|
Post by CherokeeJack on Apr 21, 2004 14:04:50 GMT -5
By the way, Cherokee- I absolutely agree with your rant about Orwellian language. However, there are some American companies that aren't profiteering, but rather are contracted by the government to help in the rebuilding process (and don't have any ties to Cheney). I have a friend who is a graphic designer with a company who has contracts in Iraq. I assure you, he is neither a profiteer nor a mercenary. It wasnt graphic designers that got slaughtered in Falluja. We went in there to avenge the death of mercs. People who knew the risk and now look how it escalated. If it were innocents or american troops, I might understand their actions. Mercs dont volunteer however they work for companies out there to secure them and get quite abit of money doing so, much more than any soldiers. Im not saying that we shouldn't watch out for our citizens, but these werent innocents or volunteers that were killed. Why would we move in to avenge corporate soldiers? Shut down a newspaper that had only 10,000 readers out of 20 million in Iraq? (nice way to exercise democratic rights) If we aren't playing for corporate interests out there, then I dont know what we are doing. Nice plan for Iraq, Bush. Need some more oil in that cereal? You better not mess it up in the end. Im going to say it again, why are we forcing a government by the people on the people!? I need to calm down, too bad I don't smoke.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Atari on Apr 21, 2004 19:07:24 GMT -5
But what about him setting back the economy, which was very good during Clinton's years? And how can you justify his war in Iraq? No WMDs anywhere, and we still haven't found Bin Laden in Afghanistan. He even safely deported Bin Laden's family after the attacks. What's his reason for that? Haven't we been through this before. Ad nauseum? Oh well- Short answers, and I'm done. Clinton enjoyed a good economy largely due to the PC and internet boom of the early-mid 90s and the "invest now, pay later" philosophy that came with it. Bush has had to govern during a time of war (thanks to the WTC attacks), which historically is more economically strict. Look at the context and the times, not the president. The economy criticism is a joke. How can I justify his war in Iraq. Well, for one, I don't need to justify it, and secondly, it's not his war. Terrorism was a potential link between Afghanistan and Iraq, however the justification is based on Iraq's defiance of the terms following the first gulf war. They had been defying them for years, but it reached a point of action or loss on the part of the U.S. The WMDs were given as extra support for the invasion, but they never were the only justification for action. (And it has yet to be proven that Bush "lied" about the WMDs. He made his decision based on the intelligence he received from the CIA, and it's chief- a Clinton appointee, that was also in agreement with every piece of intelligence data gathered during the Clinton administration). How can you possibly blame Bush for bin Laden's elusiveness? The guy knows how to hide. Or are you implying that Bush is purposefully protecting BL? If you are, that would win the prize for the most ridiculous idea in any of these discussions. I like the guy. He's not stupid, he's never been proven to be a liar, and he doesn't waffle, even under considerable pressure- which he's facing every day. If you don't like the guy, more power to you. But if you're going to attack him, try going for things you can substantiate with fact, and not just knee-jerk reaction. (and for the record, lemmin, CFF, and Cherokee- I still like the whole lot of you, so I'm fine agreeing to disagree and moving on). #nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Buddhist Kitten on Apr 21, 2004 20:02:09 GMT -5
Does it go something like this? _ZS53B6ZHJ+]HB_.gif"] Nah, the Nikes thing is in the background.
|
|