User talk:149.169.45.2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] George W. Bush

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for the contributions! We're always happy to have new Wikipedians with a serious interest in improving articles! As you can see, we're also very keen on maintaining a neutral point of view (or NPOV) in all articles. Unfortunately, some of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and have been reverted. There's a great article about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. We thank you for your interest in helping Wikipedia to be well-rounded in its presentation of controversial subjects, and look forward to being able to fully incorporate your contributions! — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Bush stuff

Once again, thank you for your comments on the George W. Bush article. I agree with you that we are all human, therefore we all have the ability to make mistakes. However, making an honost mistake is very different than deliberately causing an evil. The USA is the biggest charitable donor the world has ever seen. Things get done because America funds them. America is not out to "control the world". And the Iraq War is not evidence to support this claim. Everyone, France, Germany, England, etc., etc., etc., all had information that Saddam was a threat. The Democrats agreed with the Bush administration's assesment of pre-war intelligence, so it would be incredibly wrong to say that going to war was all Bush's fault.

Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real... - Sen. John F. Kerry Jan. 23. 2003 Source
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 Source

I have a lot more if you really want them. Now please continue editing Wikipedia with a goal of a Neutral Point of View. Thank you for your time. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


"USA is the biggest charitable donor the world has ever seen" actually, the USA gives the smallest percentage of their GPN to charity in relation to all other '1st world' countries. It just looks like a lot because we have so much, but in reality it is such a small fragment of our wealth. I would argue against the idea that A) America is out their for other people's interest more than their own and B) that all those other countries actually viewed Iraq as a real threat. Some were more inclined to go along with American stand point as a 'kissing butt' method. That is, we are the wealthiest and we have control over so much global economy so that to not agree with our political agenda comes at a great cost in countries that simply could never aford that cost.

It is beyond doubt that this war was full of mistakes and errors. No matter if one is for or against it, this must be recognized. Furthermore, it must be recognized that this war was extremely controversial and forced into happening by an aggressive and pre-emptive ideology. Here in lays the problem. Should wars be conducted by this means? I mean, common. How many lives were sacrificed for all this false informaiton presented? I am a very ethical person. I cannot just sit by and say 'uh yeah, they made some mistakes; but let us look at the future'... no no no. hundreds of thousands in Iraq died, not to mention the great losses on EVERY individual in many ways. Thousands of Americans died. So much mony was wasted on this effort that could have been used FAR MORE PRODUCTIVELY then such a controversial war. A 'neutral stand point' requires both sides, not just a middle side nor one leaning towards one side. Basically, both arguments need to be considered, not just some accepted middle ground.

Finally, Bush himself must be considered. Why did he want THIS WAR so much? Why did both him and his father encourage obvous fallacies? Why? What is in it for them? What is in it for the American interest? Was this really for them? Will our buisnesses dominate Iraq in the future? How much oil will have been traded for blood? Why must we preach democracy when our real interest seems to be economical? There is just too many questions and too much deception for me to agree with such a controversial and destructive war.

think about it.

How many must suffer for this cause which we cannot even in the least bit explain or understand unless we create the same assumptions we are told? The very same assumptions founded on false evidence in previous situations? It is so reministic of our zeal to 'help' Africa, in the end giving them only western vices and exporting most of our goods their rather then them being benifieted in the long run in the least bit. Who are we really out there helping? And who is suffering for this help?

best regards

You just go on believing all your propaganda. I'm going to simply ignore the troll. Just please work on building WP, not muddling it up with conspiracy theories, etc. See you around, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


It is not a conspiracy theory. It is simply a question about how much we can believe. Especially the idea that America is out there to help others rather then themselves. I am working on a lot of final papers right now, but maybe I will be able to provide an ample list and ample sources once I get a break from all my work. Until then, people just think about it and do not accept everything you are told (which is true when you read what I write also). Look into the american economical involvment in Iraq in the future, and ask yourself... Were we told the truth? Time shall tell. And if in the future we do not get heavily involved in exploiting their oil industry, then I am glad and if enough evidence is actually provided for the citizens then I will admit that I was wrong... until then, I am not going to believe what I am told. I want to know that we are there for them not for ourselves... but this does not seem to be proving to be true... and more and more we seem to be there for our own interests rather then theirs.



It would also be interesting to note that Bush's threat for Saddam to step down from his position in Iraq required also that he let American troops basically take over Iraq. Bush basically did not give Saddam a offer. He said, we will attack or we will peacefully take over. Pick one? Either way, Western control would be enforced on Iraq - either peacefully or violently. If Iraq did not want western control, their only choice was war. Who is then the aggresser?

[edit] GWB rant

You have been warned about this before, because it was me who warned you: please stop posting pov rants to the talk page of the George W. Bush article. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 14:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted pastes

If you continue pasting copyrighted material into a talk page, you will be blocked. --Golbez 18:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

  • Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)