The averege American mindset on "Iraqi Freedom"

[clarky003]

Then when another attack happens on U.S soil all we hear the "why do they hate us" routine.

Not much point trying to convince many Americans anymore.

A democratic goverment will be no better btw. The government is ruled by the military industrial complex!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111one

And it's no suprise that the Military Industrail complex is owned/supported through the government loans distributed by the home grown Rockerfeller banking family, who also own the largest share in the FED, next to the Rothchilds.

 

[DerbyDriver1985]

1. Don't put words in my mouth. Got it? Half of your arguments against me are about things I didn't even SAY, nor would I say, namely how you said I think the "world is America" or whatever. Shut the **** up.

2. Bush did not lie. Those quotes you posted where he talked about our Intelligence indicating that there was a threat of WMD's? That was TRUE!! Our intelligence DID indicate that. The British intelligence did as well. Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, and John Kerry (as well as a slew of other politicians) ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL were quoted in saying that there is a real threat in Iraq of WMD's and that Saddaam must be taken our of power. Sure enough, as soon as we go over there and find out that there are no WMD's... all those flip-flopping pieces of shit turn around and say "ohhhh BUSH IS EVIL OMG HE INVADED FOR NO REASON"

Give me a break.

3. You trust your media, good for you, but don't you ever expect me to trust it. How can I be sure it's not just as biased? In fact... how can YOU be sure? You can't. You don't know the truth any more than I do, we're left to speculation and common sense. Unfortunately, you're not acting on common sense... you're acting on alarmist anti-American conspiracy propaganda (much of which can be traced to various forms of fictional literature, like any Michael Moore movie ever made... and don't try to put words in my mouth, no, I'm not saying that Columbine never happened)...

Common sense would be this: Why in the FLYING **** would the President of the United States willingly lie to the WORLD about his reasons for invading a ****ed up country, spending our resources, crippling our economy, and going down in history as the worst president? Why? Why the **** would he do that? Do you REALLY think that's the case? Do you really think he intentionally ****ed up on the WMD thing, that there were no other voices on the matter but his own and he went there on his own whim? Is that what you think?

Common sense would also be this: Of COURSE Iraq burst into flames when we arrived. NO SHIT. The terrorist regimes hate us... they want to kill us... and suddenly we're in their back yard. Guess what? If we didn't go over there and bring the fight to them... do you know where it would have eventually ended up? Maybe the plot of 9/11 wasn't centralized in Iraq itself, but the same disease of terrorism that is responsible for 9/11, Madrid, London and all the other ATTEMPTED (yet foiled, mind you) terrorist attacks is alive and well in Iraq. It's unfortunate that the situation turned into such a mess over there... We got Saddaam out of power (a mistake that we FIXED), we made it possible for a VOTE to occur in Iraq (do we get any credit for that one? I bet we don't) and everything else it seems has turned to shit because we're not allowed to do what we went there to do: wipe out the terrorist regimes. We can't do it because our democrats want us to pull out and cut funding.

Did you hear about the recent troop surge? And how the surge showed positive results?

Maybe you can look that story up too, oh magestic fact finder and article quoter.

 

[kirovman]

I think if you ever read one of kathaksung's posts, you'd suffer a massive cerebral aneurysm.

 

[Sulkdodds]

There was previously a post between mine and kirovman's by the user Saturos. It's quoted below:

This whole "politics" forum is stupid. The moderators should wipe it from existence. Nobody here has said one thing that is constructive. Why argue over crap we have no control over? Me, you, President Bush, and the entire population of the world just needs to just sit down, and shut the f*** up.That's the only way any of us with different opinions can get along. I'm just as guilty as everyone else here,because I've posted here too.We're all human. So nobody start crying and bleeding up their tampons for what I said, because if you do, I'd be right. YES! I WIN! lol burrrrp. Good day sirs.

If you think discussion is stupid and pointless - something you seem to have made it your mission to avow - then don't bother participating in it.

I'm deleting your post because it's not only completely pointless but obnoxiously pointless, and you can have a warning for trolling.

This took me all of thirty seconds and my tampon remains dazzling white.

 

[kirovman]

Sit down and shut up? How undemocratic.

 

[Saturos]

There was previously a post between mine and kirovman's by the user Saturos. It's quoted below:

If you think discussion is stupid and pointless - something you seem to have made it your mission to avow - then don't bother participating in it.

I'm deleting your post because it's not only completely pointless but obnoxiously pointless, and you can have a warning for trolling.

This took me all of thirty seconds and my tampon remains dazzling white.

I like you, that was funny! I should buy you a drink one day. This political and religious mumbojumbo brings out the worst in people. I'd recommend no one one else come here either lest they are not afraid to lose their dignity and self respect. This will be my last post in politics, the drama's not worth it. I have enough of it here at home without having to argue with idiots online. EDIT: I retract that last statement for now. The "Gun Control" topic is to important to me to drop. When that topic dies, THEN I'll quit posting under "politics"

 

[Saturos]

Sit down and shut up? How undemocratic.

I'm quite totalitarian.

 

[CptStern]

sorry I somehow missed this post

1. Don't put words in my mouth. Got it? Half of your arguments against me are about things I didn't even SAY, nor would I say, namely how you said I think the "world is America" or whatever. Shut the **** up.

dont like to be conrnered into a situation where your only recourse is to insult the person you're debating? You stated that brits didnt know what was going on, when pressed on the issue of where you get your information you remained silent ...so either put your money where your mouth is and explain exactly how it is that you "know exactly what is going on " or STFU

2. Bush did not lie.

yes he directly lied:

In his January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, Bush claimed, "Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

In fact, while the majority of intelligence agencies agreed in the October 2002 NIE that the aluminum tubes were intended for uranium-enriching centrifuges, both INR and "technical experts" from the Department of Energy (DOE) argued that the tubes were "poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment." INR stated that the tubes were probably meant for a conventional weapons program, "most likely the production of artillery rockets."

National Journal investigative reporter Murray Waas reported on March 2 that in October 2002, Bush was informed in a one-page "President's Summary" of the NIE that INR and DOE believed the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons."

intelligence was telling him it was most likely for conventional weapons yet he ignored the report and went with a lie instead

http://mediamatters.org/items/200605220003

besides he already knew there were no wmd

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJQX4m5tcgY][/youtube]


please explain the above video, I'd really like to get some sort of closure on that alarming bit of flip floppery

Those quotes you posted where he talked about our Intelligence indicating that there was a threat of WMD's? That was TRUE!! Our intelligence DID indicate that.

as I proved above no they did not

The British intelligence did as well.

yet for some reason they wrote this during a meeting between bush and blair:

23 July 2002 - C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.


The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, and John Kerry (as well as a slew of other politicians) ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL were quoted in saying that there is a real threat in Iraq of WMD's and that Saddaam must be taken our of power.

and? we're not partisan, they're all idiots and liars

Sure enough, as soon as we go over there and find out that there are no WMD's...

explain this video please ..you didnt just "find out" ..you knew all along ..oh by the way you sounded pretty sure to me:

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

seemed pretty damn sure if you ask me ..maybe someone can ask Rumsfeld for a guided tour so that he point out exactly where they are ....I'm sure the american public would be most interested

all those flip-flopping pieces of shit turn around and say "ohhhh BUSH IS EVIL OMG HE INVADED FOR NO REASON"

Give me a break.

who cares? we certainly dont care, they all remained silent despite knowing it was a sham ...but people like you were so quick to call anyone who even remotely questioned the war traitors and anti-american .you still do it today despite the fact that the war is a sham ......so again please provide your sources, I'm curous to see where you recive your information because despite claiming we "dont have a ****ing clue" you dont seem to have one either

3. You trust your media, good for you, but don't you ever expect me to trust it. How can I be sure it's not just as biased? In fact... how can YOU be sure? You can't. You don't know the truth any more than I do, we're left to speculation and common sense.

you're a fool who dismmisses the entire argument because of a the chance it might be biased? you dont understand how that's completely idiotic?

Unfortunately, you're not acting on common sense...

us? you ****ing support an administration that invaded a country on false pretenses that led to the deaths of over 600,000 iraqis and almost 4000 americans and somehow we're not acting on common sense? give me a break you're blissfully sailing down the river of denial ..but then you'll be the first one to say "why do they hate us?"

you're acting on alarmist anti-American conspiracy propaganda

bullshit, you're welcome to disprove the hard evidence ..lets start with the Powell Rice video and move on to the dowingstreet memos ..I'll introduce more evidence once you're done with those ..I have plenty of where that came from ..put on a pot of coffee this may take awhile

(much of which can be traced to various forms of fictional literature, like any Michael Moore movie ever made... and don't try to put words in my mouth, no, I'm not saying that Columbine never happened)...

typical right wing talking points ..man you people are made form the same goddam cookie cutter ..bet you read Little green footballs or Bretbriet or any other number of idiot right wing blogs masquerading as "journalism"

Common sense would be this: Why in the FLYING **** would the President of the United States willingly lie to the WORLD about his reasons for invading a ****ed up country, spending our resources, crippling our economy, and going down in history as the worst president? Why? Why the **** would he do that? Do you REALLY think that's the case? Do you really think he intentionally ****ed up on the WMD thing, that there were no other voices on the matter but his own and he went there on his own whim? Is that what you think?

I dont know why dont you ask him:

It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

Common sense would also be this: Of COURSE Iraq burst into flames when we arrived. NO SHIT.

yes invasion and occupation of a nation that dioesnt want to be occupied (especially from the likes of you) will do that

The terrorist regimes hate us...

yes blind arbitrary hate singled on america alone probably due to your warm apple pies, your little league baseball games, but mostly because they're envious of your freedom ..god they just want to eat a big mac, wear levis and catch a saturday matinee of Rambo 3 (John Rambo: the mission if you so choose to accept it to help the poor downtrodden mujidheen terrorists fight the less evil soviets)but you force them to become terrorists because of jealousy

they want to kill us... and suddenly we're in their back yard. If we didn't go over there and bring the fight to them...

excuse me? saddam was notriously brutal to foreign fighters terrorist cells in iraq while in power ..ask former US appointed PM of Iraq, CIA stooge and paid terrorism Iyad Allawi what he was capable of

do you know where it would have eventually ended up? Maybe the plot of 9/11 wasn't centralized in Iraq itself, but the same disease of terrorism that is responsible for 9/11, Madrid

oh shut up you alarmist ninny ..Madrid bombing happened because Spain had troops in iraq, they were never a target before the invasion

London and all the other ATTEMPTED (yet foiled, mind you) terrorist attacks is alive and well in Iraq.

you are delusional:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/terror/main2039339.shtml
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/17/scott-redd-ntc/
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0526-05.htm

even the US government thinks so:

declassified government intelligence report says the war in Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for Islamic extremists, breeding deep resentment of the United States that is likely to get worse before it gets better.

In the bleak report, released Tuesday on President Bush's orders, the nation's most veteran analysts conclude that despite serious damage to the leadership of al Qaeda, the threat from Islamic extremists has spread both in numbers and in geographic reach.

It's unfortunate that the situation turned into such a mess over there...

you created that mess to further your own interests, there was no mistake you did it on purpose

We got Saddaam out of power (a mistake that we FIXED)

you put him in power and supported him during the worst of his atrocities

we made it possible for a VOTE to occur in Iraq (do we get any credit for that one?

yes you do however little has changed especially when iraqis precieve that you stacked the cards in your favour ..and it does nothing to exonerate from the lies that got you there in the first place

I bet we don't) and everything else it seems has turned to shit because we're not allowed to do what we went there to do: wipe out the terrorist regimes. We can't do it because our democrats want us to pull out and cut funding.

earth to clueless guy ..it doesnt work because they dont want you there ..almost 5 years and living conditions are far worse than when saddam was at his worst ..you could throw twice as many troops into iraq you have no hope of winning, you will never win their hearts and minds, as a humaitarian mission it's failed miserably and as a mission of security you've faired even worse ..and on top of that you have no plans of leaving any time soon

Did you hear about the recent troop surge? And how the surge showed positive results?

Maybe you can look that story up too, oh magestic fact finder and article quoter.

ok...

most iraqis didnt think it was a success
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm

most americans polled didnt seem to think it was a success:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/troop_surge_ineffective_says_poll.htm

some in the US government believe it to be a failure:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2432438.ece

some republicans thought it was a failure as well:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/repu-j27.shtml

independent reports says it's failed:
http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-141

and another independent report:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1926925.htm


even US soldiers in Iraq see it as useless:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0204-01.htm

they all agree that it has somewhat cut down on sectarian violence however it hasnt met it's political goals: it's failed to stop sectarian violence it's just put it on a momentary hold

 

[phantomdesign]

Just the opinions of one individual . . .

"What does the average Joe around you think about Iraqi Massacre going on?"
Significant bias in the question itself. Americans aren't intentionally slaughtering innocent civilians (except for a few nutbags here and there). We should have bombed, left, and let them all just kill eachother because that's what they'd do anyway.

"What are their opinions on Bush?"
Good intentions, mislead, HORRIBLE PR, bad advisers, lost vision (excessive spending, larger government). I'm not convinced he's actually in power to be honest. Far-left liberals give him too much credit, claiming he's directly responsible EVERY time something goes wrong.

"The censorship of the media?"
Old News. It's not so much censorship as pushing an agenda at all costs . . . sometimes republican, sometimes democrat. The only one I can ironically respect of them all is *cringe* Rush Limbaugh because he's the only one who's completely honest about his based and (like him or not) he's intelligent.

The media and democrats are responsible for playing this out to be a failure, the only time I hear mention of any success in Iraq is like this . . . "Republicans said today that we had some success with XXX, but were her at the media have mr expert journalist who says otherwise" IF you reexamine Vietnam it was much the same thing, we won every battle but lost the PR. The real failure is the cost of the Iraq occupation and rebuilding.

"What do they think was the real cause of 9/11?"
Some Arabs flew some planes into some buildings, motivated by religious extremism and distaste for the US.

I don't know how anyone can blame a vast governmental conspiracy theory on the twin-towers destruction, much less when you consider the PENTAGON was hit too. Of all the conspiracy theories, this is the most retarded of them all.

"Why are people so reluctant to impeach Bush, and what are people doing about it?"
It's not so much reluctance as it is a lack of a solid argument to impeach him. Sure, everyone seems to hate him and bash him at every turn, but until you have something solid, clear, and concise, it's not going to happen. Sure you can speak in terms of "high probabilities" but the FACTS aren't there.

What are people doing about it? Bitching

"What are the steps being taken to make Uh-Merica a better nation than it is today?"
Lower taxes, eliminate welfare, abolish the federal reserve, execute the guy who came up with the idea of "nation building" and focus on economic prosperity (scientific research).




Summary: We should have bombed Iraq and gotten the $@#$# out (not for reasons of WMDs) & patriot act is a disaster.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

& patriot act is a disaster

For who? Or should we just reform the thought?