Has Bush Lied? (Adam)

[Ardhanariswar]

thier intent is not to wipe out a cutlure. it usually merges in with western, and thats inevitable. no country can survive under isolation. look at japan. it accepted it with open ands and became a leading nation. china on the other locked out westerners and now look at it.

i cant belive how bush keeps forcing himself and his ridiculous ideas on others.

we were not provoked to go into iraq. bush could have used defence, but instead he attacked Iraq on unsubstancial evidence.



do u kno how many people the US gives to the UN military? 7. a mere seven. and they are not even in the battle fields. and you look at bangladesh, their giving 30,000.

sigh. and bush says that the UN didnt do a good job searching for WMD? well bush did, and they didnt find any! go figure.



btw anyone like my sig!?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Rex_Admin

Mr. Spinkles.

Just a thought. First off we are not a "democracy" you can call us a federal republic or constitutional republic but def. not a democracy. Thus we can't export democracy.

In the strictest sense of the word, you are correct. However, the word "democracy" has many meanings....it is not limited to 'government in which the citizens vote directly on every decision made by the government and the majority rules'. Check out all these definitions for the word democracy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&a...fine:democracy We are not a direct democracy, but we are a form of democracy.

Also IRAQ and the other nations have been around 1000s of years, we can't even get over USAs culture difference of race from barely 200+years how in the world do we plan on wiping out culture indifferences of 1000s of years?

By putting a mechanism in place in which culture differences have a chance of being settled. In a government where only one tiny sect rules (like the dictatorship of Saddam) these differences can never be settled. Most Iraqis favor a government in which the three main groups--Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites-- are represented (see my last post for sites with these polls).

Bush forcing his ridiculous ideas on others? First of all, democracy is not a "ridiculous idea". Second of all, democracy is not being forced on anyone--in fact, it's impossible to "force" a nation to be a democracy. If the will of the people in general is for a dictatorship, the people will vote their man into office, and vote to amend the constitution so that their new president can remain in office for life--a democracy can willingly become a dictatorship or any other form of government if that is the will of the people. At least a mechanism has been set in place so the Iraqis can choose for themselves what kind of government they want (they never chose Saddam). Thirdly, the vast majority of Iraqis want their government to be a form of democracy, as is shown in the links I provided.

[Rex]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

In the strictest sense of the word, you are correct. However, the word "democracy" has many meanings....it is not limited to 'government in which the citizens vote directly on every decision made by the government and the majority rules'. Check out all these definitions for the word democracy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&a...fine:democracy We are not a direct democracy, but we are a form of democracy.

By putting a mechanism in place in which culture differences have a chance of being settled. In a government where only one tiny sect rules (like the dictatorship of Saddam) these differences can never be settled. Most Iraqis favor a government in which the three main groups--Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites-- are represented (see my last post for sites with these polls).

Bush forcing his ridiculous ideas on others? First of all, democracy is not a "ridiculous idea". Second of all, democracy is not being forced on anyone--in fact, it's impossible to "force" a nation to be a democracy. If the will of the people in general is for a dictatorship, the people will vote their man into office, and vote to amend the constitution so that their new president can remain in office for life--a democracy can willingly become a dictatorship or any other form of government if that is the will of the people. At least a mechanism has been set in place so the Iraqis can choose for themselves what kind of government they want (they never chose Saddam). Thirdly, the vast majority of Iraqis want their government to be a form of democracy, as is shown in the links I provided.

I agree somewhat, but we all know polls/statistics can say whatever the person who made them wants.

My whole point about the how we are not a democracy is based on the electoral college. And don't care what you call it but having this in place to me means WE are nowhere near a democracy.

The person who represents you in your electoral college doesn't even have to vote the majority, he/she can vote whichever way they wish, this has happend in the past.

I don't know about you, but that makes me feel like my vote is worth nill.

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, but that is only the Presidential election. The voters still directly elect Senators, Congressmen, governors, mayors, City Councils, Sheriffs, and so forth. Is the U.S. a democracy in every aspect of its government? No, but every government is a variant in its own way...we still fit into the category of democracy, as democracy is a word which describes a wide range of governments (Pariliamentary, federal republic, direct democracy).

Besides, your vote is only worth nill if the electors in the college choose to go against the vote of the population at large. If they elect the same President the majority of the population elects (and I am pretty sure this has always happened, correct me if I am wrong) then it doesn't matter either way....the will of the people was still carried out.

P.S. I agree with you about the polls and statistics. At any rate, Gerani's notion that the Iraqis have a consensus against American presence in Iraq is not a fact. I admit it's debatable, though.

[civilcynic]

Did Bush lie or was he given bad information resulting in the Iraq Invasion? First of all, shortly following the 9/11 attacks, Pres. Bush began linking Saddam Hussein with al-Queda anfd terrorism against the US even though no evidence ANYWHERE suggested this was the case. When the CIA did give Bush information about WMD's, the CIA made it very clear that this information was not substantiated and may prove unrelieable, yet Bush used that information as absolute fact.

Secondly, even after Bush was notified that the information was wrong, he continued to use the wrong information in his public speeches to the American people and to Congress. Point in fact, public radio was reporting that some of the'evidence' being spouted by the White House and specifically Colin Powell in front of the UN was from an old thesis written by a student in Englan several years previous and already known to be inaccurate.

How come President Bush did not 'rage' against the Saudi Government who has been financially supporting suicide bomber families and terrorist camps for years? How ist it that President Bush allowed a planeful of Saudis including members of the Bin Laden Family during the 'no fly' period following 9/11? Would we have allowed the McVeigh Family or members of the Nichols family leave the country shortly after the Oklahoma Bombing without at least having law enforcement question them? I think not.

George Bush manipulated Congress and the American by using information he knew had not be validated in order to invade Iraq. He rushed us into a war with Iraq before completing our mission in Afghanistan spreading our military thin and did not/does not have an exit plan for our troops. Just think if we put the number of troops that are in Iraq into Afghanistan perhaps that country would not still be in shambles and, perhaps, weith all those extra troops we whould have been able to concentrate on finding Bin Laden.

[Ardhanariswar]

its not as if they stopped looking for bin ladin. in fact, the will find bin ladin (dead) by the end of this year.

but you have been listening to michael moore. its obvious! lol. but try not to listen to michael moore that much, some of what he says is not true too you kno.

about the no fly zone, there was an interview with the bin ladin's brother who can attest to the fact that they arrived 3 days after the no fly zon time closed. so they technically werent brought in during the no fly zone time.

if thats piece of info was inncorrect, i wonder how many things from the movie is also incorrect.

frankly i dont believe in either of them, bush or moore.

[Ardhanariswar]

dont get me wrong, i still agree with you that there was no connection between al queda and saddam. if there was, bush certainly never made it clear with enought evidence to support his arguement.

[Mr Spinkles]

"When the CIA did give Bush information about WMD's, the CIA made it very clear that this information was not substantiated and may prove unrelieable, yet Bush used that information as absolute fact." Let's see what the CIA has to say about this matter. Anyone interested in the facts should go to http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi...nts/index.html

[Melody]

<<I get so disappointed by those who say that Bush lied. He may not have told the truth but he may have told the truth according to the information he was given.>>

We'll never know if he lied or not...but his desk is where the buck stops. So far I have yet to see anyone publicly nailed for supplying a false report. That particular person should be tried in an international court for war crimes.

Melody

[Melody]

>>We don't know what happened to them, but it's a fact that they were there.
>>


Our CIA was positive they had WMD....because the still had the receipts.

Melody