Does George Bush deserve death? (just to be fair)

[Sulkdodds]

many of the people fighting in iraq are NOT iraqi's, they are foreign fighters. saddam didnt keep the lid on them did he? lets try and stay on topic a little sulkdodds id appreciate that.

And let's stop being patronising and pat, Gh0st, I'd appreciate that.

I did in fact miss the bit where he said 'responsible for the death of insurgents' - so there you go, point - but all that means is that he considers any loss of human life a terrible and tragic waste, especially when said humans might never have put themselves in a position where their lives could be lost. Bush is responsible for the creation of said insurgents in the first place. It doesn't mean Ennui 'likes' said insurgents.

ps. just because saddam "kept the lid" on his people does not make it any better than what exists today.

Correct. My point was that these insurgents are directly create by the War on Terror. Said war is self-sustaining because it seems to grow its own adversary. And if that doesn't mean the invasion was wrong in the first place, it sure as hell means that somewhere along the line something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.

I'll ask you again: was it right to impeach Clinton?
Or is lying to congress/whoever about sex somehow worse than lying to an entire nation about spying and war?

EDIT: I'd like to note at this point that I haven't voted in the poll - because I'm not sure. So don't start talking about how I put George Bush on the same level as Hussein or whatever, because I simply don't have enough facts to know the extent of each one's bullshit. I have enough facts to know that neither is remotely justified in running a nation.

EDIT2: As for my question...I'm just interested/curious.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Yes I don't like Bush, because he has been behind 2 illegal invasions under which 40,000 thousand people were killed. You just don't fecking understand. If Bush ordered the assasination of 1 US citizen there would be uproar. Stalin was fecking right, the death of one is a tradgedy, the death of a million is a statistic.

Afganistan was justified

 

[gh0st]

And let's stop being patronising and pat, Gh0st, I'd appreciate that.

=)

I did in fact miss the bit where he said 'responsible for the death of insurgents' - so there you go, point - but all that means is that he considers any loss of human life a terrible and tragic waste, especially when said humans might never have put themselves in a position where their lives could be lost. Bush is responsible for the creation of said insurgents in the first place. It doesn't mean Ennui 'likes' said insurgents.

oh i do too. i love human life. some people deserve to die though. if anything he should have worded it better.

Correct. My point was that these insurgents are directly create by the War on Terror. Said war is self-sustaining because it seems to grow its own adversary. And if that doesn't mean the invasion was wrong in the first place, it sure as hell means that somewhere along the line something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.

these insurgents would have existed regardless of whether there was a war or not. they would merely be attacking the US or our interests at another juncture, one in which we may not have 130 thousand troops to contain things that go wrong.

I'll ask you again: was it right to impeach Clinton?

irrelevant

Or is lying to congress/whoever about sex somehow worse than lying to an entire nation about spying and war?

yes.. bush lied to us all to get in the mess he's currently in. i wont even reply to that part. but clinton pretty clearly broke the law by lying under oath.

EDIT: I'd like to note at this point that I haven't voted in the poll - because I'm not sure. So don't start talking about how I put George Bush on the same level as Hussein or whatever, because I simply don't have enough facts to know the extent of each one's bullshit. I have enough facts to know that neither is remotely justified in running a nation.

i never said that..

 

[Sulkdodds]

I know you didn't. I was just afraid you were going to.

these insurgents would have existed regardless of whether there was a war or not. they would merely be attacking the US or our interests at another juncture, one in which we may not have 130 thousand troops to contain things that go wrong.

I don't think that's true though. Can you deny that the invasion or Iraq, and the harsh conditions, the violence that has ensued, will have pushed young Muslims into fighting back against the 'oppressors'?

A good example, while not a totally parallel one, would be that of the london bombings. I believe UK intelligence services concluded that while the bombers had contact with radical Islam clergy they were likely motivated by the attacks they percieved were being carried out on Muslims and Muslim nations. They were confused young morons who somehow thought killing innocents would solve anything.

Like I said, I find it inconceivable that the war in Iraq, the way it has been carried out and the apparent attitudes of some troops towards the Iraqi people (that slaughter case, the reports of other service personnel like that SAS guy, the song in the other thread, the stuff that's been reported as going on at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, etc etc - on their own, isolated examples, but seen as part of a bigger picture, they betray a disturbing undercurrent of brutality existing within the armed forces - there are too many incidents to be able to call any of them 'isolated' ).

As for Bush, let's not forget Katrina - appointing an idiot who was totally unqualified for the job of heading up FEMA, claiming that nobody had expected the levees to break when he'd ignored insistent reports that there were problems that needed to be solved. He can be considered not only indirectly, as leader of a nation, but also directly, as a man who ignored the warning signs and appointed an incompetent, responsible.

irrelevant

Hmm...I was just curious about it, but it's not all that irrelevant. Reason being, I seem to remember earlier you were talking about 'impeaching Bush meaning impeaching America' or some such...the impression I got was that you were saying something along the lines of "he's the president, he got elected, he's serving his term'. In which case I'd assume you'd not support any chucking-out of any president. But whatever.

 

[CptStern]

=)

oh i do too. i love human life. some people deserve to die though. if anything he should have worded it better

these insurgents would have existed regardless of whether there was a war or not. they would merely be attacking the US or our interests at another juncture, one in which we may not have 130 thousand troops to contain things that go wrong.

burden of proof gh0st, you couldnt prove that if you tried, in fact the only real terrorist attacks against Saddam's regime were from the CIA supported Iraqi National Accord and various other groups that Saddam brutally crushed. You are not containing the violence in fact you add and perpetuate it simply by being there