Lifestyle > Train of Thought

The Hypocricy of the left.

(1/5) > >>

Trauma-san:
Mighta misspelled that.  LOL


Anyways... When the U.N. passed 15 or whatever it was resolutions saying Iraq was in violation of the U.N.'s peace treaty with Iraq.... therefore ending the peace, lol.... America goes to war "uni-lateraly" (with 50 other nations) to attack Iraq.  


EVVVVVERY Democrat voted for it (the war)... but now that it's election time, and we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, EVVVVVVERY Democrat talks shit about the president going in.  






Now.  



Haiti.  A corrupt leader placed in power by our former, Democratic, President, gets overthrown by his people.  EVERY Democrat around (since this is an election year) is saying "I WOULD HAVE WENT IN, WE NEED TO GO TO HAITI, WE SHOULD BE THERE, IF I WAS PRESIDENT BLAH BLAH BLAH".... Now, explain that shit to me.


Kerry & Co. are criticizing Bush, for consulting the fucking UNITED NATIONS! I thought they were bitching In Iraq we acted Unilaterally and should have waited on the United Nations?  Well, now that we've waited on the United Nations, Bush gets criticized for that, also.  


Which is it?  This shit gets me disgusted to my stomach, how these fuckers pander to people.  I'll tell you the simple answer, but you DONT WANT TO BELIEVE IT.  


The truth is, the Democrats pander to the Black vote.  They were behind the war in Iraq, every fucking one of them voted for it.  Once they saw it as a chance to Attack Bush, they came up with "Oh, we should have used the U.N."... Now that the Haitian thing has came up, and Bush didn't go in without the United Nations, they see it as another chance to attack him.  Now they're bitching that we DIDN'T go in, and waited to the United Nations.  Why? Because the Haitians are black, and they think if they raise enough hell about this, they'll secure the Black Vote.


Also, interesting to note, they changed their tune, they all claim, about Iraq because we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction.  The logic they're exuding is that it was O.K. to go to Iraq unilaterally (which they voted for!) if it was over WMD's.  Since there are no WMD's, Bush lied and cheated them.  

However, they'll jump right into Haiti, or so they say (AFTER Bush has already made his decision public).  Why? I thought WMD's were the stick by which you measured whether or not to act Unilaterally?


WOULDN'T THE CONSISTANT THING, FOR AN HONEST PARTY, BE TO PLAY THE SAME SIDE OF THE CARD FOR EACH CRISIS?


You know I'm right, but you won't admit it, so let the name calling, bitching, and fighting begin, I won't even read the replys to the thread, because it disgusts me to see politicians act like this, AND THEIR LOYAL SERVANTS DEFEND THEM.  

(before you call me a hypocrit, notice, before the rage and blindness consumes you, that I didn't defend Bush at all in this post... now go ahead and defend Kerry).

King Tech Quadafi:
Of course. I agree. But please dont equate Democrats with the Left.
I been sayin that the whole system is garbage, its corrupt man.

Kerry is a fuckin stooge, this man supported the war to the fullest. Now, hes graspin at straws to find something to attack Bush with re:  the war.


As for the Haiti/Iraq comparison, I understand the context in which ure making the comparison, but i dont think its that simple to compare the two.

As for the Democrats complaint re: Bush's actions in Haiti. I dont think their main argument is that Bush waited, arent they pissed that Bush faciliatated Aristides ouster? Thats what Jesse Jacksons panties are gettin wet over.

Trauma-san:
^ That's a different matter, Jackson & Others are claiming the Marines kidnapped him, etc... and again, I'm not really commenting on what's happened in Haiti, and I agree, they're two totally different stories, that need two totally different approaches... but like you mentioned, I'm simplifying the situation to make a point.  


The comments I'm talking about are Kerry saying he would have went in 2 weeks ago if he was president.  Isn't that hypocritical?  And please understand when I use general terms like "the left" and even "democrats" I'm not talking about everyone, I'm mainly talking about the elected U.S. leaders on the left, they're all a bunch of idiots.  I've said before, also, that the problem is similar on the right side of the aisle, people (politicians) act like fucking idiots, although I don't agree with you on which issues (lol)... for instance, I believe Bush actually thought Saddam did have wmd's, which you would never agree to, but we both agree that the right and left play games consistantly.  

Now_Im_Not_Banned:
Hypocrisy.

M Dogg™:
The Democrats don't fully represent the left, as the left would only use war as a tool of peace, and the further left you go, you start to favor no war. The Democrats favor war for political gain, and since the left is the least likely to go to war, the Democrats use that to their advantage.

Personally, I didn't agree with the war in Iraq because the people there were not begging us to go in, in Haiti, there is huge civil unrest, and Haiti is a very close neighbor to us. Iraq is further from us, were as Haiti is right under us. I would favor action in Haiti because it is the right thing to do. Were is in Iraq, we were using WMD to justify the war, but never had solid proof. Pre-emptive attack does not work, as Iraq had no actual weapons. We never had solid proof. I don't care if Russia, Germany and France were with us, I needed solid evidence to support the war. I supported the Afganistan War, I supported the Bosnia War, the first Gulf War, and action in Haiti I would support, but the 2nd Gulf War had no solid proof.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page