BS: JR in the White House

Subject: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:37 AM

"Ah, the oil business is booming, Sue-Ellen, with prices over $50 a barrel. Good move, that, invading Iraq." Can't you just see JR chuckling to himself. Now he's reached the White House - and we thought Dallas was fiction!

Now George Bush is saying that Saddam Hussein didn't *have* weapons of mass destructions, no, nor the capacity to make them - but he had the *intention* of making them.

Excuse me just one minute. In no country that I've ever heard of could you be put in jail for *intending* to rob a house! In fact, I think there's a legal term for the fact that intentions are not convict-able, based on the premise that "the Devil knows not the mind of man".

So how can a country kill 15,000 of another country's citizens based on this premise?

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:28 AM

He's just warming up to the invasion of Iran.

"They have nuclear energy capabilities and they intend to use them. Didn't you all see the jeep covered in signs that threatened the U.S. and Israel?"

Hows that for proof!

d

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:31 AM

"put in jail for *intending* to rob a house"

Wasn't it more like intending to draw up the plans to make the tools required to rob a house?

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:04 AM

You know what? I think the premise that the US invaded Iraq over it's potential nuclear weapons program was legitimate in the eyes of the world. So that isn't the problem. Saddam once did have an active nuclear weapons program (I don't suppose any of you remember when the US surrogate in the region, Israel, bombed Saddam's nuke plant?). Nuclear proliferation is the most serious military threat we, and the world, now faces. So the claim that Iraq had an ACTIVE nuclear weapons, and a STOCKPILE of chemical and biological weapons, had it been true, certainly would have constituted an international crisis.

However, most the world knew, because of the excellent work done by the UN weapons inspectors, that Iraq DID NOT have an active nuclear weapons program, nor stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The UN weapons inspectors had it right. The UN's intelligence was right. How come John Kerry won't admit that? And why did John Kerry say that even knowing what we know now for certain (ie that there were no WMDs in Iraq), that he STILL would vote the same way on the Bush resolution to go to war? How can he say that, when he is also claiming that the US should not have rushed to war, and square that with his current (since the first presidential "debate") claims that we did not have to go to war in Iraq at all, because diplomacy, sanctions, and weapons inspections were working?

John Kerry is the most morally bankrupt Democratic presidential candidate in memory, IMNSHO.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:57 PM

John Kerry won't say that because he knows the U.S. may have to invade Iran using the same premise, ie: the threat of nuclear weapons. He has also said that the U.S. should not have rushed to war but should have had U.N. support. There's a big difference between acting unilaterally and creating an international coalition.

d

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

The one fact that speaks more loudly than any other is that under Kerry the US will do less harm. IMO, that's a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:16 PM

Don't be ridiculous brucie. There is no way to prove that Kerry will do more, less, or the same amount of harm than four more years of Bush will do.

Your contention is not fact, it is your belief. There is a huge difference between subjective belief and fact, though you would never know that from listening to the Republicrats and Dempublicans.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:40 PM

Actually, it's his hope that Kerry will prove less harmful than Bush. Nothing more than that. The whole World hopes that will be the case, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:48 PM

I still think quite a lot of these GUEST posts about Kerry quite likely emanate from some BUSH dirty tricks section.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

Sorry Little Hawk, but that isn't what brucie said. Re-read his post. It says:

"The one fact that speaks more loudly than any other is that under Kerry the US will do less harm."

brucie chose to use the word "fact" to describe his opinion.

I believe most people who will vote for Kerry are doing so due to stubborn, head in the sand, magical thinking that Kerry will be better than Bush. There since there is nothing in Kerry's recent record to indicate that is so, it does cause me to wonder how it is that so many have decided to participate in this mass Anybody But Bush delusion.

It strikes me as being a lot like people who are watching everyone around them getting laid off as their company goes down the tubes, but continuing to believe it won't happen to them. And acting all shocked, dismayed, and angry at everyone else, instead of admitting the truth to themselves that the writing had been on the wall long enough to for them to have done something proactive, rather than remain comfortably in denial about the direction their life was drifting.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:59 PM

Sure you do McGrath. Simple solutions for simple minds. If a person isn't for Kerry, then they have to be for Bush. Nice and simple. Black and white. Guest or member. You like things to be easily definable, categorizable, and clear. Nothing complex, ambiguous, or god forbid, contradictory, will do for you.

Don't want to trouble those simplistic, smooth waters of your preconceived notions and subjective beliefs now do you? Think of how dangerous that would be to your mental health.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:32 PM

But you would say that, faceless and nameless one, wouldn't you, if my suspicions were correct? It's just a speculation on my part, and it seems quite a reasonable one.

I can quite understand someone thinking that, when it comes down to it, there's really bugger all to choose between the Bush and the Kerry. There's a lot to be said for that point of view. But it strikes me as odd that, having come to that judgement, anyone would bother to keep hammering on about it.

If it doesn't matter what happens in your November election, it doesn't matter - so why should someone who has come to that conclusion bother to write post after post about about it?

I can't quite see the motivation. On the other hand, if these posts are in fact "dirty tricks" by Bush supporters, it'd be very easy to see the motivation. Hence the suspicion.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:55 PM

Lets call this a matter of when push comes to shove.

You can push for change after Bush is shoved out of office.

You will never be able to push Bush. Kerry is a politician and very pushable.

Bush will only understand a hard shove.

Actually, I'd like to kick him below the belt, as well. Its the only defense against someone who doesn't play by the rules.

d

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 06:11 PM

To say there is no difference between Bush and Kerry isn't accurate.   

What is accurate in the minds of many, is that we are faced with two bad choices. But that doesn't mean the election itself doesn't matter, or that debating the issues or the qualities, both positive and negative, of the candidates, doesn't matter.

I particularly object to the attempts by the Anybody But Bush camp for continually trying to silence those discussions and debates by casting just the sort of innuendo you just threw out to cast aspersions upon my attempts to discuss the negative qualities of both Bush and Kerry.

The Anybody But Bush camp simply does not tolerate anyone being critical of Kerry, without them going on the attack, in an attempt to bully or demonize those engaging in legitmate critical discussion about the candidates.

Now, that sort of tactic always comes across as heavy handed to everyone except those who engage in it. Like you, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 06:17 PM

Give it a break, GUEST.

Most of us know that Kerry is part of the power elite and just another politician but its getting down to the crunch. In other words, you have a choice between A or B. Nobody else will win this election.

d

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 06:19 PM

"You will never be able to push Bush."

Hogwash. Already have. We pushed back on the energy bill, and it has not passed. Nor have most of his really bad appointments on the judiciary side. Patriot II is not yet law. Compromises have been forced on the Republicans, though not as many as should have been. Bush was forced to go to the UN first, to get Congress to approve the Iraq war resolution.

I know that doesn't fit in with the convenient check the brain at the door attitudes of the Anybody But Bush camp, but it is the reality.

On the other side of the coin, what is the anti-war movement doing to put pressure on Kerry and shove him to the left? How about the civil liberties movement? NO? Well, what demands have the civil rights movement activists made of Kerry? The education sector? How about the unions--surely they have shoved Kerry in their direction?

No to all? Gee, what ever will the liberals do when the appease Kerry movement collapses? Throw us all in jail, like the lock up of political dissenters outside the convention hall in Boston in July?

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM

One merit in having a Kerry rather than a Bush (or their equivalent in other countries) is that, once you've got a Kerry in, it's a lot easier for people to recognise the limitations of that kind of politics. The argument can move on to a different level. While you've got a Bush, inevitably it stalls at an anyone-but-Bush level.

Sometimes people argue that the increased injustice associated with doctrinaire right-wing rulers can force a kind of political education that radicalises its victims. However, even aside from the cyncial callousness involved, that doesn't actually seem to work.

It's when things start getting better that people start to recognise where they are still being cheated, and push for further change. As times get worse most people are more likely to turn their back on that kind of stuff, and concentrate instead on just getting by.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 11:49 AM

i don't think it's true that most of the world supported the US in invading Iraq.

Most of the world wanted the UN inspectors to complete their task. These people, unlike the US bullies, had real balls. They were risking their lives to go in to centre after centre to search for "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical weapons or biological weapons banned by the Geneva Conventions).

The US invasion was not backed by the world.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 12:59 PM

"I don't think it's true that most of the world supported the US in invading Iraq."

I don't think even Bush has claimed that to be the case. His line, as I understand it, is that someday these foreigners will realise that he was right all along; and also to point out that there are a number of foreign leaders who have been farsighted enough to see that already and help out, even though that makes them unpopular in their own countries.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 02:14 PM

I'm amazed, too, at the American hostility to France. All the French did was say: "What you're doing is wrong, and we're not going to join in."

At the time of the American revolution, and for many, many years afterwards, France was revered as the nation that had taught the world freedom. Now when it takes a moral (and correct) stance, suddenly it's spat on.

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 05:08 PM

JTT - I was wondering the same thing in regards to Canada.

Why would anyone feel anything but respect towards the countries that opposed this invasion from the beginning?

Canada has long been known as peace-keepers and negotiators. Why spit on them for that?

d

Subject: RE: BS: JR in the White House
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 06:31 PM

I think it's like kids when they *know* they're doing wrong, they get very angry and defensive if you call them on it, especially if you do it in a gentle way!

Americans' fury at the French is a signal of their realisation that this invasion - and the whole method of the "war against terror" - is wrong, wrong, wrong.