else's but it will take some big time mistakes to loose. I think democratic fratricide is close to hand and I suspect you will see Hillary in late touted as the only candidate who can draw from middle-America. If she believes he can be beat, she will not want to wait until 2012 to run.

We are years away from success or defeat in our war against terrorists and I do not think America is ready to throw in the Towel and elect a democrat who will "feel their pain" - we are just beginning to make it painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We Americans do not understand why the rest of the World does not understand that Iraq is but a Battle in the War against Terrorists.

well for me its because

-the US secretly supported a coup in Iran in 1953 for oil interets

- the US secretly and illegally supported afgan terrorists in the 80s including osama bin laden

- the US supported saddam while helped him to gas iranians, also while he murdered his own people, they also continued to do biz with him until the gulf war

-Bush has explicity stated iraq and alqueda are "allies", which no american agency is in agreement with and thus is only a political lie

-Bush insulted the world by rushing to war when we now clearly see there was NO IMMINENT THREAT to the US by iraq. another month would not have changed a thing.

- the US continues to buy oiil from saudi arabia while its ties with terrorists are well documented (but down played by this admin)

is there any point that i made that isnt 'factually correct" ( as Bush likes to say)?

taken together its obvious an oil friendly nation that rushes to war against Iraq long after supporting both saddam and osama cannot be trusted.

he lies to his own people and to the world, he cannot be trusted and america suffers on the world stage.

no country can prosper without peace and allies.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What piffle. This is idiotic.

Then how about this:

-NAFTA revoked

-Canadians can pay their own defense costs

-Canadians can pay for their own drug development costs

-Canadians can support the UNO which they apparently love so much

The country is a free rider. Before you bleery eyed post modern types criticise a freer society solve your own internal issues.

Sad, bloody Hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

We're not talking about Canada here. We're addressing the Bush Administration and how they "may" be defeated in the next election.

FastNed... I understand your point of view but I don't agree with it.

America is taking a path which is creating more enemies not less.

Just because a person opposses the Bush Administration and the Bush Doctrine doesn't mean they side with terrorists or are anti-American.

I believe there is a better way to deal with these issues and get as many allies as possible on board.

I do no hate America nor to I hope to see America fail in it's attempt to protect itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SirRiff, you express "your" view of history while ignoring some inconvenient facts - because they don't fit your preconception that America is evil.

In 1953, during the Cold War against Communism, we supported a Coup in Iran against a communist Prime Minister. We did so to frustrate the imperialistic ambitions of the U.S.S.R.

We funded Afghanistinian Patriots in their resistance and defeat of the U.S.S.R. which had invaded and occupied their country. Damn right & proud of it! Explain exactly what is "illegal" about that?

The Iranian Theocracy which had seized our Embassy staff in violation of every Law of Diplomacy and comety between Nations was at War with Iraq. Of course we helped the enemy of our enemy - we have long memories!

President Bush is an exception to the rule, he says what he means and means exactly what he says. If you wish to know where America is going and what will happen over the next twenty years or so, you do need to study at least two of his speaches - the State of the Nation Address delivered after 9 - 11 and the one he made at West Point. The World is at an historic decision point: you are with us for freedom or with the Theocrats for repression. There is no middle ground and those who wish to hedge their bets by sitting on the fence will find the result of that is a rather painfull impaction.

If you do not know the difference between tactics and strategy, you had best learn it.

We intend to preserve the Freedoms of America but if we can, we do not wish to destroy the economy of the remainder of the World as we do so, neither do we wish to generate a gratuitous body count in the process. For the moment, at least, we are taking Islaam at its word that our enemies are but a radical fragment of that religion which is why the term "crusade" was quickly eliminated from usage.

We now have a base, Iraq, in the midst of our enemies and should the Islamic fanatics in OPEC attempt to destroy the economy of the West, we are positioned to oppose that. The family of Ibn Saud which has supported and funded the nutbag Wahhabbi radicals will now change its practices or the Hashimite Dynasty will resume its role as Protector of the Holy Sites of Islaam - we are now up close and personal to all those fat & rich Saudi Princes and they are begining to comprehend that there is a cost to be paid for their radical theology and support for those who wish to kill us.

Korea has been left on the back burner because every immediate solution carries the cost of several million South Korean lives - lives we do not wish to sacrifice while any other option may work.

Carefully note that our actions to date are based upon the presumption that there will not be another 9 - 11, that we will be able to prevent one. It has been made quite plain through-out the World that if a weapon of mass destruction is let loose in America, the Nation of origin of that weapon bears equal responsibility and our response will be ugly and MAD.

The responsibility of President Bush is to preserve and protect America and its citizens - trust me, SirRiff, you and the World do not want to learn how ugly our response will be

should weapons of mass destruction be used against us. You have no idea of the anger and rage that exists in America over 9 - 11. We will not forgive, we will not forget, we will not "get over it". Should there be another attack, we will triage the World if need be. We do not want to go there but we will if we must. America will not go quietly into the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right Ned. Like I said post modern hypocrites.

I think the Idiots and that is what they are, who believe the anti-american drivel, the same clowns who screamed for unilateral disarmament with the Russians, can go - directly to hell, where they can fry in their own pious ignorance.

Free riders.

Here is an editorial by Ayid Rahim an Iraqi journalist:

"For years the very mention of the names Uday and Qusay sent fear into the hearts of the Iraqi people. Now, thanks to the coalition forces, Iraqis are free of their terror. But others continue to wreak havoc in my native country. As pro-Saddam elements attack coalition troops almost daily, we mustn't forget how American, British and Australian soldiers have conducted themselves with exemplary humanity and heroism since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

* * *

To begin with, the bombing campaign was nearly flawless, targeting, first and foremost, the bases of Saddam's rule. That supplied a crucial message to Iraqis -- that Saddam, and his rule, were the sole targets of this military action, and not his victims, the Iraqi people. On top of that, Iraqis were giddy with delight at the sight of Saddam's palaces going up in flames, and they finally got to see something they hadn't dared to dream of -- the destruction of secret police, security and party centers across the country, places they had feared setting eyes on."

And where were the Post Modern Canadians in all of this ??

Clowns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Mod, you didn't stay out of it. Your Leader, Chretien, backed ChIraq and France and opposed us to the bitter end.

It went beyond 'merely' being a fair weather friend to active opposition, providing aid and comfort to our enemy.

You think Americans have changed their view about Turkey in all of this, well Canada is ahead of them on the list of Nations and people formerly presumed to be our friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Craig and FastNed. Crouton and the Liberals made Canada a stench in the American's nostrils with their ACTIVE opposition, rivalled only by Old Europe.

the presumed saviour Martin will not change that either. I mean, how can he, with POS like CArolyn Parrish & co still smirking from the government benches?

Martin is also very pro-UN and pro-old Europe as well. More of the same old same old. Ne driver for the getaway car (A Citroen, or Renault, possibly a BMW) .

Only electing a Canadian Alliance government will change things and get us on the path to our old relationship with the only true friend Canada had/has (I'm no longer sure) in the world. A PC government might also be acceptable, given the support shown by some MPs.

(Barring the highly unlikely even of a Howard Dean win for the presidency, in which case, the US ceases to be a superpower, and relinquishes what's left of its sovereignty to King Kofi and Mauurice Strong and the UN)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada wount have to make the US look bad if Bush didnt lie so much.

he said iraq and alqueda are close allies

he said the alumin tubes were for nukes

he said he knows where there are massive WMD stockpiles

he endorsed the british idea that they could launch in 45 minutes

he endorsed the british idea they tried to get uranium from africa

the US illegally sent $3 billion to afganistan to arm and train terrorists. you can rationalize it all you want, but the fact is that those people destroyed the country and killed 1 million people, THEN they hit the WTC.

the US supported saddam and did oil trade with him while he was raping and killing his own people. they also helped him gas iranians. you can rationalize it all you want but the US never had a problem supporting dictators while they used WMDs pointlessly.

the US in truth has supported the worst of the worse.

the citizens are completely ignorant about this history.

large segments of americans believe WMD have been found and iraq was invovled in 9/11.

the american gov is so handcuffed by its saudi oil dependance they cant even name thier support for terrorists in the 9/11 report. how pathetic.

in fact, bush said on his aircraft carrier

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding

of course the 9/11 report completely proved this false. while the saudi connection is hidden from americans by thier own government. ahh the power of oil.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding

America has not demonstrated a track record of basic morality or a population of informed citizens. american policies do not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

if america was truly a great nation bush would have got support for war by a purely humanitarian and global stability argument. none of this WMD imminent threat nonsense that doesnt exist.

and stop supporting dictators would help.

SirRiff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sir Riff, hate to break the bad news to you but Canada did, and has not made the US look bad. We have about as much to do with their view of the world as Belgium or Italy does. Don't think we count for anything to them, especially now. They will never listen to anything we have to say, that opportunity was gone when Cretien took a week to offer help after 911.

Without going into your list of lies just wondering; based on your obvious impartial opinion, when Bush gave all these details and you origionally believed them, were you for the war? Just wondering as now these items seem to be the only thing standing between US bad and US the greatest thing in the world to you.

"and stop supporting dictators would help."

Sir Riff, also wondering which half of the world we are not going to support now seeing as how every second third world country is a dictatorship. Are we going to invade all the ones Cretien says, the ones you say or the ones that have proven to have WMD and have shown a history of invading of our trading partners and run a 25 million person gulag?

BTW, when did Saddam get rid of all the WMD the UN inspectors documented? Don't know? Hmmm, maybe they are still there but surely that never crossed your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It went beyond 'merely' being a fair weather friend to active opposition, providing aid and comfort to our enemy. "

Hi Ned,

France is not an enemy of the United States nor is Canada. The entire issue on Iraq revolved around policy.

Canada, France and many other countries opted to stay out of the war and oppose it not merely for the sake of harassing the US but rather because they felt it would do more harm than good.

What is termed "anti-Americanism" is in large respect international disagreement with the Bush Administration and not a deep seated hatred of America(although this exists as well).

The US didn't convince the rest of the world it had a good case for war with Iraq. Those who didn't believe in their cause and saw the harm it could do decided to stay out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Giving aid to the enemy" I belvee was in reference to the fact that Saddam knew in his heart of hearts that the US was going to cave under the overwhelming pressure of world opinion and not attack. He pointed this out during the Dan Rather interview. If he didn't have real reason to think this then maybe things would have turned out different.

Canada made a decision by indecision not comming up with anything tangible until the very end. Too late for the USA who were calling the shots. By then they would listen to nobody but Britain. The window for us to have anything other than a minor role on the begining of the century was lost for the second time. The first was when instead of ofering unconditional aid to NYC Cretien waited to "evaluate" what aid we could give the USA. They needed moral support, rescue teams and so on and he had to take half a week to figure something out? Remember, that was 11 and 12 September before any talk of military action took place.

Enemy, of course not. A bit player perhaps but nothing sinister. Our influence is uniquely inconsequencial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mod, while I agree that Canada's government did not set out to be an enemy to America, its actions went beyond naif to terminal stupidity. For whatever reason, the Cretin affiliated Canada with France with no knowledge of how far France was willing to go to 'oppose' America.

To put it bluntly, the actions of France in pressuring Turkey to deny the right of armed passage to American forces went far beyond political opposition and were, in fact, a Causi Belli. That's right, their active interference with a military troop movement outside of the borders of France constituted an act of War. With the absence of a second front, America paid a higher price in casualties in the invasion of Iraq. Americans died as a result of French action in Turkey. Of course we will forget about it - sure we will.

You are known by the company you keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To put it bluntly, the actions of France in pressuring Turkey to deny the right of armed passage to American forces went far beyond political opposition and were, in fact, a Causi Belli. That's right, their active interference with a military troop movement outside of the borders of France constituted an act of War.

Unless French troops physically blocked American progress, this is known as "politics" and "diplomacy". Just because the US doesn't like it (and couldn't find a political/financial threat strong enough to overcome Turkey's resistance... and let's face it, they did try $25 billion reasons for Turkey to change it's mind) doesn't make either Turkey or France an enemy. It makes Turkey a soverign nation who decided not to allow troops in. That's their right.

France was against the invasion overall of course. If -- as you suggest, but I disagree -- France was somehow the prime mover behind Turkey's refusal, then it simply means that France had better diplomats or a better policy/plan than the US. IE, politics

The US uses similar tactics all the time to inhibit other countries from moving/using troops, particularly in the Third World, the Middle East and Asia (particularly India/Pakistan on the Kashmir issue). Should all these countries be declaring war on the US for interfering with the movement of their troops?

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a Causi Belli. Of course, we can just lean back and wait for the US to declare war on France to see who's right. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For whatever reason, the Cretin affiliated Canada with France with no knowledge of how far France was willing to go to 'oppose' America.

What might be able to shed some light on this is:

The Ba'athist regime and prominent French companies such as Alcatel, Peugot and Renault have a very close relationship. Since the oil-for-food programme was initiated, France has become the world's largest exporter of goods to Iraq.

TotalFinaElf, a French oil company, had struck a deal with Saddam shortly before the war. They were to open a new oilfield in Iraq, that would be bigger, more productive and more profitable than any before. They had development rights to 25% of Iraqi oil in total.

TotalFinaElf's biggest shareholder is Paul Desmarais, whose son Andre is married to Jean Chretien's daughter. Desmarais' son Paul Jr., brother of Chretien’s son-in-law Andre, sits on Total’s Board of Directors. Andre also sits on the board of the Peoples’ Republic of China’s China International Trust and Investment Corporation (CITIC), reportedly described by some as "the investment arm of the Chinese military."

Coincidence? TotalFinaElf also has substantial stakes in Albertan oil - and you can bet that Chretien will squash any Albertan separatist movement for the same reasons.

Chretien doesn't give a crap about Canada. He is interested in his family's money, and he has and will continue to sell Canada down the river for his personal prosperity, undermining trade links and diplomatic relations with Canada's biggest trading partner so that his relatives can get rich.

And yet, it's funny that President Bush is the one being accused of being interested only in oil, of corruption and of powermongering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very much on target, Hugo, thank you for the information.

Advocat, the Austrian Government prevented American troops from using the train from Germany to Italy to go to Iraq. They were within their rights to do so as the train had to cross Austrian territory and Austria has been a "Neutral" Country since WW II. Neither the people or government of America has any basis for complaint against Austria and you have heard none, have you?

While post-modernists would have you believe that any "talk" which avoids war is legitimate, there are well established limits recognized under diplomatic usage. The French with their threats to block Turkish admission to the EU if America was allowed transshipment across Turkey passed beyond allowable diplomacy. The new Turkish government surrendered its virginity for a "French Kiss" and left its old friend, America, sitting at home without a date. Now the Turks, having waited and waited for another call from their French "Lover", realize that they were an easy one night stand and their old friend America now views them as someone who sold themselves for a few "Euro's". Pity!

We are at War with France but we shall wage it the same way they did. Never in the public view. We people of America have our own direct way to respond to the French, we do not send bombs, we simply do not send dollars. With their moribund economy, within a few years, the loss of the American market and their shunning as a tourist destination will bring them to their knees. French suicidal stupidity is understandable in a way as they never have comprehended Americans. What is Canada's excuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...