Bush Is In My Town Today

MRlesk

i am a tax paying american citizen and if you quote half a sentence you can prove anything...i qualified my position about bush in the post you quoted stating that i would say that about ANY leader with the same record...no matter what party. If you read my posts in general you will see that i don't say anything "anti american" and i try to put an air of sensibility into any debate, if we do something bad i don't see any point in denying we did wrong. Are you suggesting that i shouldn't have an opinion ? As to my personal politics i don't hold affiliation to any party rather i will weigh up all the options and vote for who i feel will do the best job and if the leader i vote for screws up i will be in line to tell him he did, isn't that called free speech ?
It seems that you are victim of the paranoier of the world being against us and i suggest that your post is more likely to draw another round of anti american posts.
As to my homepage..well i have lived around the world so i am in a good position to make fair comparisons and see both sides, if i agree or not. It just happens that i started the original page as a project with my son and it happened to be when we where in the UK and the hosts of the site are friends of mine and i got the co.uk address for free
Yes it is no secret that i am not a fan of GW. but the whole point of the post was that the president of MY country came to my hometown and the attitude was "so what"
it is a light hearted post...did you not see the lol smiley?
I am Pro american but i don't feel that we have the right to dictate to others that they should live our way of life.
Perhaps it's your kind of reaction that makes people in this forum think that Americans are a bunch of paranoid tightasses with no sense of humour (yes i spelt humour with a u does that make me anti american???)
I love the people in my country, on the whole they are friendly decent and intelligent people....i just feel that the leader is doing a bad job (oh no..another anti american comment, after all the whole world knows that the president is perfect)

P.S. without the ability to laugh at ourselves we have no right to laugh at others

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mrlessk+22 January 2004 - 20:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrlessk @ 22 January 2004 - 20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@22 January 2004 - 11:20
Mrlessk
I would not count myself amongst the anti-US fraternity but I would note that it was George senior that failed to go after Saddam not Clinton. Indeed it was George senior that encouraged the Shia&#39;s to rise and then stood by as they were slaughtered.

---

Thanks for that Biggles.
My Bill Clinton time-line should have referenced a letter to him from his Congress.....here.... for clarification. :) [/b][/quote]
Interesting.

Forgive me if I am wrong but the letter appears to be from half of GW&#39;s current Cabinet. That would be rather like Tony Blair receiving a letter from John Redwood, Howard and Portillo, suggesting the European Union is not a great idea. He would, I think, call in friends to share in the mirth.

Part of the current difficulty is that much of Europe (even the right of centre bits)
are far more mixed-economy orientated than the current US administratrion. Anti-US and anti-ultra conservative Republicanism somehow seems to have become inter-changeable. This is unfortunate to say the least. They patently should not be and it is wrong headed and short sighted to damn every American based entirely on the policies of one administration.

I know this will have J2 reaching for a stiff drink, but I rather liked Clinton. Ok, he had one or two peccadillos (in France a leader without a couple of mistresses is considered seriously suspect) but he tended to give one a warm and fuzzy feeling towards the US.

Post 9/11 there was considerable sympathy for the US and a lot of goodwill world wide. There has since been considerable debate as to whether the tradegy of 9/11 has been hi-jacked by organisations such as the one this letter was from for a furtherance of obscure and disturbing political goals. This may not be the case, but the rather pathetic shambles that passed for the Iraqi army and the complete lack of WMD in Iraq is not strengthening the defense against the accusation that the Iraqi war was merely a piece of geopoltical opportunism - as opposed to the campaign to locate and root out Osama Bin Laden as the instigator of 9/11, which had pretty much global support for the aim (if not entirely for the tactics employed).

However, like you, I am unhappy with the nationalistic tone of much of the debate. Whilst national stereotypes can be funny (as a Scot I encountered one or two when I worked in England for a few years and some were very funny) they rarely if ever have anything sensible to say about the issues at hand. In fact they just detract from the issues as each respective side wraps themselves in a flag.



The question might well be posed, has George Bush traded gold for a pot of soup?

I don&#39;t know enough about US politics, or the Democratic candidates, to pass judgement on whether there is a better man in the wings (but I can hope :D )

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@22 January 2004 - 12:34

i am a tax paying american citizen....&nbsp; Are you suggesting that i shouldn&#39;t have an opinion ?&nbsp;
It just happens that i started the original page as a project with my son and it happened to be when we where in the UK and the hosts of the site are friends of mine and i got the co.uk address for free
Yes it is no secret that i am not a fan of GW. but the whole point of the post was that the president of MY country came to my hometown and the attitude was "so what"
it is a light hearted post...did you not see the lol smiley?
(yes i spelt humour with a u does that make me anti american???)
I love the people in my country, on the whole they are friendly decent and intelligent people....i just feel that the leader is doing a bad job (oh no..another anti american comment, after all the whole world knows that the president is perfect)
P.S. without the ability to laugh at ourselves we have no right to laugh at others

---

Fair enough vidcc. :) This was simply my rant of the day. In perusing other forums with all the anti-American sentiment I reluctantly hold my tongue but this time the urge was too great and I had to say something in defense of the US. and the tough job G.W. has in trying to pull this country out of the post-9/11 recession. Just happened to be your thread. Sorry if I misconstrued your intent.
An old saying is that you can never win in a discussion about Politics or Religion....so true.
You can see why I presumed you to be other than American (uk address, and yes, the spelling of "humour" is surely a tip-off...lol.). However, American or not, you certainly have the right to express your opinion.
As far as the lack of response to G.W.&#39;s visit to Roswell. Perhaps when he is campaigning more fervently will the throngs of his supporters arise en masse to greet him. Right now, it&#39;s just a little too soon.
Personally I don&#39;t think the Democrats, with their present choices of candidates, have a chance against him in November. But, that&#39;s just my opinion...I could be wrong.
mrlessk
:beerchug:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@22 January 2004 - 13:11
Forgive me if I am wrong but the letter appears to be from half of GW&#39;s current Cabinet.
Anti-US and anti-ultra conservative Republicanism somehow seems to have become inter-changeable. This is unfortunate to say the least. They patently should not be and it is wrong headed and short sighted to damn every American based entirely on the policies of one administration.
I know this will have J2 reaching for a stiff drink, but I rather liked Clinton. Ok, he had one or two peccadillos (in France a leader without a couple of mistresses is considered seriously suspect) but he tended to give one a warm and fuzzy feeling towards the US.

but the rather pathetic shambles that passed for the Iraqi army and the complete lack of WMD in Iraq is not strengthening the defense against the accusation that the Iraqi war was merely a piece of geopoltical opportunism - as opposed to the campaign to locate and root out Osama Bin Laden as the instigator of 9/11, which had pretty much global support for the aim (if not entirely for the tactics employed).

However, like you, I am unhappy with the nationalistic tone of much of the debate. Whilst national stereotypes can be funny (as a Scot I encountered one or two when I worked in England for a few years and some were very funny) they rarely if ever have anything sensible to say about the issues at hand. In fact they just detract from the issues as each respective side wraps themselves in a flag.
The question might well be posed, has George Bush traded gold for a pot of soup?&nbsp;

---

I felt the letter appropriate in that it was official and represented not only the opinions of the undersigned but also many other same-thinking members who simply did not want to go on record (as I understand it).

In so far as Clinton&#39;s "peccadillos" yes, we (Americans) also understand the raging hormones not only of the pubertyesque teen but also many past incumbent Presidents..a la Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Kennedy, Clinton, et al (yes, you know who you are). If Bill Clinton&#39;s wife Hillary can see fit to forgive him for his trysts then, perhaps so should we...("let he who is without sin...." etc)

Yes, the argument for the Iraqi war is certainly weakend by the failure to locate the "smoking gun" as it is put. The WMD. I believe they are there, yet to be found. Sadaam had plenty of time and certainly the means to hide them, perhaps build underground locations where these are secreted. It could be years before they are discovered.
However, one thing justifies the overtaking of the Sadaam regime. The mass killings of and inhumanity toward innocent Iraqi citizens which occurred on a daily basis. If there is any respect for human life and dignity then those with the power should be justifiable in their willingness to intercede, anywhere in this world. This was done by the coalition. Detractors of this effort then will be completely satisfied once WMD are finally located. Until then, the war was justified nonetheless.
mrlessk :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mrlessk@23 January 2004 - 00:28
I felt the letter appropriate in that it was official and represented not only the opinions of the undersigned but also many other same-thinking members who simply did not want to go on record (as I understand it).

In so far as Clinton&#39;s "peccadillos" yes, we (Americans) also understand the raging hormones not only of the pubertyesque teen but also many past incumbent Presidents..a la Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Kennedy, Clinton, et al (yes, you know who you are). If Bill Clinton&#39;s wife Hillary can see fit to forgive him for his trysts then, perhaps so should we...("let he who is without sin...." etc)

Yes, the argument for the Iraqi war is certainly weakend by the failure to locate the "smoking gun" as it is put. The WMD. I believe they are there, yet to be found. Sadaam had plenty of time and certainly the means to hide them, perhaps build underground locations where these are secreted. It could be years before they are discovered.
However, one thing justifies the overtaking of the Sadaam regime. The mass killings of and inhumanity toward innocent Iraqi citizens which occurred on a daily basis. If there is any respect for human life and dignity then those with the power should be justifiable in their willingness to intercede, anywhere in this world. This was done by the coalition. Detractors of this effort then will be completely satisfied once WMD are finally located. Until then, the war was justified nonetheless.
mrlessk :)

---

Excuse me, the war was not "justified".

Saddam had already committed the acts of barbarism of note (not saying he wasn&#39;t currently do the same acts), so "all of a sudden" we go to war with him over WMD that have not turned up.

Point being the American people, Congress and the world were being sold on WMD and then because WMD wasn&#39;t found then Bush says, "Oh but he&#39;s a bad man".
Puh.....leaze <_<

He was a bad man 7 years ago
He was a bad man when the US backed him against Iran (he was just the lesser of two evils)
I love hearing blind devotion to one&#39;s party but this is ridiculous.

I understand you want stand behind your President, but before you know it you&#39;re bent over and he&#39;s standing behind you. :01:

I&#39;m not a Bush fan, myself, but I am seriously worried about the Democratic opposition.

I really don&#39;t "do" politics, as I view elections as the exchanging of the "liars who can hold a straight face".

But what about this Howard Dean fellow. I don&#39;t care what he says, but look into his eyes, watch his mood swings. He is the kind of guy who can appear normal, but put him under stress or attack, and he just melts down. This guy is stark raving mad.

Anybody else sense this, this is just my take.

If Dean wins the Democratic nomination, I think Bush will select a chimpanzee as his VP, just to really piss the Democrats off, and will still win.

i see what you mean

http://www.onpointradio.org/content/...703dean150.jpg

Either someone really got him pissed :angry: or he&#39;s taking the strain :shit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@23 January 2004 - 00:16

I understand you want stand behind your President, but before you know it you&#39;re bent over and he&#39;s standing behind you. :01:

---

:lol:
laughter at the quote and in no way a personal attack on any indivual or party

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 January 2004 - 02:34
i see what you mean

http://www.onpointradio.org/content/...703dean150.jpg

Either someone really got him pissed :angry: or he&#39;s taking the strain :shit:

---

He looks anti-Christ-like.