# The Bush administration.



## RuthlessRandy (23 Jun 2003)

Wish a democrat was running the show right now.
Only reason why I dont like bush is because he just seems like a racist, he uses cheney, condoliza, and powell, as his racist shield.
Another thing is that I think we took a step backwards, becuase of a father and son has run a democratic country, I‘t reminds me too much of a kingdom style pre french revolution state.
There getting rid of real politics and replacing it with tradition.
 

   :flame:   BUSH JR.
   :mg:   BUSH SR.
   :sniper:   EVILS OF MEDIA
   :rocket:   KKK

  GLAD I‘M A CANADIAN CITIZEN 
   cheers


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2003)

Well that was a good introduction.

Care to give more than just some worthless drible?


----------



## RuthlessRandy (23 Jun 2003)

If you don‘t kow what i‘m getting at, why did you post a reply?
Look in short it‘s like this, it‘s a comparison of kings giving air to the thrown, Bush Sr, then Bush Jr.
It should not be allowed.
And yes I am aware of clintons time in office.(at least he was  a democrat)
 
cheers


----------



## Marauder (23 Jun 2003)

First, you mean *heir* to the *throne*.
Second, if you‘re glad to be Canadian, why throw an embarrasing little tantrum over the *American* president who has been dishing out a serious a$$kicking on the sacks of shyt who want all Westerners dead?
Third, apparently you haven‘t read through the forums, since you obviously know how much we agree with the Liberals/Dems.
Lastly, where/when did you serve?
Now, go clean the sand outta your clit, stop wasting our oxygen, and go pay attention in your summer school special ed english class.

Inf, my brotha from another mother, would you rather work the head or the body? Or would you prefer to tag team with me on this winner?


----------



## RuthlessRandy (23 Jun 2003)

well..you told me, and put me in my place   

cheers


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2003)

...


----------



## Pikache (23 Jun 2003)

Posting stupid threads may get you the boot. 

Just remember that.


----------



## Fader (23 Jun 2003)

I think Bush is a less extreme, modern day Hitler: both Bush and Hitler were devoted Christians, both were staunchly opposed to the use of chemical weapons on the battle field, both were liars to thier own people, both were soldiers before coming to power, both had a pre calculated plan on taking over the world before they rose to power, both wern‘t right in the head, both used scapegoating to have thier policies implemented, and both attempted to restructure the entire globe using thier incredibly powerful militaries.
Bush is less extreme in that he has yet to order the such as the mass extermination of the Islamic faith, although it‘s quite obvious from his previous apperances in public that he harbours no appreciation for it.
It‘s also not clear yet whether or not Bush will fail in his conquest.  I‘m just counting the days until he does though.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2003)

Well, we‘ve argued this Bush thing to death, but I would check the accuracy of many of the comparisons you make between Bush and Hitler before you expect that statement to be taken seriously.

RHF...
Moi, I never post anything stupid


----------



## sgtdixon (23 Jun 2003)

Ahh but here are some key diffrences Lui

Bush- Did Cocaine Abusively for a number of years
Hitler- Opium when it all went to pot

Bush- Doesnt Mind the Jewish, Hates the Middle East
Hitler- Hated the Jews, Gypsies, anyone who wasnt Aryan

Bush-Had his power, prestige, money, and ability to come into office handed down from his father
Hitler- Worked his tookus off to get where he got

my two bits


----------



## RuthlessRandy (26 Jun 2003)

I hate em both, Hitler and Bush, one is in a heir type rulership, and one took a country over by brutal force.
Lack of choice, kinda like the 2000 elections.
I still would wanted Gore though, if it aint broke dont fix it.


----------



## ninty9 (26 Jun 2003)

I think your diluted RuthlessRandy.

Hitler did not "take over" Germany with brutal force, and Bush government is not an "heir type rulership".

You seem to have a lot of built up rage.  Maybe its just because you use the     emoticon so much.


----------



## RuthlessRandy (26 Jun 2003)

Noam Chomsky   

Go to your google web search and type in"Noam Chomsky"   

Read everything, he speaks the truth, and backs up his arguments.


----------



## RuthlessRandy (26 Jun 2003)

The September 11 attacks were major atrocities. In terms of number of victims they do not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton‘s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and probably killing tens of thousands of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt.

The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of ideas about "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US,
including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But these events will, nonetheless, be used to increase the pressure to
develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.

In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than
they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.

As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes 
and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia - paid and uniformed by America‘s Israeli ally - hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. 

Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead. -Noam Chomsky on 9/11.

Now did the Bush administration make the right choices?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2003)

You should try reading a bit more Randy, Chomsky has long been regarded as a left-wing stooge.


----------



## RuthlessRandy (26 Jun 2003)

yes..but regared by who??

left wingers?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2003)

Mainstream observers of politics.

It is same as me basing my ideas off of Pat Buchanan.


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Jun 2003)

Randy - why don‘t you join the Palestinians, then? I‘m sure your service would be far more meaningful in the grand scheme of things then in service to our country.. Or do you just like to spew this stuff as opposed to really standing up for your convictions? Anyone can tap drivel on a keyboard. Better yet, after you start shaving, pay taxes for a few years, live in the real world for a decade or two, then maybe your opinions will mean something to me


----------



## Marauder (26 Jun 2003)

F@ck that wannabe pseduo-intellectual communist cocksucker Chomsky, f@ck that groping redneck retard Klinton, and a pox on anyone who holds them up as examples of intellect and morality.


----------



## Thaedes (26 Jun 2003)

Interesting topic, not for its value.  But for an example of how you can waste peoples time.  



> I hate em both, Hitler and Bush, one is in a heir type rulership, and one took a country over by brutal force.
> Lack of choice, kinda like the 2000 elections.
> I still would wanted Gore though, if it aint broke dont fix it.


Heir Rulership eh?  (aka Monarchy).  Not quite, he did get it through the elections after all - regardless of how debatable the hole fiasco was.

As for Hitler, he didn‘t take over Germany by brutal force persay, however he most certainly killed off his fair share of political opponents.  Ironically enough his party was voted in by the people.

Evenstill, you make quick to criticize the US, but neglect to mention our own problems here in Canada.  Lets have a look out our current PM, whos been at the ‘throne‘ if you will for the past ten years.  You realize of course, that any time within a fiver year term a PM can call an election as he or she see fits?  Thus, if hes having a particularly good year, say two years into his term he can call an election and be voted in again where he can wait up to another 5 years to call another election?   The problem with that is, he can call it two years into his term (thus wasting tax payers dollars for campaigns and that bs) just to extend his term.  

So yeah, we could all use improvement.


----------



## Fader (27 Jun 2003)

> Bush- Did Cocaine Abusively for a number of years
> Hitler- Opium when it all went to pot
> 
> Bush- Doesnt Mind the Jewish, Hates the Middle East
> ...


LOL!

Onet thing I think is funny (though not entirly related to the Bush administration) is how the coallition captured the Iraqi information minister, the same guy who througout the war, was saying crap like "The infidel enemy will never live to see the streets of Baghdad" while US tanks drove into it‘s city limits.  I find that funny, because US officials right now are saying crap like "There‘s no geurilla war in Iraq, everyone loves us here." at the same time that US and British soldiers are getting shot at while they shop for videos.


----------



## Redneck052 (27 Jun 2003)

Should we not remember September 11.  I had a friend that passed away that day.

The Americans did not start THIS fight, some else did.  It led from a rogue country, to an already threat.

Why did the US go after Iraq vs. North Korea, simple equation.  The likelyhood of use of WMD.  If N. Korea had WMD, they would use them as a threat, the government would hold the rest of the world hostage, the likelyhood of use is miniumal.  With Iraq, Saddam has already used chemical weapons, on his own people, the risk of other WMD were extremely high.  The probable use of them were great.

Terrorism is a global threat, the Americans cannot have another incident.  Nor could Canada handle such an event.  North America as a whole, has forever lived with the belief of free security.  We live behind the worlds largest defenses, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.  In that, as North americans we are slack in National Security. Now it has been proven that someone can get over our wall.  We need to address this, Americans and Canadian together.

Could our government have handled a similar event of September 11 that the US did?  What could our government have done?


----------



## Thaedes (27 Jun 2003)

> The Americans did not start THIS fight, some else did. It led from a rogue country, to an already threat.


Be careful how you word things mate, the US certainly had a hand in Sept 11th.  You say that it was unprovoked?  But what would you call 40 years of sticking your nose into the Middle Easts business?  Or resettling palestinians without asking them, and giving their land to the Jewish people.  Then providing Isreal with 3 billion a year to do with what they will (which incidentally is likely being spent on their massive military to further opress palestinians).

Or in Afghanistan, training and providing various warlords with weapons and strategies to combat the Soviet presence - giving not only the peace seekers of the area the way of violence, but the other war mongering warlords a way of perpetuating it.

You say Saddam had it comming?  Well, did he?  Not much more then 20 years ago were the US and Saddam buddy-buddy.  Only when the guy started rethinking fueling America did the American‘s start to dislike him - **** , they were even willing to overlook the chemical weapons he used since there was still a chance he would provide the oil.

A lot of people go around chanting the mantra of WMD as being a terrible thing.  It most certainly is, but who in this world has the greatest stockpile of WMD?  The US itself.  How can they expect others to do what is right when they themselves are setting a different example.  And that example is being followed.  

I‘m not trying to bash the US administration, for certain they are trying to do what *they* think is best for their people and the people of the world.  However, Redneck, you need to open your eyes.  Islamic fundementalists don‘t believe the attacks to be unprovoked, and when you think down on it long enough, they aren‘t.  That doesn‘t justify it, but it does begin to show you that not everyone in this world has the same view as you do.


----------



## Fader (27 Jun 2003)

Wow, that was exceptionally insightful.


----------



## Travis (27 Jun 2003)

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to stop and reflect.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

-lil bit revised by me =


----------



## Deleted member 585 (27 Jun 2003)

I agree that U.S. intelligence and military operations around the globe tend to expire, then metamorphose into blowback, like those Thaedes mentioned, and these:

1973  U.S. backing of coup d‘etat in Chile resulting in the overthrow of a democratically elected government by a dictatorship.  The Blowback: Around 3,000 Chileans summarily executed; thousands more tortured or exiled.
1979-1988 U.S. assistance to Afghani Rebels (radical, fundamentalist zealots) against Soviet military occupation.  The Blowback: murder in front of the CIA in the early 1990s; a 1993 bombing at the WTC; bombings at U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a U.S. military housing compound in Saudi Arabia, and the U.S.S. Cole.
Early ‘80s U.S. support of Saddam Hussein v. Shiite Islamic fundamentalists who overthrew the pro-U.S Shah of Iran : estimated casualties of 200,000 combined.
1989 U.S. use of Manuel Noriega against Nationalist leader / invasion of Panama: thousands of Panamanians died in the bombing of Chorillo
Fidel Castro / CIA activity in Cuba: aircraft crashing into the Pentagon & a bombing at Sheridan Circle


But...


> Islamic fundamentalists don‘t believe the attacks to be unprovoked, and when you think down on it long enough, they aren‘t.


I understand that they "feel" provoked and justified in retaliating... but there‘s no god****ed way I accept the hijacking and crashing of civilian aircraft into civilian targets.  I know you don‘t accept it either.


----------



## rolandstrong (27 Jun 2003)

Randy youre just a player, out to get attention. Based on your diatribe, it sounds like you read one author, accepted his views, and believe them true.

Sounds like the people that read mein Kampf in the 20‘s and 30‘s to me.

Take a look in the mirror before throwing comments around.


----------



## RuthlessRandy (28 Jun 2003)

Ignorant


----------



## Bringer (28 Jun 2003)

> A lot of people go around chanting the mantra of WMD as being a terrible thing. It most certainly is, but who in this world has the greatest stockpile of WMD? The US itself. How can they expect others to do what is right when they themselves are setting a different example. And that example is being followed.


I‘m so ****ing sick of this argument. Look up the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US, UK, France, Russia, and China (the five permanent UN Security Council members) are all permitted possession of nuclear weapons under the treaty, and every country but Cuba, India, Pakistan, and  Israel have signed.


----------



## Deleted member 585 (28 Jun 2003)

Bringer: exactly, that  _is_ a tired argument.  Ignorance leads men to seek hypocrisy in this where there is none.


----------



## Fader (28 Jun 2003)

We joke around that if a country wants nuclear weapons; they just ask Canada for CANDU reactors.  

BTW; why does this yank have an Kalashnikov?


----------



## rolandstrong (28 Jun 2003)

That is exactly the point Randy, you are IGNORANT. Go and hit the books and do your research...you are missing a number of facts. You only refer to one political critic. There are many thousands more than that. Your perspective is schewed. Take a look at world history over the last fifty years, and you can better understand what the Bush administration has done. By drawing the parallels you have, you show how little you know. You talk like any 2-bit KKK or Nazi member. They hate bush too...so maybe you are...


----------



## gate_guard (28 Jun 2003)

1987:
At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt.Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan
Administration. There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning!

He was being drilled by a senator; "Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience, "Isn‘t that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir," continued Ollie.

"No? And why not?" the senator asked.

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?" the senator questioned.

"By a terrorist, sir" Ollie answered.

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir" Ollie replied.

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn‘t pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn‘t. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?" the senator asked.

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of", Ollie answered.

"And what do you recommend we do about him?" asked the senator.

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth."

The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip.

By the way, that senator was Al Gore.

I repeat this was taped in 1987

Also:
Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners."

However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands, The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of
State, Warren Christopher, "insisted" that all prisoners be released.

Thus Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.

This info was forwarded to me by a friend of mine and it came to mind will listening to your pro Clinton, pro Gore comments, Randy. I don‘t know, you decide what you think.

hmmm....Ruthless Randy, is that your porn name or are you a wrestler?


----------



## Korus (28 Jun 2003)

I just love  http://www.snopes.com  SO quick and easy to use.

- Oliver Twisted 

-  Atta Boy


----------



## gate_guard (28 Jun 2003)

Point taken, Korus, I‘ve been victimized by meaningless internet dribble, and am furthermore guilty of passing it on. Sentence: one night with the fattest, ugliest cougar at the nearest watering hole.

PS man I hate being wrong, but i still think ruthless randy is a porn name.


----------



## rolandstrong (28 Jun 2003)

Yes...you both are right. To easy to put up garbage and get into repetitive rant. We should chat about it over beer and wake up in the morning saying "what was it I said?". Cheers


----------

