Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on August 24, 2004, 01:19:16 am
-
Er, I mean President Bush.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/
Why doesn't he just call himself "emporer" or something like that and get it over with?
-
You're making it look like it is his fault.
-
A bit late, aren't we? Everyone's known about this for over a month.
-
I found out about it yesterday. Better late than never. Since no one ever posted something like this here, I figured what the heck. We haven't had a really good political thread going in a while anyway.
And yes it is his fault because HE was one of the ones asking about ways to suspend that election.
-
As has been pointed out before, Bin Laden can only benefit from Bush and co remaining in office, continuing to generate hatred, mistrust and violence. If Bin could vote, he'd vote Bush.
-
In other words they can "lose" more "unhelpful" votes this way.
Be afraid. We will protect you. Give us your freedoms. We'll tell you when it's safe to have them back.
-
well I don't know why Bush would want to do this, if we get attacked everyone will rally behind him.
-
Same here in the UK, at the moment our opinions are split, we are held immobile because of it in many ways. But if an attack took place it would most likely polarize opinion (I can hear the cries of 'Remember the Blitz!' even now) and actually make us a far more dangerous and determined opponent.
-
Gotta love the American media. Never miss a chance to berate Spain for being "influenced" by the attack. Despite the fact that Zapatero and Aznar were polling at about the same, with Zapatero slightly ahead. And despite the fact that getting rid of Aznar was a completely justified backlash for supporting a war that 90+% of the population was against.
But yeah, this is old news. If they think that a terrorist attack will influence US elections, I wonder how 150,000 armed troops will influence Iraqi elections?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Gotta love the American media. Never miss a chance to berate Spain for being "influenced" by the attack. Despite the fact that Zapatero and Aznar were polling at about the same, with Zapatero slightly ahead. And despite the fact that getting rid of Aznar was a completely justified backlash for supporting a war that 90+% of the population was against.
But yeah, this is old news. If they think that a terrorist attack will influence US elections, I wonder how 150,000 armed troops will influence Iraqi elections?
Probably bully and shoot those who dont vote for the right man eh? Thats what good old US troops like doing.
-
well the effect would likely be less than the knowledge that voteing for someone other than Sadam meant that you and your family and frends and anyone who knew you your family or frends would be killed in an extreemly slow and discuraging way.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
As has been pointed out before, Bin Laden can only benefit from Bush and co remaining in office, continuing to generate hatred, mistrust and violence. If Bin could vote, he'd vote Bush.
No. Kerry is less likely to go after him than Bush.
Talk about irony, having the Republican convention being held at Madison Square Garden in NYC does seem a little convenient for the terrorists doesn't it? They could bomb the subways, use car bombs, snipers, etc.
-
Eh, there was nobody else to vote for.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
No. Kerry is less likely to go after him than Bush.
Talk about irony, having the Republican convention being held at Madison Square Garden in NYC does seem a little convenient for the terrorists doesn't it? They could bomb the subways, use car bombs, snipers, etc.
I don't think so, Bin Laden is the Arch Enemy in the eyes of America, Kerry is aware of that and will pursue him with just as much vigour, though possibly with a great deal more tact. That is why he would want Bush to stay in power, with the Bush administration bulldozing their way through Middle East relations and generally promoting support for terrorist groups by running rickshod over anything that doesn't suit them.
If relations improve between America and the Middle East, this would be bad for Bin Laden. I severely doubt he is operating on some altruistic goals of freedom for his people, he just wants a 'slice of the cake'.
Much (though by no means all) mistrust of America before 9/11 in the Middle East was because they were, to a certain degree, being used as scapegoats to detract from certain Middle Eastern leaders appalling spending regimes, which spent far more on luxuries and weapons than on food and clothing and basic services (I know there is far more to it than this, but that is a very simplified description). Bush, however, has managed to make an intangible target into a tangible one.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
No. Kerry is less likely to go after him than Bush.
We talking about the same Bush who instead of going after Osama when he had him on the run in Afghanistan choose to start a war in Iraq rather than sending those troops into Afghanistan where they might have actually helped capture Bin Laden?
-
hard to believe anything American "intelligence" says nowadays. I actually find myself cringing when ever TB or GWB even mention it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
We talking about the same Bush who instead of going after Osama when he had him on the run in Afghanistan choose to start a war in Iraq rather than sending those troops into Afghanistan where they might have actually helped capture Bin Laden?
There's already troops in Afghanistan.
-
Thats cause you have Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their little Office of Special Plans politicizing intelligence and analysis. The CIA clearly stated that Iraq had no WMD, but the higher ups decided to ignore them and ordered them to come up with "suitable" intel.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
There's already troops in Afghanistan.
I know. And a fat lot of good they've done recently cause instead of receiving the backup and extra troops they needed to hunt terrorists down in the mountains of Afghanistan they've been left holding their dicks while troops who should have been there helping them were sent to Iraq instead.
-
Ya'll got the wrong Emperor.
This guy is Nero.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
No. Kerry is less likely to go after him than Bush.
Talk about irony, having the Republican convention being held at Madison Square Garden in NYC does seem a little convenient for the terrorists doesn't it? They could bomb the subways, use car bombs, snipers, etc.
Bush generates more terrorist recruits than he (through proxy of the Us military, etc) kills or captures.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Ya'll got the wrong Emperor.
This guy is Nero.
What's even more sad is this time Nero's horse is trying to become emporer instead of just a senator...
-
thats Caligula you're thinking of.
-
...yeah you're right.
-
Originally posted by JR2000Z
No. Kerry is less likely to go after him than Bush.
Talk about irony, having the Republican convention being held at Madison Square Garden in NYC does seem a little convenient for the terrorists doesn't it? They could bomb the subways, use car bombs, snipers, etc.
You actually believe all of the lies and propaganda the Bush administration has put out? Not a good sign......
-
Nero, eh? I dunno, can you see Bush playing a fiddle?
-
I can see him fiddling with himse.... oh boy...
-
Careful, there. You might tempt George right outta the closet.
-
Well, he calls it a 'War Budget', but it's still a fiddle ;)