Tsunami Crisis in Southeast Asia

Prep_School · 01-24-2005, 07:03 PM

There's no way America, AKA, George Bush, can take a step back and not give at least $350 million to these people. Supposedly Americas role is to intervene in poor countries, help with the relief, and promote or save democracy from "evil do-ers on the axis of evil." Well, one can argue that if Bush can spend BILLIONS of dollars on his Iraqi war because he's stepping in, and trying to help out those poor people, HE HAS to step in with this tsuinami relief or he's a hipocrit.
Sure, $350 million is a lot of money, but compared to the budget, it's a fucking dent in the governments armor. If he didn't contribute then what kind of president is he to say he's going to step into bad situations in countries that cant fend for themselves, and try and help them out - AKA - Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq. Ofcourse, this is a natural disaster and no one could have prevented the massive and widespread damage it caused, but America has taken this role of 'stepping up' and intervening in places they shouldnt have way too often to take a backseat look over this disaster. Bush contributing millions of dollars was inevitable no matter what you say or else his reputation would been shitted on, more than it is now.

RevrseTheCurse04 · 01-24-2005, 09:18 PM

Hey liberal guy I got a question for you. If the world only started hating us when President Bush took office how do u explain the first bombing attempt of the Twin towers? Or the bombing of the USS Cole shortly before president Bush took office?
Although I think several people were wrong earlier when they stated that it is not out responsibilty to help others around the world. As the sole surviving super power in the world one of our primary focuses is to protect those all over the world in need of help.
However, in response to all the complaints regarding the Bush administrations original proposed offer was explained best by Colin Powell. He explained that this was an immediate relief package put together to get the rescue crews started. This was only a temporary solution until a complete package had been put together. This was contrary to how it was portrayed in the media.

onthefence · 02-04-2005, 08:14 AM

I found this thought I would share

"At the drop of a hat, the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group sped from Hong Kong to help survivors of the tsunami disaster in southern Asia. How are the unmatched speed, range and overall mobility of the American super carrier possible? Twin nuclear reactors. Believe it or not, the USS Abraham Lincoln has been banned from docking at certain politically correct ports because of its reactors. For the moment, global environuts have stopped attacking the aircraft carrier over the nuke issue. But you can count on the eco-Luddites returning to their hysterical protests as soon as all the aid has been delivered. Too much of the world, and too many here at home, take the amazing capabilities of ships like the Abraham Lincoln for granted. The carrier's 1,092-foot flight deck outperforms some of the best commercial airports, launching and recovering up to 90 aircraft on hundreds of flights every day, according to the Navy. Eight steam-turbine generators produce enough electrical power to serve a small city. The ship carries approximately 3 million gallons of fuel, and can stock food and supplies for 90 days. Oh, and those much-maligned nuclear reactors help turn seawater into more than 400,000 gallons of fresh water daily -- clean, safe water desperately needed by survivors. Sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln have reportedly even stopped taking showers to make every last drop of fresh water available to tsunami survivors for drinking."

aMFliberal · 02-09-2005, 07:35 PM

America is now 3 years (roughly) past 9/11. Regardless of ff you're a liberal or a conservative, anyone can say that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse, or a motive, or whatever you want to call it, to go to war with Iraq. Indonesia is a country that could (and I think does) fall into Bush's "Axis of Evil" - which he probably heard in a movie or saw in a video game. Jokes aside, Indonesia is pretty much all Muslim and there are several terrorist radicals sects in Indonesia (remember the Bali bombings?) So maybe three years from now, or six, when we are done flying body bags home from Iraq (and Iran, possibly) we will see the tsunami relief effort as a means for Bush to get the American military into Indonesia.

RidinHighSpeeds · 02-09-2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

America is now 3 years (roughly) past 9/11. Regardless of ff you're a liberal or a conservative, anyone can say that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse, or a motive, or whatever you want to call it, to go to war with Iraq. Indonesia is a country that could (and I think does) fall into Bush's "Axis of Evil" - which he probably heard in a movie or saw in a video game. Jokes aside, Indonesia is pretty much all Muslim and there are several terrorist radicals sects in Indonesia (remember the Bali bombings?) So maybe three years from now, or six, when we are done flying body bags home from Iraq (and Iran, possibly) we will see the tsunami relief effort as a means for Bush to get the American military into Indonesia.

Bush is the one who stepped forward into defeating terrorism. The link below may be upsetting to read as it completely goes agains your post.

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

aMFliberal · 02-10-2005, 07:32 AM

1. Where are the WMD quotes from the Republicans?
2. I never said anything about Democrats saying there were not WMDs.
3. In fact, I don't recall ever talking about WMDs.
4. You saying this link goes against my statement is pretty funny. I said Bush used 9/11 to go to war. It's almost as if you are saying that Bush went to war because the Democrats that were in power before him said a bunch of things about Saddam and WMDs.
5. Don't be naive and pretend that 9/11 wasn't used to go to war with Iraq.

RidinHighSpeeds · 02-10-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

1. Where are the WMD quotes from the Republicans?
2. I never said anything about Democrats saying there were not WMDs.
3. In fact, I don't recall ever talking about WMDs.
4. You saying this link goes against my statement is pretty funny. I said Bush used 9/11 to go to war. It's almost as if you are saying that Bush went to war because the Democrats that were in power before him said a bunch of things about Saddam and WMDs.
5. Don't be naive and pretend that 9/11 wasn't used to go to war with Iraq.

Here are some facts:

93' World trade center bombing killed 6, injured 1,000. Clinton ignored his chief advisor in recommending a system like the patriot act to help prevent these tragedies.

95' Bombing in Saudi Arabia (american agencies) killed 5 us military personnel. Clinton once again ignored his chief advisor.

96' Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia killed 19, injured 200 US personnel. Clinton once again ignored his chief advisor.

98' Bombing of US Embassies in Africa killed 224, injured 5,000. Clinton once again ignored his chief advisor.

00' Bombing of USS Cole by muslum extremists killed 17, injured 39 US Sailors. Clinton once again ignored his chief advisor.

01' WTC, 2,819 killed. Under Bush's watch soon as he took office.
-----------
-----------
-----------
It is now the year 2005 and we have not had an attack on US soil since 2001. We have had 1500+ soldiers lose there lives in Iraq, but they are fighting for our safety which has proven to be effective.

Yes 9/11 happned under Bush's time but if only Clinton had listened to his chief advisor, surely most of the attacks above could have been prevented. To see Bush stand in the ruins of 9/11 and state he is going to fight terrorism and capture the man who did this, was very patriotic.

A liberal friend of mine mentioned that our soldiers do not want to be over there right now. I love this demogog. How could this be if 2/3 of the US military over in the middle east voted Bush.

Maby we republicans should act like liberals by starting arguments and defend a lie. It's so much easier defending a lie rather than a truth.

aMFliberal · 02-10-2005, 04:52 PM

I mean, honestly, you're facts may or not be right. That's not the question. The question is whether they have ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.

The answer is nothing.

Here it is in dash form. I'll make it super clear for you.
Essentially, this is what I said, originally.

1. Bush always wanted to go to war with Iraq
2. He used the "rally-around-the-flag" movement in the post 9/11 months to rally support for going to war with Iraq.
3. Terrorist sects exist in Indonesia.
4. Bush could potentially use the tsunami relief effort as a means of inserting U.S. military into Indonesia.

RidinHighSpeeds · 02-10-2005, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

I mean, honestly, you're facts may or not be right. That's not the question. The question is whether they have ANYTHING to do with what I was talking about.

The answer is nothing.

Here it is in dash form. I'll make it super clear for you.
Essentially, this is what I said, originally.

1. Bush always wanted to go to war with Iraq
2. He used the "rally-around-the-flag" movement in the post 9/11 months to rally support for going to war with Iraq.
3. Terrorist sects exist in Indonesia.
4. Bush could potentially use the tsunami relief effort as a means of inserting U.S. military into Indonesia.

It didn't have much to do with anything you were talking about but I am defending the reason why he decided to go to war with Iraq.

Do you think we should have never went to war with Iraq? Simple question.

aMFliberal · 02-14-2005, 04:27 PM

Of course.