I should have known i'd find something like this upon my long and unnoticed absence. The movie was awesome, I will read the comic but I'll read the graphic novel so I get the whole thing in one book. Althoug this movie does have somehting to say about the current state of our US government you seem to miss the point that the real meaning of this movie is that the Wachowski brothers wanted to entertain us with a cool movie based on I guess a cool comic. Whether you agree with Bush or not you have to look at the fact that the whole US government is responsible for our current state, that includes the house of reps and the sentate. If our presence in Iraq is wrong (personaly I agree it is) than you must hold congress, the senate and house of reps accountable because they all gave Bush the green light to start this war.
Aside from an obvious continuing theme on the news my life aside from losing a dear friend on 9/11 has not changed one ioda since this all started. I am no Bush supporter but nor am I a clinton lackey, clinton destabilized our national defense and armed forces, as well as stood by while osama destroyed US embassy after embassy and 10,000 americans died as a result civilian and otherwise. The problems in this country and its ties to the middle east started long before Bush and they will continue long after him.
I think geo85 has summed it up as best as one possible could.
geo85 Wrote:Whether you agree with Bush or not you have to look at the fact that the whole US government is responsible for our current state, that includes the house of reps and the sentate. If our presence in Iraq is wrong (personaly I agree it is) than you must hold congress, the senate and house of reps accountable because they all gave Bush the green light to start this war.
No. If Bush went to congress and said "I think Saddam might posibly have wmd's somewhere so I'd like to invade", do you think they would have said go for it? They would have said be sure of it before taking such huge, life costing actions.. But Bush said he had them and brought false proof. Wether he knew it was false can hardly be proven but he is responsible. In hindsight I can't imagine anyone say going to war was good based on the presented arguments and proof. That's why people come up with the Osama connection and butbut he was a bad man.
Quote:Yes you are right we can't. But i hate people that pick out just bush when Clinton administration also had these plans / ideas. its just Bush that executed on them.
2nd then you need to really learn politics and other stuff. There are some people that naturally have a smile on there face. I have seen it in boot camp there are some people that no matter what naturally have a smile. To me i felt sorry for them because they caught alot of the flack from our Boot camp instructures because when they were yelling at them they always had a smile. When they made them do the worst stuff they always had a smile. It was *part* of them littlely nothing they could do about it.
The US probably has a plan for every country somewhere. I'm positive that clinton wouldn't have invaded without making 100% sure and he wouldn't have invaded without the UN. He's a big supporter of the UN. He was all about good international relations. What exactly was the threat Iraq posed to the US anyway?
I look at this and it seems you're searcing for excusses. Some people always have a smile on their face that they can't help???? Come on!!! He has a normal face while doing press conferences and has to listen to other people.
elcoholic read my earlier post. it has a link to one of Clinton address to the nation. Which he said he was going to attack iraq for not listening to UN. CLINTON was going to attack iraq. CLINTON was going to invade but at the last min before it happen saddam agreed to let UN inspecters back in. CLINTON was prepared to attack Iraq.. NOT BUSH. So this shit was before bush's time again. So you mightly CLINTON UN lover wasn't so lovely.
I am not searching for excuses. I know that Bush wasn't the first to start it. Alot of his intellegance also came from the Clinton administration. but everyone loves to point the finger at him because they want to blame him instead of looking at the whole picture.
Clinton Wrote:Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I'll get back on that tommorow but the way I read that transcript there were clear violations of the weapon inspectors doing their job (3 years ago weapon inspectors were pulled out by the us while they said they were given cooperation by Iraq, their report wasn't even finished yet). So it more or less was legal back then and with UN consent that action was taken. And he bombed them, not invade. BIG DIFFERENCE!!
I also remember that there were not massive worldwide protests on those actions. But I'll have to think about that a bit more.
BTW, I think you're looking for excusses because of the fixed smile comment. Goes a bit far to use that to explain why Bush comes across as being not to smart sometimes.
elcoholic Wrote:BTW, I think you're looking for excusses because of the fixed smile comment. Goes a bit far to use that to explain why Bush comes across as being not to smart sometimes.
Not really as i have seen it on people. But not once did i say i was arguing that bush comes across as being not to smart. Because well he does do that. I mean what i can i say he is a Texan and well they all are like that. So i guess we in america are used to it since we know and used to Texan's .. It's just like people in different regions all talk different and have different styles. hehe
That's very true. However even many people in america aren't used to how texans talk lol. They sound so much different compared to most everyone else. Also, Schultz I think that's the worst grammer i've ever seen you use on the forums lol. Noticed it first when elcoholic used to instead of too then you did it as well. Crazy how poor our grammer can get when typing on the internet.
Its also very early in the morning for me as i just woke up. ;o) I currently work a 1430 to 2300 shift. So getting up around noon is early for me.
Schultz Wrote:I am not searching for excuses. I know that Bush wasn't the first to start it. Alot of his intellegance also came from the Clinton administration. but everyone loves to point the finger at him because they want to blame him instead of looking at the whole picture.
the fact remains that he took these actions therefore he is held responsible for the outcome. that is one thing i know a lot of people don't like about this administration, they don't own up to things they have done. if clinton had done this exactly they same, he would be held accountable as well. but he didn't. bush did. i can't remember right now which president it was, but they had a little saying on their desk, "the buck stops here" which is how the president should view things. instead of passing the blame to everyone but themselves as they seem to do.
yes he was the one willing to do it. The one that was strong enough to do it. And i don't see him passing the buck to anyone.
and your comment can't stop making me think of what it was when it was on clinton's desk. he probably changed 1 letter in it.. LOL
All i am saying is everything thinks that it started with Bush's Administration. They think our current economic problems were caused by Bush. I hate to pop peoples bubbles but it takes years and Years for economical changes to occur. Clinton's Administration is what screwed our Economy. And its Clinton administration that Reigned in on what Regan and Bush's Senior's administration's did.
And no you can't blame bush by himself if you wish to blame him. Blame bad intellegence from his and Clinton's administration. Blame Congress for giving him the money to do what he needs. Bush can't do stuff without congress's partial support. Granted he only needs more then half but still he can't do it by himself. And if you don't like something so much fax your congress man stating your opinion since your representatives and congressmen are suppose to be there to speak for you.
Schultz Wrote:Yes you are right we can't. But i hate people that pick out just bush when Clinton administration also had these plans / ideas. its just Bush that executed on them.
Personaly, I don't love Clinton but I think he did a better job than Bush's doing. At least where the rest of the world is concerned.
I believe in what you've said, that Clinton intended to do what Bush has done. The thing is intending to do something and actually doing it are two different things. I might want to kill someone, even plan it to the smallest detail, but between planning it and doing it is a world of difference. And you can't say Bush isn't the one to blame on this because even if Clinton and his administration planned the whole thing, Bush was the one who
chose to do it. We're responsible for our own choices, not somebody else.
Schultz Wrote:2nd then you need to really learn politics and other stuff. There are some people that naturally have a smile on there face. I have seen it in boot camp there are some people that no matter what naturally have a smile. To me i felt sorry for them because they caught alot of the flack from our Boot camp instructures because when they were yelling at them they always had a smile. When they made them do the worst stuff they always had a smile. It was *part* of them littlely nothing they could do about it.
Well, it might be his nature, and all Texans might speak like that but then I have to tell you that Texans speak/smile in the most hypocritical way I've ever seen.
V for Vendetta was a great movie. I've seen it four times already. All governments and politics are about CONTROL no matter what side you are on.
I agree with some of what Schultz is saying here. Clinton certainly would have used force in Iraq. He made other military strikes in foreign countries during his term as president and still managed to come out with a very high approval rating in both the US and abroad.
When I look at the key differences between the way Clinton applied military force and the way that Bush has applied military foce I see much more planning and thought put into the actions commited during the Clinton administration. Bush seemed more inclined to make a very public display of force and to show how tough America is on terrorists and bad guys around the world. Clinton's actions seemed to be more about surgical acts that didn't embroil the US in lengthy wars.
You talk about the current state of the US economy and I would like to point out that the debt was reducing under the Clinton administration and the economy was running better than ever. The 9/11 attacks signaled a year of non-growth pretty much around the world. The bulk of the current economic problems in the US stem from the massive expense of policing a foreign country.
My biggest complaint with the current war in Iraq is that we went in there looking to overthrow Saddam without looking at what would happen after we did that. Now we're left with an even less stable country than before and no clear plan on how to make it stable again. I don't believe that Clinton would have embroiled the US in this situation as deeply as Bush has. I also believe that Clinton would have rallied more support from other countries as well. These are merely speculations though... just as are the ideas of Clinton actually attaking Iraq.
I have more rant in me but I also have a wife that needs snuggling and I don't actually expect to be able to change anyones opinions here.
Zagatto Wrote:You talk about the current state of the US economy and I would like to point out that the debt was reducing under the Clinton administration and the economy was running better than ever. The 9/11 attacks signaled a year of non-growth pretty much around the world. The bulk of the current economic problems in the US stem from the massive expense of policing a foreign country.
yes the debt was reducing under clinton but what i was saying is he enjoyed alot of it from Reagon and Bush Senior's admin. and btw Clinton screwed our Military forces up with alot of his administration policy's
Zagatto Wrote:My biggest complaint with the current war in Iraq is that we went in there looking to overthrow Saddam without looking at what would happen after we did that. Now we're left with an even less stable country than before and no clear plan on how to make it stable again. I don't believe that Clinton would have embroiled the US in this situation as deeply as Bush has. I also believe that Clinton would have rallied more support from other countries as well. These are merely speculations though... just as are the ideas of Clinton actually attaking Iraq.
I won't argue you with that point. I do think bush lacked a good exit stratagy. But i guess why i am not too upset even though i don't like it is the fact that i can't change what happened. All i know is that we have to stay the time in there and finish what we started. I don't belive bush should provide a exit stratagy public'ly as this will give Terrorists good agenda to work with.
Zagatto Wrote:I have more rant in me but I also have a wife that needs snuggling and I don't actually expect to be able to change anyones opinions here.
Yes wife snuggling is very important.
I think its another escape to talk about Clinton attacking Iraq. If you go 1 term back you'll find another beginning and that was Bush sr. invading after the Kuwait thing. Go back further and you'll find the US government giving Sadam weapons to fight Iran. Go back even further and you'll find the US helping Saddam to get to power.
There's alot of history here.
Quote: And no you can't blame bush by himself if you wish to blame him. Blame bad intellegence from his and Clinton's administration. Blame Congress for giving him the money to do what he needs. Bush can't do stuff without congress's partial support. Granted he only needs more then half but still he can't do it by himself. And if you don't like something so much fax your congress man stating your opinion since your representatives and congressmen are suppose to be there to speak for you.
This is where we fundamentaly disagree. I think he IS to blame for any mistake that he signed the order on, shoving responsibility to former administrations is weak and cowardly. Wether invading Iraq, tapping phones, lying about intelegence. HE is responsible for interpreting the inteligence, especially if it's going to cost lives.
If he's not responsible than who is? I honestly (and that's what scares me) think its starting to look like your president can do what he wants since noone is going to hold him accountable anyway. I can't believe someone hasn't stepped up yet and impeached him for going to war to destroy the wmd's which seem to not be there now, costing 50.000 lives and counting. Just ask him the question where are those wmd you PROMISED us were there. Look at some of his speeches before the war started, he's TELLING THE WORLD that their intel is correct. Not a doubt in his mind (or so it seems). That's lying to me.
Quote:Noticed it first when elcoholic used to instead of too then you did it as well. Crazy how poor our grammer can get when typing on the internet.
I think I got most grammer rules down pretty good. I know the difference between they're/ their/ there. But that to and too thing I don't really get. Any easy way to help me remember the difference?