The real message of Monkey-Bush to the World

[Tricky]

Anger?
Why don't you comment on the content of the post?

Okay, Q.

It's fairly clever and even humorous, depending on your political persuasion. But it is a bit ham-handed and predictable after the first few sentences. I give it a B-minus.

You are right, Tricky. It was not my intention to insult monkeys by comparing them with Bush

BZZT! I already made that joke.

Sorry to hear that. It is just that his speech deserves nothing but a laugh. Bush is trying to gain support among the USA population in order to get more financial resources and continue his "war on terror". He is just using the same rethoric, the same "we are the leaders of the World", "terrorists threaten our innocent people", blah, blah, blah.

I mostly agree, but it is is black humor. Far too many people take him seriously for me to be amused by him. However, my point was still that when all one sees is the "sound byte" title of the thread, one may conclude that the author is a knee-jerk liberal, something which is not true of either you or Shemp.

 

[Quasi]

I am curious Q-Source- do you feel the WTC 9/11 attacks were justified, and that civilian targets are acceptable in a political/economic conflict? Hey, you vote your way and i will vote mine. Personally I will vote against Bush, but you seem a little extreme in your hatred of the guy, which distorts your objectivity.

 

[Leroy]

Bush hasn't learned this lesson. He thinks if he gets that "earnest" look of his, and throws in enough spin and enough references to God, we'll believe anything he says.

It's scarry to think, but some will.

But we have to remember that we are Democrats.

Not all of us

I am curious Q-Source- do you feel the WTC 9/11 attacks were justified, and that civilian targets are acceptable in a political/economic conflict?

What does that have to do with Iraq? It was Bin-Laden and his terrorist who were supposedly responsible for 9/11, not Saddam or Iraq.

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Most of this struck me as merely a bunch of political posturing, not much different than what I normally hear and have learned to tune out.

Theology Of Empire

 

[Ziggurat]

So in other words, the 9/11 hijackers were merely "People who oppose US global domination" (as opposed to mass murderers, I guess).

Yup, that's pretty much what many of the critics of our war on terrorism are saying (Ted Rall, anyone?). The far left doesn't really care about human rights, they seem much more concerned with the rights of dictators.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Bush, I didn't vote for him last time, I doubt I will vote for him this time. A lot of this speech WAS pure political BS (like nearly any speech by nearly any politician anywhere in the world). However, it really angers me whenever I hear that the Hijackers were doing some sort of good and noble thing or that the victims (and/or the US as a whole) somehow deserved to be attacked. I heard too much of that right after the attacks and as the 2nd anniversery of the atacks draws near, I expect to hear even more.

It's symptomatic of the decay of the far left, which I've been waking up to over the last year as they scambled to defend Saddam. I don't like Bush either, never have and never will. But much as it pains me to say this, I'd pick him any day over those who think we did something wrong by taking Saddam out of power.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Ziggurat:

The far left doesn't really care about human rights, they seem much more concerned with the rights of dictators.

...

I don't like Bush either, never have and never will. But much as it pains me to say this, I'd pick him any day over those who think we did something wrong by taking Saddam out of power.

The blatant ignorance and binary thinking displayed by these viewpoints, never ceases to amaze me. Just amazing.

Of those (many) people I know who were opposed to this war, not a single one gave a ◊◊◊◊ about the well being of Saddam. Every single one was of the opinion that his imminent demise would be a cause for celebration. What they were opposed to, was the manner of the war. The unsanctioned invasion by one UN country of another UN country. I don't see how intelligent people cannot understand this, unless they are being willfully ignorant; understand that it is the principle of international law which is being defended, not some two-bit hoodlum.

 

[Sundog]

I wonder if a two-bit hoodlum is necessarily a binary thinker?

 

[RandFan]

You know, folks, I understand your anger, but I really don't think that starting threads about Bush with "Monkey" or "Fuerher" in the titles are the way to go here. Nobody loves a good joke as much as I do, but to start out a thread in this fashion is simply inflammatory and does not do credit to the opinions of the thread-starter.

Thanks Tricky,

I think my interest in this forum has perhaps come to an end. To be fair there can be a good deal of honest discussion but lately it just seems to be a place to post conspiracy theories and ad hominem.

I really do understand the anger and frustration that is being felt by those who oppose our current policies in Iraq. The problems in the mid east and rest of the world are real and deserve an airing. I read a great article today that said Bush is very close to his own "tet offensive". The article was coherent and quite convincing. It was however devoid of emotional reasoning. I couldn't help but wonder why posters here couldn't make more of this type of coherent argument rather than settle on personal attacks.

I really have no desire to participate in school ground arguments. I came to the forum for honest and intelegent discussion. I took on Jedi Knight even at times when I agreed with him because I found that he often arrived at his position through specious reasoning.

I wan't to confess that I am not entirely innocent in this regard. I have acted inapropriately and at times irrationally. I thank those who were patient with me and who helped me improve my skills and at times persuaded me to change my mind.

I'll do some follow ups to some of my earlier posts and then I think it is time for me to move on.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[DanishDynamite]

I wonder if a two-bit hoodlum is necessarily a binary thinker?

Two-bit.....binary.....

 

[Sundog]

I'll do some follow ups to some of my earlier posts and then I think it is time for me to move on.

Thanks,

RandFan

I for one would genuinely miss you, were you to do so. In order to provide a reason to stay, I will speciously accuse you of leaving because you know all your points have been countered.

I hope it works.

You can't leave. Who will I hold up as an example of a reasonable Republican?

 

[DanishDynamite]

RandFan:

I'll do some follow ups to some of my earlier posts and then I think it is time for me to move on.

Nice try, Randbaby. It's a habit, like smoking, and it cannot easily be kicked.

Besides, I'd miss your regular xenophobic right wing contributions.

Seriously.

 

[Tricky]

I for one would genuinely miss you, were you to do so. In order to provide a reason to stay, I will speciously accuse you of leaving because you know all your points have been countered.

I hope it works.

You can't leave. Who will I hold up as an example of a reasonable Republican?

I echo the sentiments of Sundog. Don't make me call your son.

 

[peptoabysmal]

However, my point was still that when all one sees is the "sound byte" title of the thread, one may conclude that the author is a knee-jerk liberal, something which is not true of either you or Shemp.

LMAO!!!!

(wiping tears from eyes)

Ahem...

How about just "jerk liberals"?

Seriously, if these two aren't knee-jerk liberals, then Bush must therefore be a knee-jerk liberal, by definiton (logical NOT). You've been hammering on the wrong guy.

 

[Q-Source]

I give it a B-minus.

B-minus is not so bad.

I mostly agree, but it is is black humor.

Behind the black humor there is a true fact.

 

[Q-Source]

I am curious Q-Source- do you feel the WTC 9/11 attacks were justified, and that civilian targets are acceptable in a political/economic conflict? Hey, you vote your way and i will vote mine. Personally I will vote against Bush, but you seem a little extreme in your hatred of the guy, which distorts your objectivity.

I don't justify ANY violent attack on ANY country for ANY reason. This is what I am trying to say. Bush and Blair lied to the whole world saying that they would attack Iraq because there was enough evidence to suggest that Saddam had chemical weapons, the truth was that it was a blatant lie.

They didn't care about the consequences of starting a war: the human casualties, the innocent civilians, the total costs, etc. The USA has always been behind Iraq's resources.

I wonder why the US citizens always have in mind 9/11 and never think about the thousand of innocent people who have also died in Iraq and other countries thanks to Bush's global domination plan?.

Why on Earth do you think that the people who died on the WTC are more important than the Iraqi people who have died because of an unjustified war????? They have also died for political and economic reasons and I am sure that most of the USA citizens supported Bush's actions, so don't even dare to ask me if civilians target are acceptable in any world conflict. Ask YOU that question.

Q-S

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I can't speak for any but myself. That being said, he's the way I look at things.

I was lied to. I was told there was a definite threat of WMD being used. I was told said weapons could be deployed within 40 or so minutes. I know the war was quick, but it wasn't THAT quick.

I am a realist. I do know that there had been WMD in Iraq at some point, though I can't say for certain when those weapons went away. I do know that the US is now using the same arguments about not being able to find the weapons that the scoffed at the UN for a scant year ago.

I know that it was not Saddam who ordered the attacks on 9/11, thouhg I am certain he celebrated them (just an educated guess, given his attitude towards the US). Hussein was certainly a brutal dictator and should not have been left in power, but a pre-emptive strike was not the best way to deal with it. Had we let the inspectors do their job, we may not have had to go it alone (or with a small coalition.)

I also know that, given the situation brought on by Bush and his desire for this war (did anyone actually believe this war was not a forgone conclusion before he even went to the UN?) we will be in Iraq for years, and there is a chance that we will never acheive our goals there. Certainly, we might, but we have to allow for the possibility that this is a situation we cannot win.

I feel (admittedly, this is an emotional response) as though Bush is trying to play a game of international 3 card monte, with the weapons being the red card (Is the anthrax under here? NO! Try again)and it is a dangerous one, at that.

In short, I understand that Bush was thrown into a really tough situation for any leader. I know that he has done what he thinks is right. However, I believe he has made some mistakes and should own up to them.

 

[Q-Source]

In short, I understand that Bush was thrown into a really tough situation for any leader. I know that he has done what he thinks is right. However, I believe he has made some mistakes and should own up to them.

He did choose to enter to that situation. He has lied deliberately to get his ultimate goal which is global domination.
Yes, he has done what he thinks is right for the USA only. It does not mean that people around the world has to forgive his mistakes.

 

[GroundStrength]

He did choose to enter to that situation. He has lied deliberately to get his ultimate goal which is global domination.
Yes, he has done what he thinks is right for the USA only. It does not mean that people around the world has to forgive his mistakes.

Wow, this will be my first post to this particular forum. Let me say that I have become disillusioned with both parties (all either of them seem to want is more of my money), but I lean toward the right.

I highly doubt that GW's goal is world domination, more control over the earth's oil seems more likely. Yes, he has lied to justify the actions in Iraq and has tried (unsuccesfully) to link Iraq to 9/11 but most every other President of the United States has lied and given us their earnest looks and spin (I can do without the references to god) to try and accomplish their agenda. I think these speeches do little to sway the opinion of the great majority of people in this country and serve to solidify support where it already exists.

I think his major problem is that his support from those people is beginning to falter.

 

[KelvinG]

I find it interesting that the primary tatic now used by the pro-war supporters on this board is to resort to calling anti-war folks names like "whining liberals" and "radical lefties."
It seems the pro-war side has given up arguing for the validity of the war (since it is a futile cause now that they've been proven so hopelessly wrong) so they simple resort to name calling.

It's very telling.