Thread: Iraqi Soccer players Upset that Bush is exploiting them

That is more than a valid ad. Its one of the big things he has done and its only normal to point it out. Now saying we are murdering more people than sadam just makes you sound stupid. I am not even going to bother to argue with that one. Chances are your one of the people who will believe the stuff you do no matter what I say.

Originally posted by Alric
That is more than a valid ad. Its one of the big things he has done and its only normal to point it out. Now saying we are murdering more people than sadam just makes you sound stupid. I am not even going to bother to argue with that one. Chances are your one of the people who will believe the stuff you do no matter what I say.

You're joking, right?

The Iraqi people never asked for Bush to invade Iraq. The UN forbade Bush from invading Iraq. Nearly half the American people were, and are, against the war. Yet, you think it's perfectly natural and right for Bush to use an illegal war as a basis for an advertisement campaign to be re-elected?

Christ.


Chances are you're one of those ignorant people who think that Saddam was connected to Al Queda, that loss of human life is acceptable so long as they are not American lives, and that the Middle East should and will be forever in our debt. The truth is there was no connection from Saddam to Al Queda, his war has caused many casualties on both sides, decreasing morale and enlistment and burdening the armed forces with a war in Afganistan on terror and another war in Iraq, and now we have only further complicated relations with that region; the result will be more strife for everyone down the road.

it's all propaganda... i see that you have micheal moore in your sig... i guess his propaganda is somehow better. the hypocrisy is sickening. the propaganda is sickening.

think for yourself.

form a god damn opinion.

and vote.

if you do that... which from what i've read, i doubt it... but if you do that then you've gained some legitimacy.

I think for myself and I dont vote and dont value voting(which is all written in the who would you vote for thread.) Youre saying think foryourself and then telling other people what they should value.

ok, so think for yourself and don't execute it... rather, complain about it and hope the chips fall where you want them to. makes sense.

Who said anything about complaing and hoping things will be alright? I don't complain about the universe. I do what I feel I need to do and I make my corner of the universe a better palce. Why must I vote to make a difference? I consider voting a complete waste of my time and energy.

This is totally jumping back on an old topic.

EDIT: http://dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...der=asc&start=0

I stated in several ways my stance on this here in this thread.

yeah, no more voting talk. all i'm saying is propaganda sucks... i have an avatar from a more political forum i frequent and i think it will sum up my stance... let me find the little bastard...

Beautiful...I love that avatar. Sums up my views on polotics perfectly.

XD

Just noticed that the animals were screwing each other!

i completely agree with adidas as well... propaghanda (a.k.a. michael moore, etc.) does suck. great avatar!

propaghanda (a.k.a. michael moore, etc.)[/b]

I find it comical that the right wing conservatives have been spewing forth their propaganda for years through news stations, talk radio, and the general media without so much as a complaint from the rest of us. Then, suddenly, when a radical left winger comes along to even out the playing field we are presented with talk about propaganda and false messages. Both on the news and amongst republican circles. Further, Michael Moore makes it perfectly clear what is message is; he doesn't slip it in between the lines. That's where you must be careful. When you are unknowingly being subjected to systems of control.

Remember back when you had a fight with another kid on the playground as a child? You would get all your friends to support you despite whether you were right or wrong? It didn't matter if you were not intelligent enough to stay out of the fight, or if you stirred up the fight yourself, or even if you deserved the fight; you still got everyone you knew to stand behind you and eventually you would win. The entire group's level of sophistication or education or intelligence was null so long as you were numerous.


We don't really choose the president; two parties funded by corporations get to decide who we should pick and then assault us with advertisements, posters, and media coverage until we make a decision. Then the cronies and supporters of those parties berate you and tear into you to further their cause. It's a popularity contest wherein the one who suckers in the most votes wins. It is all propaganda, folks. You are only now 'noticing' it because certain propaganda being pointed out to you.

It bothers me when people stand behind their party and actually attempt to justify it despite how ridiculously terrible the leader is. If there was a democrat in office and he was doing a bad job - for instance he was sending us to war, causing a recession, increasing unemployment, passing legistlature that gives the goverment the right to spy on it's citizens, boldly lying to the public about matters of great importance and concern, and was generally not bright in the least - then I would certainly not vote for him again.

I'm hereing so many conflicting arguments about Iraq's people. Some say Iraq has become a better nation. Some people say Iraq has been destroyed. Some people say everybody in Iraq is a terrorist. Etc. It's all garbage, the only people who you can actually take seriously are the Iraqi people themselves, and it seems pretty obvious what they are saying.

democrat? republican? screw em both! im a future ex-patriot!

Death-wuad has it right. Have to take it all not just say one side is lieing and then believe everything the other side says as true. Thats where you get in big trouble.

Anyway, yes there was iraqi people who asked even begged for us to attack to get rid of saddam. US was also doing what it believed was right, and does not have to answer to the UN. That might sound bad but the UN doesn't do a thing, they are all talk and no action, plus a ton of them taking bribes from saddam are never going to do anything. Its all a big joke. They tell people to act nice then they totally ignore them, and leave them to do w hatever they feel like, and if they murder everyone, they wont do a thing.

And yes saddam was connected to al queda, its a proven fact. Saying they have no connecten what so ever, just shows you dont know what your talking about. Saddam wasn't connected to 9/11 but then that has nothing to do with it.

If you think the war was stupid or that the people where better under saddam I don't really care. The fact is iraq was one of the big things bush did if you like it or not and he has a right to use it in his ad. If you don't like the ad don't vote for him, its that simple. It would be like saying kerry isn't allowed to use his voting record in an ad because he votes on stupid things. Its up to him and if he think it makes him look good he should do it. I think your real problem is that its an effective ad and you don't want him to win so you complain.

By the way moore doesn't sneak around. He just flat out lies and makes up random stuff.

By the way when your a kid, most of the time it didn't matter how many people you had. Half the time someone would chicken out, the smart people just ignored them, one wouldn't show up and even if you ended up with a fight your friends never help.

And yes saddam was connected to al queda, its a proven fact. Saying they have no connecten what so ever, just shows you dont know what your talking about. Saddam wasn't connected to 9/11 but then that has nothing to do with it.
[/b]

Nonsense.

Do some research before you post incorrect statements, please.

We have no evidence as of yet that he had ties to Al Queda. I'm sure Bush is looking hard, too.

Just recently I watched a little segment on CBS news wherein it showed a poll of us Americans on the war in Iraq and some of the misconceptions we had. Somewhere in the range of 25 percent of Americans believed that Saddam was connected to Al Queda - no such evidence has been found. About 52 percent believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction - no such evidence has been found.

Obviously you are a part of those percentages; which is sad, actually. How little people really know about what is going on.

I think your real problem is that its an effective ad and you don't want him to win so you complain. [/b]

I believe my problem is with the advertisement itself and the message it's sending. Get a clue.

It would be like saying kerry isn't allowed to use his voting record in an ad because he votes on stupid things.[/b]

No, it would be as though Kerry started his own militia, casted off the laws of the United States and killed a few thousand people in order to get to one man. Kerry would also come out on television during that time saying that the militia is perfectly justified since the man he is after is a terrorist. Later, Kerry would reveal that he the man may have been pretty cruel, but he wasn't a threat to the United States. However, he would then create an advertisement stating that everyone is better off because that man is gone, despite any real evidence.

By the way when your a kid, most of the time it didn't matter how many people you had. Half the time someone would chicken out, the smart people just ignored them, one wouldn't show up and even if you ended up with a fight your friends never help.[/b]

Sigh.

Individual experiences may vary. Analogies are like that, you know.

Yeah... argueing with an analogy is like argueing with a rock.

Bush doesn't have the right to use people in their ad that don't want to, it's just not right.

Where exactly is this proof that Saddam was connected to Al Queida?

Hey alric, how would you like it if I killed your family and put it in one of my ads saying they were dangerous people? Or how about I suddenly suspect you of terrorism for some bullshit reason and toss you into a cell for a couple years without any kind of civil rights? If you had gone through what those people had gone through, you sure as hell would be touting a different message.

We already know what the Bush administration is capable of, our only chance for redemption is to put a different person into office. If they screw up and commit the same atrocities, we need to get some other person into office. There's just no other god damn way to do it.

I would be supporting the libertarians, but there isn't a chance in hell they would even come close to coming close to winning.

So letting terrorist train in your country and giving them money isn't a connection now? I guess it was only a coincidence that high up memebers of Al Qaeda went to iraq and any of the high up iraq people they saw where just old high school buddies. Give me a break. Its clear that they had a connection with saddam. Doesn't matter how big of a one you think there was but to say iraq has never done anything for them is just stupid.

I guess you also don't consider the chemical weapon(yea there was only one, so what?) they found as proof there was WMD either right? Oh and the illegal missles he had, which he swore he didn't have just shows how creditable his word is. Which is also why you can't call it a illegal war because of all the stuff he agreed to do then never did. It also wasn't just with us but also the UN.

To also say there is no evidnce that we are better off without saddam is crazy. If I went though what they did I would be saying the same thing. I know your going to argue this and say "the war killed more people and did more harm to iraq than saddam ever did or would have done" but I will say it anyway. They are better off now with saddam gone. And before you go and say all the people there was against the war that is flat out untrue. Most are happy to be free.

So letting terrorist train in your country and giving them money isn't a connection now? I guess it was only a coincidence that high up memebers of Al Qaeda went to iraq and any of the high up iraq people they saw where just old high school buddies. Give me a break. Its clear that they had a connection with saddam. Doesn't matter how big of a one you think there was but to say iraq has never done anything for them is just stupid. [/b]

That's simply not true. Saddam himself never had any direct connections to the attack nor to the terrorist cell. Perhaps he did allow training in his country, but I'm sure the same is occuring all across the middle east. Terrorists even train in our own country; the hijackers attended flight school here in the United States.

Even if he did have connections what you're saying is that we should go after a man that lets Al Queda train in his country instead of going after the source of the terrorist group? We should essentially give Osama Bin Laden more time to plot actual terrorist actions while we fight a man that may or may not be letting them train in his country? It would be like trying to destroy an ants nest by killing each individual ant at a time instead of simply crushing the structure around it.

Your thinking is flawed to the extreme. Our troops are being spread too thin - not being able to combat the true enemy, the one that we are sure attacked our country.

I guess you also don't consider the chemical weapon(yea there was only one, so what?) they found as proof there was WMD either right? Oh and the illegal missles he had, which he swore he didn't have just shows how creditable his word is. Which is also why you can't call it a illegal war because of all the stuff he agreed to do then never did. It also wasn't just with us but also the UN.
[/b]

Yes, one chemical weapon. Wasn't it in the form of barrels, too? Not the nuclear or chemical stockpile that our great president claimed we would find.

In addition, the whole thinking that we are going after the man because of his weapons of mass destruction is entirely fictitious. It's a lie. The leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Lee, has recently shown that he has the capabilities to create nuclear arms despite restrictions placed on him by the UN. I believe he has also done nuclear tests. If the weapons of mass destruction for war was a valid reason, why are we not going to war with a man that has actively said he has the capability to produce destructive weapons - and the willingness to use them? Wait, I know why, it's because the war was never really about the weapons at all. In fact, most of the president's administration told him that there were no such weapons to be found in the country.

I know your going to argue this and say \"the war killed more people and did more harm to iraq than saddam ever did or would have done\" but I will say it anyway. They are better off now with saddam gone. And before you go and say all the people there was against the war that is flat out untrue. Most are happy to be free.[/b]

I don't think you have any right to speak for the Iraqi people.

Now that Saddam is gone, they have a new enemy; the United States. The only real ally we have left over there in the middle east is Pakistan, and only for oil relations.

So yes, we're really paving the way for a better tommarrow, eh?

Acid, you're also forgetting that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, so you could argue that the United States had connections to Al Quieda.

I never said there was a big enough connection that it would be worth going to war for. Only that there is some, where you said there is none. Its not just about one man either, its all of his goons as well. Personlly I never would of went to war over WMD and terrorist. I would of went because he is an evil man and we needed to get rid of him. I also think Bush was just taking the opportunity to take him out. His main problem is he used the wrong reasons.

Now if your a person who hates war and don't think its worth it to take out someone like saddam, then I can respect that. I personally think that Bush is just trying to clean up all the garbage in the world, and the world really is a better place with Saddam gone, for everyone. The US, iraq and all the people in the area are better off. So even though I don't like war, I am not going to call Bush an evil or bad person because in the end his goals are noble. How he goes about it is clearly debatable though.

I also don't buy all that UN stuff. The UN likes the play their games and are worthless with this kind of stuff. They would wait untill someone gets attacked then still argue if they should get into it our not. I don't trust them at all and I believe that all the stuff comming out about them taking bribes from saddam are true. Bush played their games, people said he never tried but he did. I really don't believe anyone would have got them UN to do anything. Humanitarians been asking UN to deal with iraq forever and they just ignored them. Its really a joke. You want something done you have to do it and I can't blame Bush at all for how he handled it.

As for other people, I am sure we have a big list of problems. As you said we don't have enough troops to deal with them all. It costs to much and we lose to many people. If we wanted to just roll through a country, kill everyone and leave we could war them all but that isn't really an option.

I also still don't believe the majority of iraq hates us either. There are a lot of mixed reports but most I have seen have been good. Yea there are some who hates us but that will always happen. I think the ones that have a bad opinion of us, are just worried and stuff about us still being over there. Most of them are happy saddam is gone too and when we are gone are likely to be friends. You don't even friends to be around to long either though. If British military was sitting around in the US I bet people would feel the same. I will say I can't be 100% sure, there are a ton of different people in iraq, our news can be VERY unbalanced going either way depending on where you go to get it and then even people living there wont all feel the same way about it. What I say SEEM, atleast to me, to be true.

plus a ton of them taking bribes from saddam are never going to do anything. [/b]

I'd love to see the soure of that Aldric...

I agree with the people who say that only the Iraqi people themselves can judge on it. I think Michael Moore is funny but just taking everything he says for truth is the same as taking everything Bush says for truth. (WMD's?? ) Iraq didn't have a connection to Al Quada (or at least not as big as was everyone made to believe) and I think invading them was wrong. Sure we liberated a people from it's dictator but that's no excuse, there's dozens more of countries left to invade for that reason then.

I think Bush could have chosen to do great things as a president, solved the Israel/palestina conflict instead of backing up Israel at every turn for instance but instead he chose to attack Iraq either for its oil or revenge. I don't really care for its reason, all I know is that it's wrong. I don't like Kerry either... that guys is soooooooo uninspirational ánd boring but I guess he cán get the respect of the other countries back, Bush has no way to do that.

On a sidenote you can't hold it against me that the Dutch Christian Party has wun elections and is one of the few countires to support Bush. I mean heck, my prime minister looks like Harry Potter who would take him serious?

There are two investigations going on the last time I checked. I think one from by the US and the other by the UN, both looking into the bribes. They know some people took money and suspect others.

You don't get respect for bending over backwards to make everyone happy, and I wouldn't vote for anyone who would.