Thursday, December 15, 2005

Only on Fox

A blurb on Fox News asked the following question: What does the elections in Iraq mean to America. I think I have an answer to that-- Nothing.

Since Bush in his speech admitted he lied about going to war there in the grand scheme of things it means nothing to America. I still call for Bush to be tried for war crimes.

I wonder where the outrage is from the so-called liberal media? I wonder how come there are no calls for investigations. I wonder how come Bush can get away with the deaths of over 2100 soldiers, 30,000 Iraqis? Where are the investigations? Where are the impeachment hearings? Where is congress? Where is the outrage?

It's embarrasing no one is calling this murderous thug on this other then myself.

19 comments:

Robert E Wilson said...

Bush most certainly did not admit to any kind of lying. That is an utterly gross mis-representation.

Bush, in admitting that he followed bad intelligence disarmed the liberal media. They simply cannot attack the truth. You have the right to believe that we shouldn't be in this war but you have no right to call Bush a liar when he wasn't.

What does the election mean in Iraq? Answer: A hell of a lot. Americans should be beaming with pride and many are. The Sunnis, who did not vote in the previous election and got burned politically for that, now see the light and are voting this time. This is huge! With all the trouble Iran is going to cause us, as well as all the other strife that goes on in that part of the world, a democratic ally in addition to Israel is very significant.

The liberal media seems to be tiptoeing through the election. The L.A. Time's relatively small front page article is rather negative. Senator Joe Biden calls the election a tentative first step towards progress in Iraq. (I guess ousting Saddam Hussein wasn't that big a deal to him.)

Erik said...

Again Bush admitting he was wrong and Iraq was no threat to us meant this whole disaster in Iraq is meaningless. It means all the soldiers died based on lies it means all the Iraqi's who died died for nothing. That's the whole meaning. Bush said the buck stops here so that means this disaster is his fault and he should be tried for war crimes since he admited the information was bad and he admited the decision based on the information was his.

Erik said...

The fact is they should drop the trial against Saddam since this whole thing was illegal to begin with.

Robert E Wilson said...

Would you say the same thing had we captured Hitler before he invaded Europe?

Erik said...

Hitler killed himself although that would have been interesting.

Erik said...

And if you still think the media is liberal my friend you are in the same denial Bush is.

Robert E Wilson said...

...and if you think the media is conservative, you have your head in the sand. Saying that Saddam should be set free is about the most ludicrous thing I've have ever read from you. You are letting the media brainwash you into thinking Hussein is a victim.

It's amazing to me that you gripe about the outcry about a convicted murderer of 4 people, yet go along that this man who has killed tens or even hundreds of thousands of Kurds is a victim.

Is it at all possible that your hatred of Bush has blinded you to abandon reason?

Erik said...

I ask again when he used weapons who gave it to them and shouldn't they be also on trial as accessories?

Erik said...

By the way if you wanna compare anyone to hitler it's W. How you might ask? Let's see.. Invade countries for no reason except to further their own views. Both get checks, Murder tens of thousands of innocent people for no reason except furthering their own views again checks on both. Kidnapping, torturing innocent people for no reason. Both get checks

Erik said...

If you want by the way I have other comparrisons

Robert E Wilson said...

If I give you a gun and you use it to kill somebody, who is responsible? We gave him the weapons because of Iran (the U.S. true enemy). Of course, that was a terrible decision with our 20/20 hindsight.

The very idea of comparing Bush to Hitler just tells me you were sick on the day they taught history in history class.

Erik said...

Tell me where I am wrong on what I said. You don't need to give me as a jewish person a history lesson on Hitler but tell me where I'm wrong

Erik said...

By the way speaking of understanding history the old saying definately applies to Bush as well: Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. There is a reason why George's father never went this far because of what is happening in Iraq right now.

Robert E Wilson said...

Your arguments are primarily concerning the Iraq war so let me discuss that.

Saddam Hussein had weapons that he used to try to wipe out the Kurds. He threatened Israel as well. Although he was never directly linked to Al Queda, he did fund and support other terrorist groups that were causing trouble throughout the world and were a potential threat to the United States. He was gathering scientists, equipment and materials to build a nuclear weapons program. Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and even Jimmy Carter all made statements during the Clinton administration that they were aware of Hussein's doings and something needed to be
done. Hussein mistreated his citizens terribly. Most of them lived in horrible conditions.
You could say that most of Iraq was like the most gang-infested slum in America. The gang lords then, are the insurgents now. The U.S. is taking their power away and they are fighting to get it back.

I'm saying all this because you and others conveniently forget all this. Bush had reasons to go to war. We owed it to our ally Israel. We owed it to the rest of the world to take a horrible human being out of power. There are more solid reasons for the war
and I'll give you them if you want.

Before I go any further, I want to say that despite all this, I personally don't agree that we should have made war with Iraq. This is for the sole reason that I do not believe it is right for America to take such an offensive stand where the threat was so apparently ambiguous.

Just because I disagree with the war doesn't mean I equate Bush with Hitler. If I use your
form of argument, then Franklin Roosevelt was also this evil since he didn't take a simple
defensive stand. He sent troops to be killed overseas as well and a lot more died in that
war. Hey, more Americans died in the Civil War than in any other war so maybe Abraham Lincoln was Hitler too.

Hitler blamed an entire ethnic group for the problems of Germany and systematically attempted to completely obliterate the Jews. Over 6 million died. What is the Bush equivalent of this?

Hitler invaded passive countries to permanently take over and add to Germany's real estate. I don't see Iraq as becoming the 51'st state.

Hitler bombed London with the specific intention to kill civilians. Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war, as this inevitably, happens in all wars. But they are not being targeted.

Hitler was chancellor for life. We've got Bush for 3 more years.

I know if I believed my president was a Hitler, I would take my family and any willing friends and promptly leave this country. This would be the responsible thing to do. Seems to me that if you truly believe that Bush is the equivalent of Hitler, then you are revealing you have low character in staying and allowing yourself and your family to be subjected to such tyranny.

Free Saddam Hussein and convict George Bush. Are you sure your priorities are in order?

Erik said...

Hitler bombed London with the specific intention to kill civilians. Iraqi civilians have been killed in the war, as this inevitably, happens in all wars. But they are not being targeted.



Bush bombed Bagdad with the intention of killing. Same thing. Or are you saying that it's ok as long as we are doing it?

Robert E Wilson said...

The bombing of Baghdad was not an attack on civilians. We were targetting bunkers and buildings where it was believed that Hussein and his cohorts were at. As I stated earlier, some civilians, unfortunately paid the price for this.

Erik said...

so the civillians were just in the wrong place. Please.

Erik said...

What I mean by that is we know Bush didn't give a damn who was killed on either side. Bush wanted to attack Bagdad since he took office (see past posts for references on that) and it did not matter who paid the price. You noticed everyone in office who disagreed with him was replaced. He wanted his invasion.

Erik said...

I should say everyone in the White House