George W. Bush's Resume

[Joe]

It is futile, to chop off a head, when your enemy is a Hydra.

Then, by all means, present an alternative.

[Stormbringer]

Asshole? How...pathetic.

In a war people die. (TM)

You are pathetic. Clearly you think that slaughtering three thousand innocent people out of sheer malice is right if you're mad at their government. How barbaric of you. Clearly you're no better than those scum. Too bad we can't put a bullet in your head just like those vermin.

Istn't that a highly fancied argument out there and especially amongst Americans?

There's a clear difference between the deliberate slaughter of innocents and the regrettable casualties of war. Neither are acceptable but the two are very different. Not that I suspect a piece of shit like you to understand that difference.

Beheading on head of the Medusa won't kill it. Terrorism isn't something localized, with a clear border. Sooner, or later, it will come back. And again. And again. Until there's a reason for people to become terrorist.

No one is saying this is easy. But I doubt we'll run out of builts before we run of terrorist. It won't be easy but that doesn't mean we can't stop them.

[Stravo]

It is futile, to chop off a head, when your enemy is a Hydra.

Attributing mythical qualities to the groups doesn't make it so. Al Qaeda is currently stuck launching attacks in lands where they've always had a presence and support. They went from being an international terrorist organization with a global reach to a chaep Islamic Jihad knock off....I'd say chopping off those heads did fucking wonders.

[Coyote]

You know, the Left has some good ideas and some interestng perspectives to social and global problems. Many of these opinions are worth serious review and implementation.



That all gets dashed away when a bunch of whining crap and mudslinging rises up and makes them all look like a bunch of crybabies. Especially when much of what is whined about is not necessarily the fault of the current Adminstration.



Want to get taken seriously? Then face things head on-- Bush has done some bad, some good, as have the Democrat leaders. Some bad, some good. I can freely admit that the Democrats have a better environmental track record that I appreciate withut automaticaly turning to "Bush SuX00rZ!" as an attempt at legitimate argument.

[Dahak]

Asshole? How...pathetic.

In a war people die. (TM)

You are pathetic. Clearly you think that slaughtering three thousand innocent people out of sheer malice is right if you're mad at their government. How barbaric of you. Clearly you're no better than those scum. Too bad we can't put a bullet in your head just like those vermin.

Istn't that a highly fancied argument out there and especially amongst Americans?

There's a clear difference between the deliberate slaughter of innocents and the regrettable casualties of war. Neither are acceptable but the two are very different. Not that I suspect a piece of shit like you to understand that difference.

*chuckles*
That was quite funny to read. And I thought "asshole" was all you could do...

I have neither said, nor meant that those people did deserve to die. If you want to believe it, it's your prerogative.
At least you could try to remain something resembling polite.

As a sidenote: Things like that, attacking civillians when you cannot take on the government, is a widely used strategy when you can't conceivably take on a government. They just strike where they can. Just look at the Palestinians. The ETA. The RAF. The IRA...

The WTC is just a matter of scale.

[HemlockGrey]

OMG you mean we NEVER had a president that decided that what the country needs is more important than placating some so called allies? Every president has a right to forge the diplomatic policy he feels is best for the country and I would think that right now the American people's foremost thought is security and making sure we don't have another 9/11 not whether South Korea is *GASP* offended at us.

I'd call you on some highly professional logical term, but since I haven't memorized them(yet) I'll simply call this bullshit. Never did I say that ensuring the good will of South Korea was 'more important' than American security.

If we are to secure the country from external threats, a general rule of thumb is not to push all the fence-sitters against us. Bush has succeeded spectacularly in just that with his 'with us or against us' speech alone.

[Stravo]

OMG you mean we NEVER had a president that decided that what the country needs is more important than placating some so called allies? Every president has a right to forge the diplomatic policy he feels is best for the country and I would think that right now the American people's foremost thought is security and making sure we don't have another 9/11 not whether South Korea is *GASP* offended at us.

I'd call you on some highly professional logical term, but since I haven't memorized them(yet) I'll simply call this bullshit. Never did I say that ensuring the good will of South Korea was 'more important' than American security.

If we are to secure the country from external threats, a general rule of thumb is not to push all the fence-sitters against us. Bush has succeeded spectacularly in just that with his 'with us or against us' speech alone.

That is the way YOU would handle things if you were president. There is no handbook on diplomacy , no playbook to follow. "Mr. President, we just had a major terrorist attack on American soil that had destroyed a world recognized symbol and killed 3,000 American citizens, plunged the state's economy into a spiral and made American citizens across this country afraid."

"Hmmm...what manuever is called for in this instance?"

*Sound of pages turning*

"Manuever 47 A. We need to start coalition building and trying to make sure we don;t offend long standing allies in order to try and compromise on a response to this unprecedented attack."

"Really? I just thought we should find those responsible and punish them and the coutries that support them."

"Hmmm...that sounds reasonable, but what about our allies?"

"Were they attacked?"

"No."

"So what;s the problem?"

"We may offend them sir. You know the Euproeans, they shit their pants anytime the Middel East gets riled up."

"Fuck em." *shrugs* "Where else are they going to go? Russia?"

[Stormbringer]

*chuckles*
That was quite funny to read. And I thought "asshole" was all you could do...

I have neither said, nor meant that those people did deserve to die. If you want to believe it, it's your prerogative.
At least you could try to remain something resembling polite.

Why bother to be polite to garbage like you? You might say you don't approve but go on to justify and make excuses for what they did. Pardon me if I don't believe you at all.

As a sidenote: Things like that, attacking civillians when you cannot take on the government, is a widely used strategy when you can't conceivably take on a government. They just strike where they can. Just look at the Palestinians. The ETA. The RAF. The IRA...

The WTC is just a matter of scale.

And you think that makes it right? It was once acceptable and widespread to torture people that questioned religious dogma. It was once acceptable and widespread to sell people into slavery and turn turn humans being into mere property. It was once acceptable and widespread to murder homosexuals. It was once acceptable and widespread to torture and kill those that spoke out against their governments. Is any one of those policies right? Simply because it happens does not make it right.

[Hamel]

Storm, watch your mouth. If you want to put a bullet in his brain, fine. But keep it to yourself.

[HemlockGrey]

-snip stravo-

Bull-fucking-shit. We punished Al-Quaeda for 9/11 and the country was basking in the sympathy of half the world.

Then Bush starts on Iraq, and suddenly everyone hates us. Don't give me any crap about Iraq being responsible for 9/11; there was no reason Bush had to bill the reasons for war the way he did. He claimed the entire war was about WMDs, which is bullshit, was bullshit, and will be forever more bullshit, but then when he got handed the baggage necessary in proving such allegations he flipped and said 'screw the world'.

If he had instead gone after Iraq in an entirely different manner, with none of this namby-pamby WMD shit, he would not have had to arouse the ire of half the world with unproven claims.

[Joe]

Right, right, I'm sure France and Russia would have forgotten their business interests in Iraq and gotten on board if only we hadn't focused on WMD.

[HemlockGrey]

Probably not, but we wouldn't certainly wouldn't have the backlash that's resulting now over whatever idiot put in that African uranium comment.

[Stormbringer]

Storm, watch your mouth. If you want to put a bullet in his brain, fine. But keep it to yourself.

I don't and have no desire to kill him. I apolgize for that remark.

Still, I think he's an absolutely comptemtible excuse for human being for excusing September 11th with the flimsy excuse everyone does it.

[MKSheppard]

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

Wow, and this is evil how?

[Stravo]

-snip stravo-

Bull-fucking-shit. We punished Al-Quaeda for 9/11 and the country was basking in the sympathy of half the world.

REALLY?! Where the fuck were you when people were claiming that we were intentionally dropping cluster munitions into civilian areas and that we had intentionally colored our food packs that we were dropping for teh people the same color as unexpended muntions?

Poeple have NOT supported US action after 9/11. Europe certainly didn;t get on the bandwagon for Afghanistan.

We went it alone and will continue to do so. You may not like the way he is conducting diplomacy but he will not be the first nor the last president to buck the international community in exchange for American security. You don't think he may have learned a lesson from Dad's coaltion building, that perhaps our allies are mostly fair weather and that in the end it was Britain and America still in Iraq while the others faded away, sold arms and bought illegal oil to Iraq (France) or went back to supporting terrorrism (Syria)

And I say again, what's the point, they're not going anywhere.

[Stormbringer]

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

Wow, and this is evil how?

Yeah, aren't the liberals usually the first to carp and bitch when some wants to have drug tests? I know they're usually against it. Funny how that gets applied to people other than them.

[Hamel]

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

Wow, and this is evil how?

Refusing a drug test when you're in the armed forces is pretty stupid and asking for trouble. You'd think they have a right to know what you're on while you're flying multi-million dollar aircraft

[Stravo]

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

Wow, and this is evil how?

Yeah, aren't the liberals usually the first to carp and bitch when some wants to have drug tests? :wtrf: I know they're usually against it. Funny how that gets applied to people other than them.

Please, let's not discuss liberal hypocrisy or I just might vomit.

[Joe]

As far as I'm aware most European governments did support Afghanistan. Their populations, on the other hand...

[Coyote]

Again, disagreeing with American policy is one thing-- understandable and reasonable. But to take an anti-American stance and turn it into a blanket acceptance of the brutal killing of 3,000 people, by saying. "They were Americans, they deserved it" is sick and evil.

And people dare to say we have no regard for life? With attitudes like that guiding you, it is a wonder people aren't pulling out their old swastikas again. I mean, if Americans are such a troublesome class of verminous people, and such a cancer on the Earth, why not just dust off the old playbook and play the same old songs again? It is the exact same fucking attitude and don't you even pretend otherwise.

[Dahak]

Storm, watch your mouth. If you want to put a bullet in his brain, fine. But keep it to yourself.

I don't and have no desire to kill him. I apolgize for that remark.

Still, I think he's an absolutely comptemtible excuse for human being for excusing September 11th with the flimsy excuse everyone does it.

I didn't mention 9-1.
It was you who suddenly brought up that topic.

I don't excuse it. It happened. It was sad. It was evil.

But the fact remains that it was done for a reason, albeit one born from an obscure world view, and to acchieve something. That we don't understand that "logic", and it is morally totally detestable, isn't changing it.

[MKSheppard]

Want me to pull out Clinton's resume? You know, the one that has
all the dead people who died in mysterious ways, including Ron Brown?

[Hamel]

Want me to pull out Clinton's resume? You know, the one that has
all the dead people who died in mysterious ways, including Ron Brown?

Snopes to the rescute

(>o.o)>

[Stormbringer]

I didn't mention 9-1.
It was you who suddenly brought up that topic.

No, you brought up the war on terror and started bringing on the bullshit about the terrorism being done for a reason. I happen to take deep offense at your veiled suggestion that we deserved it. It's reprehensible.

And don't call it 9-11. Reducing the death of three thousand people to a mere acronym, soundbyte is callous.

I don't excuse it. It happened. It was sad. It was evil.

But the fact remains that it was done for a reason, albeit one born from an obscure world view, and to acchieve something. That we don't understand that "logic", and it is morally totally detestable, isn't changing it.

I might have believed you if you hadn't followed it up with the same sort of "you asked for it" excuse that provoked this in the first place.

[Stormbringer]

Want me to pull out Clinton's resume? You know, the one that has
all the dead people who died in mysterious ways, including Ron Brown?

Don't forget Vince Foster.