Your President...

[Jason Tate]

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.

[Jared Kaufman]

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.
i wonder if he thinks the white house is in texas...

[RememberFminus2]

I honestly can not fathom how anyone even manages to accept him as even a somewhat legit president. This current administration is one of the worst things to happen to america

[yutsmcgee]

I honestly can not fathom how anyone even manages to accept him as an even a somewhat legit president. This current administration is one of the worse things to happen to america

worse, or worst?

[buysoap]

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.

Bush FTW!

[RememberFminus2]

worse, or worst?


illiteracy is pretty horrible to haha.
yes there were many things wrong with that i was just pissed at the moment thinking about the current state of things.

[Ryan Imhof]

idiot.

[buysoap]

illiteracy is pretty horrible to haha.
yes there were many things wrong with that i was just pissed at the moment thinking about the current state of things.

oh man.. come on dude... you meant Too. and where are the commas? you don't have to capitalize at the start of your sentences put please, how about some punctuation?

[RememberFminus2]

oh man.. come on dude... you meant Too. and where are the commas? you don't have to capitalize at the start of your sentences put please, how about some punctuation?

its probably not a big deal if i dont

[catscradle]

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.

you don't live in the states anymore?

[boysdontcry17]

no surprise here
anyone else feels george bush is just a puppet?

[swirlofhues]

Yes, but Kerry would've been a puppet, too. That man had no opinion.

[Lueda Alia]

Am I supposed to be surprised?

[Broken Parachute]

Yes, but Kerry would've been a puppet, too. That man had no opinion.
That's exactly what I feel. I mean, we all know Bush is no genius and he makes himself look really stupid..but Kerry wasn't exactly a great candidate.

[Lueda Alia]

That's exactly what I feel. I mean, we all know Bush is no genius and he makes himself look really stupid..but Kerry wasn't exactly a great candidate.
He was better than Bush.

[angelusdomini]

i loved how Hugo Chaves called him "the devil" a couple days ago! haha
that was funny.

[swirlofhues]

That's exactly what I feel. I mean, we all know Bush is no genius and he makes himself look really stupid..but Kerry wasn't exactly a great candidate.

More than half of America voted for Bush because they didn't feel any leadership from Kerry. I'm not for Bush, but I probably wouldn't be for Kerry, either.

He was better than Bush.

We'll never know. But a man who cannot have strong opinions from the beginning would (logically) mean that he would not have a strong administration. Kerry was too worried about offending anyone that he forgot he had to make decisions.

[Lueda Alia]

More than half of America voted for Bush because they didn't feel any leadership from Kerry. I'm not for Bush, but I probably wouldn't be for Kerry, either.



We'll never know. But a man who cannot have strong opinions from the beginning would (logically) mean that he would not have a strong administration. Kerry was too worried about offending anyone that he forgot he had to make decisions.

Considering the current situation of the United States, I'd take Kerry over Bush. I'd rather have someone who doesn't make decisions quickly than someone who makes all the wrong ones.

[swirlofhues]

Considering the current situation of the United States, I'd take Kerry over Bush. I'd rather have someone who doesn't make decisions quickly than someone who makes all the wrong ones.

Under Kerry, we probably would've maintained (or had even better) foreign relations before the Bush admin. That's a plus, at least.

At least an indecisive man is a friendly man.

[boysdontcry17]

yea, an indecisive is the thing america needs after one of the biggest attack on its soil

[Broken Parachute]

We can't see what the future would have held with Kerry in office, we don't know for sure...but he was very indecisive on a lot of crap. That was what drove a lot of people away from him.

[Lueda Alia]

yea, an indecisive is the thing america needs after one of the biggest attack on its soil
Nah, America just needed a bunch of Americans and other people to die.

[*crying stars*]

let's face it, there are no politicians left that actually can speak eloquently or run this country without criticism from everyone.

it is one of the worst jobs you could have, actually.

i loved how Hugo Chaves called him "the devil" a couple days ago! haha
that was funny.

it's chavez; sorry, that was bothering me.

[Broken Parachute]

Nah, America just needed a bunch of Americans and other people to die.
We shouldn't be in Iraq right now. Yes, a Sadam free world is a better one...but why aren't we still focusing on Bin Laden? I mean, we went into Afghanistan to eliminate him..and then we go over to Iraq without him and start shit over there. Saudi Arabia are probably the biggest bunch of crooks out there, but we can't touch them because of oil contracts. I bet Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan right now, aren't they allies?

[swirlofhues]

Nah, America just needed a bunch of Americans and other people to die.
This isn't the first time America has accused and meddled in things that haven't been proven. I think it's horrible that we've lost lives due to an attack based on previous aggressions and also currently in a war that more than half the nation does not care for. But to be fair, the outcome could be really good or really bad for the world. We don't know so it's really spectulation, and it annoys me when other people won't try to understand the other side because they've got their minds made up.

[swirlofhues]

We shouldn't be in Iraq right now. Yes, a Sadam free world is a better one...but why aren't we still focusing on Bin Laden? I mean, we went into Afghanistan to eliminate him..and then we go over to Iraq without him and start shit over there. Saudi Arabia are probably the biggest bunch of crooks out there, but we can't touch them because of oil contracts. I bet Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan right now, aren't they allies?

Iraq had strong possibilities of building nuclear weapons, and I wouldn't trust Sadam if I had the intelligence that he had them.

[Broken Parachute]

Iraq had strong possibilities of building nuclear weapons, and I wouldn't trust Sadam if I had the intelligence that he had them.
I'll always think catching Sadam was good, because like I said..a Sadam free world is a good one. But shouldn't we be focusing on Osama? I'm more worried right now about Iran and whether they have nuclear weapons or not. And I still don't think Korea is ever going to reach us with missiles, I dunno.

[swirlofhues]

I'll always think catching Sadam was good, because like I said..a Sadam free world is a good one. But shouldn't we be focusing on Osama? I'm more worried right now about Iran and whether they have nuclear weapons or not. And I still don't think Korea is ever going to reach us with missiles, I dunno.

Well, it's all about priorities to me. Osama is a great threat to America, but Iraq with nulcear weapons was a greater threat to the whole world. And it's not just Iraq, it's basically any country with crazy leaders who are known to use it offensively if they had the chance. I'm sure that Iran will be under watch, too.

[angelusdomini]

it's chavez; sorry, that was bothering me.

... thanks, i guess?

[Lueda Alia]

This isn't the first time America has accused and meddled in things that haven't been proven. I think it's horrible that we've lost lives due to an attack based on previous aggressions and also currently in a war that more than half the nation does not care for. But to be fair, the outcome could be really good or really bad for the world. We don't know so it's really spectulation, and it annoys me when other people won't try to understand the other side because they've got their minds made up.
The main reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be lies, or um, untrue. That says enough to me. But what's worse is invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on America. Yet, some Americans still think that Iraq was involved.

In other words, the Iraq war was unnecessary. Sure, Sadam was evil, but the only people he was hurting were his own citizens, which I obviously don't think is right, but it's no reason for the US to invade. This war is just BS in my opinion. Many lives have been lost for what? Absolutely nothing.

[Lueda Alia]

Well, it's all about priorities to me. Osama is a great threat to America, but Iraq with nulcear weapons was a greater threat to the whole world. And it's not just Iraq, it's basically any country with crazy leaders who are known to use it offensively if they had the chance. I'm sure that Iran will be under watch, too.
If it's about priorities to America, then the nation attacked would have been North Korea, not Iraq.

I can find you video clips where Bush has said (in front of press) that he doesn't care about Osama, or something along those lines. Of course he tries to eat back his words each time someone questions him about it.

[smokedsanity]

I hate the fact that voting comes down to picking the lesser of two evils.

[Lueda Alia]

How odd, I just came across this on Yahoo! right now.....

War price on U.S. lives equal to 9/11. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060923/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/911_times_two)

What a coincidence. I'm not being sarcastic by the way.

[a speedo model]

He was better than Bush.
hahahaha

[angelusdomini]

I hate the fact that voting comes down to picking the lesser of two evils.

when doesnt it?

[smokedsanity]

when doesnt it?

That's what I'm saying, I hate that it does. Not just the past presidential election. It is why I don't vote.

[angelusdomini]

That's what I'm saying, I hate that it does. Not just the past presidential election. It is why I don't vote.

i dnt vote because im not american.

(:

[smokedsanity]

i dnt vote because im not american.

(:

How long have you lived here?

[looksthatkillbn]

let's face it, there are no politicians left that actually can speak eloquently


apparently you have never heard barack obama speak

[cal1082]

no surprise here
anyone else feels george bush is just a puppet?

said the same thing about Reagan

[justinevans]

Considering the current situation of the United States, I'd take Kerry over Bush. I'd rather have someone who doesn't make decisions quickly than someone who makes all the wrong ones.

eh i rather a person make a decision even if they are wrong and then actually live with them and stick with them.

Kerry would make the decision and then blame it on someone else.

[justinevans]

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.

Was this taking out of context? I am just asking. I am not trying to make accusations or anything.

[Lueda Alia]

eh i rather a person make a decision even if they are wrong and then actually live with them and stick with them.

Kerry would make the decision and then blame it on someone else.
I guess that's the difference between the two of us. I wouldn't want a president whose mistakes cost thousands of lives.

[justinevans]

I guess that's the difference between the two of us. I wouldn't want a president whose mistakes cost thousands of lives.

Right, because Kerry didn't vote for that mistake. Congress is also at fault.

[Lueda Alia]

Right, because Kerry didn't vote for that mistake. Congress is also at fault.
I'm sure if I was told the same bs that the congress was told, I might have fallen for it at the time.

Who told the congress all that bs though? And the UN?

Bush had the last say, so the blame rests on him.

[justinevans]

I'm sure if I was told the same bs that the congress was told, I might have fallen for it at the time.

Who told the congress all that bs though? And the UN?

Bush had the last say, so the blame rests on him.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

[justinevans]

want more?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"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 (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[richter915]

President George W. Bush today told Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, "Welcome to Washington, D.C.," although the two were at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.
lol pwnt.

[Lueda Alia]

That doesn't change anything. As I said, Bush had the last say, and invading Iraq wasn't the Democrats' idea, as far as I know.

[justinevans]

That doesn't change anything. As I said, Bush had the last say, and invading Iraq wasn't the Democrats' idea, as far as I know.

Bush has the last say up to 60 days. Congress has the right to pull the troops back whenever. As far as I know, war was never declared.

[Lueda Alia]

Bush has the last say up to 60 days. Congress has the right to pull the troops back whenever. As far as I know, war was never declared.
Are you kidding me? Anyone who disagreed with the Iraq war in any way was called "unpatriotic," and was accused of hating America.

[justinevans]

Are you kidding me? Anyone who disagreed with the Iraq war in any way was called "unpatriotic," and was accused of hating America.

What does that have to do with anything that I said? All I'm saying is that Bush is not the only one to blame.

And that Kerry would have done nothing different. The decision for war was already made.

[boysdontcry17]

said the same thing about Reagan

yep, except this time more people know about their fuck ups

[boysdontcry17]

This isn't the first time America has accused and meddled in things that haven't been proven. I think it's horrible that we've lost lives due to an attack based on previous aggressions and also currently in a war that more than half the nation does not care for. But to be fair, the outcome could be really good or really bad for the world. We don't know so it's really spectulation, and it annoys me when other people won't try to understand the other side because they've got their minds made up.

how?
things have gone from bad to worse
the whole middle east is empowering the rebellion
america isnt fighting an army, its fighting the population of iraq
there's no way to define when the "war" will be won
meantimes theres the north korea/china/india and roghe terrorist cells to worry about

[swirlofhues]

The main reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be lies, or um, untrue. That says enough to me. But what's worse is invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on America. Yet, some Americans still think that Iraq was involved.

In other words, the Iraq war was unnecessary. Sure, Sadam was evil, but the only people he was hurting were his own citizens, which I obviously don't think is right, but it's no reason for the US to invade. This war is just BS in my opinion. Many lives have been lost for what? Absolutely nothing.

How are they lies? Because we haven't found anything? Sadam could've hidden those weapons a number of ways. He could've given them to other countries, he could've dismantled them. But you know what's fishy? They found planes buried. Who buries planes?


I'm not saying that they definitely had them, but I'm saying that logically, it points that they probably had them and were building them. And the only reason people want to say that Iraq didn't have them is because they hate Bush. I don't like Bush either, but you can't prove that there were any yet you can't prove that there weren't any.

[swirlofhues]

If it's about priorities to America, then the nation attacked would have been North Korea, not Iraq.

I can find you video clips where Bush has said (in front of press) that he doesn't care about Osama, or something along those lines. Of course he tries to eat back his words each time someone questions him about it.

Bush did take action towards North Korea and accused North Korea of breaking an agreement. In fact, Bush made an outright statement saying that North Korea was a threat. But we were already involved with Iraq, even if we weren't in the war yet. I don't have information disclosing if Iraq was further along building weapons or if North Korea was. Then again, both denied they had any but they wanted some. B if you heard Iraq and North Korea had nuclear weapons and that Iraq was further along than North Korea, wouldn't you stop the one further in the process?

And I don't know but you might be right about what Bush said, you can find it for me if you want.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

If you are a US Senator, unless your name was Paul Wellstone or is Russ Feingold, you are guilty of being part of the war machine. Paris1sinFlames is right - virtually all the Democratic leadership has expressed support for militaristic solutions before, and virtually all of them voted for Bush to use force in Iraq. They are all to blame.

[Lueda Alia]

How are they lies? Because we haven't found anything? Sadam could've hidden those weapons a number of ways. He could've given them to other countries, he could've dismantled them. But you know what's fishy? They found planes buried. Who buries planes?


I'm not saying that they definitely had them, but I'm saying that logically, it points that they probably had them and were building them. And the only reason people want to say that Iraq didn't have them is because they hate Bush. I don't like Bush either, but you can't prove that there were any yet you can't prove that there weren't any.

Have you read any statements made by important people that claim there were never WMD's to begin with? And that a lot of information was changed around?

I really think it's silly to say that people believe there were no WMD's because they hate Bush. No, it's more of a fact from what I know. Have you read articles that claim that? I actually think I remember Bush admitting that the intelligence was wrong in one of his speeches, but don't quote me on that.

Just type in "Iraq WMD's" or something like that on a search engine and plenty of articles will come up. I did a little search and I'm going to link you to the first results of my search: this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html). And there were other articles about the government claiming that Iraq had no WMD's in 2001, so what changed so quickly?

If that's not enough, why did the administration have to lie about the other reasons? Claiming that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, etc? If there was a good, real reason for invading Iraq, I doubt the government would come up with these other "ideas."

Bush did take action towards North Korea and accused North Korea of breaking an agreement. In fact, Bush made an outright statement saying that North Korea was a threat. But we were already involved with Iraq, even if we weren't in the war yet. I don't have information disclosing if Iraq was further along building weapons or if North Korea was. Then again, both denied they had any but they wanted some. B if you heard Iraq and North Korea had nuclear weapons and that Iraq was further along than North Korea, wouldn't you stop the one further in the process?

And I don't know but you might be right about what Bush said, you can find it for me if you want.
Haha of course NK was ahead of Iraq, especially since NK actually admitted to having WMD's, while Iraq having them was never a fact, just skewed information.

I'm so surprised you don't know about Bush saying that. Kerry actually brought it up in one of the debates. Did you follow any of them?

Either way, I'm going to try to find the video but it's not going to be easy, so I'll link you to this article for now: Article/Video (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/).

Hmm... I found it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrv4MbnEgl0). I think that is the one. And look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7fS2p2ZmCA) too.

The Iraq war was one of the worst ideas ever since Vietnam. In fact, I've always thought of it as Vietnam #2. It's hard to believe that anyone would think that invading Iraq would be a good idea, since nothing good has come out of it. Yes, Saddam was captured, but was he worth all this? No, he wasn't. There was absolutely no reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11th, when there were other countries out there (ie. NK) that were a bigger threat - the real threat.

Anyway, that's all I can really say. I'm not going to convince you that the Bush administration was/is wrong or whatever, you're free to believe whatever you want. This is simply my opinion because of several things I've read throughout these 3 years.

[cal1082]

Have you read any statements made by important people that claim there were never WMD's to begin with? And that a lot of information was changed around?

I really think it's silly to say that people believe there were no WMD's because they hate Bush. No, it's more of a fact from what I know. Have you read articles that claim that? I actually think I remember Bush admitting that the intelligence was wrong in one of his speeches, but don't quote me on that.

Just type in "Iraq WMD's" or something like that on a search engine and plenty of articles will come up. I did a little search and I'm going to link you to the first results of my search: this (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html). And there were other articles about the government claiming that Iraq had no WMD's in 2001, so what changed so quickly?

If that's not enough, why did the administration have to lie about the other reasons? Claiming that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda, etc? If there was a good, real reason for invading Iraq, I doubt the government would come up with these other "ideas."


Haha of course NK was ahead of Iraq, especially since NK actually admitted to having WMD's, while Iraq having them was never a fact, just skewed information.

I'm so surprised you don't know about Bush saying that. Kerry actually brought it up in one of the debates. Did you follow any of them?

Either way, I'm going to try to find the video but it's not going to be easy, so I'll link you to this article for now: Article/Video (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/14/barnes-osama/).

Hmm... I found it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrv4MbnEgl0). I think that is the one. And look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7fS2p2ZmCA) too.

The Iraq war was one of the worst ideas ever since Vietnam. In fact, I've always thought of it as Vietnam #2. It's hard to believe that anyone would think that invading Iraq would be a good idea, since nothing good has come out of it. Yes, Saddam was captured, but was he worth all this? No, he wasn't. There was absolutely no reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with Sept. 11th, when there were other countries out there (ie. NK) that were a bigger threat - the real threat.

Anyway, that's all I can really say. I'm not going to convince you that the Bush administration was/is wrong or whatever, you're free to believe whatever you want. This is simply my opinion because of several things I've read throughout these 3 years.

That's seems like a big contradiction. You say there's no reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...........then bring up North Korea?

Fact is.........our intelligence about the North Korea seems about as incomplete as that of Iraq. How can you assume they are the "real" threat when they attempt to test a missile and it fails 30 secs after its launch?

Makes no sense? If anything I question our intel on North Korea more than Iraq based on the fact of how closed off they are to the world.

[konstantine94]

I honestly cannot wait till Bush gets the fuck out of office. I can't believe we chose to re-elect him. Basically, the entire world hates the US because of him and it really sucks.

[cal1082]

I honestly cannot wait till Bush gets the fuck out of office. I can't believe we chose to re-elect him. Basically, the entire world hates the US because of him and it really sucks.

yes because prior to bush we were beloved

[justinevans]

I honestly cannot wait till Bush gets the fuck out of office. I can't believe we chose to re-elect him. Basically, the entire world hates the US because of him and it really sucks.

The entire world probably hates you too.

[Lueda Alia]

That's seems like a big contradiction. You say there's no reason to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11...........then bring up North Korea?

Fact is.........our intelligence about the North Korea seems about as incomplete as that of Iraq. How can you assume they are the "real" threat when they attempt to test a missile and it fails 30 secs after its launch?

Makes no sense? If anything I question our intel on North Korea more than Iraq based on the fact of how closed off they are to the world.
If you read our posts, you'll see that I brought up NK because she said that Iraq was a threat. And I said that NK was as big of a threat as Iraq was.

And the missiles failing? That happened recently. Why is NK more of a threat than Iraq was? Maybe because they've actually screamed, "We have WMD's!"?

[looksthatkillbn]

eda is officially the best poster on this site.

[*crying stars*]

stop complaining.
wow, you didn't vote for him? cool.
it's not like you can do much now.

[FScott]

Okay then since the United States is incompetent which is what you are saying then how would Canada handle the NK situtation?

How does Canada handle any situation: Scorn the international community but hide behind isolationism. Thats how.

[Lueda Alia]

Okay then since the United States is incompetent which is what you are saying then how would Canada handle the NK situtation?

How does Canada handle any situation: Scorn the international community but hide behind isolationism. Thats how.
How about you learn to accept opinions? Canada has nothing to do with this, so you better find a decent argument.

It's still amusing when this happens though, seeing people trying to make others look bad just to take away the attention from the real issue.

I never once said anything bad about the states, so really, what you just said is pretty pointless and irrelevant.

[cal1082]

If you read our posts, you'll see that I brought up NK because she said that Iraq was a threat. And I said that NK was as big of a threat as Iraq was.

And the missiles failing? That happened recently. Why is NK more of a threat than Iraq was? Maybe because they've actually screamed, "We have WMD's!"?

And we believe them, so that makes them more of a threat?

All of Iraq's actions screamed "We have WMD's!".

I for one believe action over words.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

And we believe them, so that makes them more of a threat?

All of Iraq's actions screamed "We have WMD's!".

I for one believe action over words.

Or they screamed "I will not prostrate myself before your psychotic crusade just because you're on a power trip and my word, and the word of anyone who's investigated these facilities, isn't good enough for you." At this point it has become readily apparent that the Bush admin we're going to build the case for war against Iraq, no matter how much they had to pick and choose from intelligence reports to do so.

That being said, everyone who's making the "North Korea is a bigger deal, invade that" argument is dumb. That's not how politics work. It takes a either (a) lot of time, or (b) a huge bipartisan consensus to push a major policy item, especially something like a war. Afghanistan had (b). Iraq was definitely (a). The PNAC and various neo-con think tanks have been planning this invasion since the 90s. The idea that someone could've just piped up, "Well, if we're gonna have a war, why not North Korea?" is silly. It just wasn't on the policy agenda at the time. It's naive to say that's what should have happened.

[Lueda Alia]

Or they screamed "I will not prostrate myself before your psychotic crusade just because you're on a power trip and my word, and the word of anyone who's investigated these facilities, isn't good enough for you." At this point it has become readily apparent that the Bush admin we're going to build the case for war against Iraq, no matter how much they had to pick and choose from intelligence reports to do so.

That being said, everyone who's making the "North Korea is a bigger deal, invade that" argument is dumb. That's not how politics work. It takes a either (a) lot of time, or (b) a huge bipartisan consensus to push a major policy item, especially something like a war. Afghanistan had (b). Iraq was definitely (a). The PNAC and various neo-con think tanks have been planning this invasion since the 90s. The idea that someone could've just piped up, "Well, if we're gonna have a war, why not North Korea?" is silly. It just wasn't on the policy agenda at the time. It's naive to say that's what should have happened.
Who said it should have happened? You clearly missed the point.

I only brought up NK to show that the war in Iraq wasn't because of "fear" or because Iraq threatenend the US. It was for other reasons which we do not know, yet.

[Lueda Alia]

And we believe them, so that makes them more of a threat?

All of Iraq's actions screamed "We have WMD's!".

I for one believe action over words.
Considering that the intelligence was skewed, I would choose the "words" over the "actions" this time. Though I don't remember any real actions speaking to us...

[swirlofhues]

you got me a bit, eda. haha i don't have much of a response, but i'll reply later since i have to go.

[cal1082]

Considering that the intelligence was skewed, I would choose the "words" over the "actions" this time. Though I don't remember any real actions speaking to us...

You need to look back at Iraq's actions to avoide inspections, remove inspectors, and inability to produce imformation on what happend to their weapons programs.

All there actions pointed to them hiding a program (hence the reason the UN and every other country passed 18 resolutions demanding them to give up there programs!!!!!)

[Lueda Alia]

You need to look back at Iraq's actions to avoide inspections, remove inspectors, and inability to produce imformation on what happend to their weapons programs.

All there actions pointed to them hiding a program (hence the reason the UN and every other country passed 18 resolutions demanding them to give up there programs!!!!!)
I can mention other countries that don't obey the UN laws.

Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm not going to change your mind and you're surely not going to change mine. We've been over this before and it's pretty pointless.

[Justin_stacy]

You need to look back at Iraq's actions to avoide inspections, remove inspectors, and inability to produce imformation on what happend to their weapons programs.

All there actions pointed to them hiding a program (hence the reason the UN and every other country passed 18 resolutions demanding them to give up there programs!!!!!)

there was enough of a reason to push kerry to war as far back as 97' under clinton.......using a very similar bush arguement.

November 9, 1997: John Kerry's speech on the floor of the Senate, [Congressional Record, p. S12256]:
"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent--and that the United States should support and participate in those steps.

We must not presume that these conclusions automatically will be accepted by every one of our allies, some of which have different interests both in the region and elsewhere, or will be of the same degree of concern to them that they are to the U.S. But it is my belief that we have the ability to persuade them of how serious this is and that the U.N. must not be diverted or bullied."
http://www.archive-news.net/Articles/IR041003.html

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

Who said it should have happened? You clearly missed the point.

I only brought up NK to show that the war in Iraq wasn't because of "fear" or because Iraq threatenend the US. It was for other reasons which we do not know, yet.

Oh, you're certainly right about that. This was not a war for security, it was a war to extend US economic and political hegemony in the Middle East. But the smoking gun isn't North Korea, it's the PNAC: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[thejetstolehome]

the president's gonna be in my hometown tomorrow.

[captainhampton]

I honestly cannot wait till Bush gets the fuck out of office. I can't believe we chose to re-elect him. Basically, the entire world hates the US because of him and it really sucks.

thank you for your wonderful insight.

and to Morning Star person, instead of complaining, please tell us how we should be handling the situation in Iraq right now. perhaps you can search some articles online or on some search engines for the answers.

[Jason Tate]

thank you for your wonderful insight.

and to Morning Star person, instead of complaining, please tell us how we should be handling the situation in Iraq right now. perhaps you can search some articles online or on some search engines for the answers.
Now? Leave.

We'll never be able to set up a government that won't be seen by their population as unjust.

[ThatGuy]

stop complaining about bush and start working on doing what we can. getting as many people who oppose his policies in the house and senate

[lightcollapse]

what the fuck, kerry doesn't make decisions? that's just buying into carl roves 'flip flopper' shit, which was straight up bullshit form the start. when you're president, you make decisions. if he was elected the state of america would be 1000 times better than it is now.

[justinevans]

Now? Leave.

We'll never be able to set up a government that won't be seen by their population as unjust.

you can't just leave.

[justinevans]

what the fuck, kerry doesn't make decisions? that's just buying into carl roves 'flip flopper' shit, which was straight up bullshit form the start. when you're president, you make decisions. if he was elected the state of america would be 1000 times better than it is now.

well he was in Congress and didn't really make any.

[Lueda Alia]

thank you for your wonderful insight.

and to Morning Star person, instead of complaining, please tell us how we should be handling the situation in Iraq right now. perhaps you can search some articles online or on some search engines for the answers.
Only someone who's close minded wouldn't like to do research. So nice try.

And I can't give you the answers. It's kind of late to do anything right at the moment. Unfortunately, the US got itself in this situation and they have to manage to get out of it without causing a bigger mess. I don't know how much that is possible right now.

Oh and I'm not "complaining," I'm giving my opinion on the war. But even if I was, if you're American, you should appreciate and encourage freedom of speech, shouldn't you?

[justinevans]

Only someone who's close minded wouldn't like to do research. So nice try.

And I can't give you the answers. It's kind of late to do anything right at the moment. Unfortunately, the US got itself in this situation and they have to manage to get out of it without causing a bigger mess. I don't know how much that is possible right now.

Oh and I'm not "complaining," I'm giving my opinion on the war. But even if I was, if you're American, you should appreciate and encourage freedom of speech, shouldn't you?

I agree about the close mindedness and I understand people have a difference of opinions. However, when it comes to the government there are so many important pieces left out in arguments by either side along with important information we don't always have the liberty of knowing. And though people may look at both sides, they don't look at it with an open mind. They look at it with a prove my opinion wrong and then maybe I'll consider it. Instead of taking in both sides and making an intelligent opinion from that. It is just a simple human quality for us to protect our views before we accept the rationality of someone else's. We are all guilty parties when it comes to this. I don't always agree with the left-wing bias that seems to be part of this website, but whatever. It is your opinion. If we can't be civil and have an intelligent debate, there is no point in debating if neither side is truly willing to open up. We have alot of people who also are fairly young, and I don't want to discredit their knowledge, but there is alot you do not know besides something that someone else tells you and you agree with it just because you had that basic idea going into it.

Also, both sides debate, debate, and debate, but because we are not as smart as we thing, we tend to never offer any rational solutions.

[captainhampton]

Now? Leave.

We'll never be able to set up a government that won't be seen by their population as unjust.

do you know what will happen if we leave? that is the worst thing we could do right now. So we take the troops home, then what happens in Iraq? Iran would have such an influence in Iraq. Terrorist training camps would be everywhere in Iraq. it would be chaos. If we want to get the job done in Iraq, we need more troops there, not taking them home.

[Zeran]

The main reasons for invading Iraq turned out to be lies, or um, untrue. That says enough to me. But what's worse is invading a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks on America. Yet, some Americans still think that Iraq was involved.

In other words, the Iraq war was unnecessary. Sure, Sadam was evil, but the only people he was hurting were his own citizens, which I obviously don't think is right, but it's no reason for the US to invade. This war is just BS in my opinion. Many lives have been lost for what? Absolutely nothing.

exactly. america had no right to invade iraq. and we will never have a right to do that for any country. it's such shit.

[HeyCoffeeEyes]

To everyone who says we can't leave now because everything will be a mess... what exactly do you think is happening right now? Breeding terrorists? That's now. Civil war? That's now. Iranian influence? Not only is that now, but Iran and Iraq are neighbors. If we want there to ever be stability in the region, yes, Iran and Iraq will have to get along.

Did you not see the generals' comment that we lost the Anbar province? Not losing, not looking bad, LOST. They said we've lost the political battle, and if we can't win political control the battle for militry control is worthless. And the Anbar province is 1/3rd of the country.

At what point do we cut our losses? How many American corpses have to come home in crates before we're allowed to leave? Because if your waiting for "stability", I can tell you now it isn't coming.

[justinevans]

To everyone who says we can't leave now because everything will be a mess... what exactly do you think is happening right now? Breeding terrorists? That's now. Civil war? That's now. Iranian influence? Not only is that now, but Iran and Iraq are neighbors. If we want there to ever be stability in the region, yes, Iran and Iraq will have to get along.

Did you not see the generals' comment that we lost the Anbar province? Not losing, not looking bad, LOST. They said we've lost the political battle, and if we can't win political control the battle for militry control is worthless. And the Anbar province is 1/3rd of the country.

At what point do we cut our losses? How many American corpses have to come home in crates before we're allowed to leave? Because if your waiting for "stability", I can tell you now it isn't coming.

Terrorists, Civil War, etc all existed far before we got there. The only reason you hear about it now is because the American media is always there to show you it.

What boggles my mind is that so many cared about Iraqi people now, but didn't give a fuck about them before. I understand the war was a bad idea, but when you invade a place and incorporate a new government you tend to be there for awhile. IE World War 2.

[Lueda Alia]

Terrorists, Civil War, etc all existed far before we got there. The only reason you hear about it now is because the American media is always there to show you it.

What boggles my mind is that so many cared about Iraqi people now, but didn't give a fuck about them before. I understand the war was a bad idea, but when you invade a place and incorporate a new government you tend to be there for awhile. IE World War 2.
You said that there was a Civil War in Iraq before the invasion and I've never heard that to be honest. Can you please link me to anything that states that/sources?

And terrorists? What terrorists? I thought that Saddam had pretty much everything and everyone under control. I mean, sure, there's been people who opposed him or whatever, but actual terrorists like there are now? I didn't know about that.

[justinevans]

You said that there was a Civil War in Iraq before the invasion and I've never heard that to be honest. Can you please link me to anything that states that/sources?

And terrorists? What terrorists? I thought that Saddam had pretty much everything and everyone under control. I mean, sure, there's been people who opposed him or whatever, but actual terrorists like there are now? I didn't know about that.

Most of the terrorists, "insurgents" where his followers? The Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd have been fighting forever. No one cared before.

[Lueda Alia]

Most of the terrorists, "insurgents" where his followers? The Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd have been fighting forever. No one cared before.
Yeah but that's different. That's what I think anyway. I mean, he just had control over everything, it wasn't just a huge mess without any control whatsoever.

But what about the civil war? I've never heard that one before.

[justinevans]

Yeah but that's different. That's what I think anyway. I mean, he just had control over everything, it wasn't just a huge mess without any control whatsoever.

But what about the civil war? I've never heard that one before.

It was never coined a civil war because it was really not the people vs the government but it was tribe vs tribe.

[Lueda Alia]

It was never coined a civil war because it was really not the people vs the government but it was tribe vs tribe.
But you surely cannot compare that kind of "war" to the one that's going on right now.

[justinevans]

But you surely cannot compare that kind of "war" to the one that's going on right now.

Why because it is televised now?

[Lueda Alia]

Why because it is televised now?
We can compare the number of deaths that have happened in the last 3 years to the number of deaths that have happened in 3 years during whatever years?

[justinevans]

We can compare the number of deaths that have happened in the last 3 years to the number of deaths that have happened in 3 years during whatever years?

The mass graves being unearthed today in Iraq bespeak the horrors of his rule. Among the occupants of these graves are 100,000 Kurdish men and boys machine-gunned to death during the 1988 Anfal genocide; 30,000 Shiites and Kurds slaughtered after the 1991 uprising; other Shiites killed during the 1980s because of their perceived sympathy for Iran; so-called Marsh Arabs, killed as the Iraqi government drained the marshes and destroyed a culture that had thrived for centuries; and many individual Iraqis of all faiths and ethnicities who were singled out, their lives ended, for real or perceived opposition to the regime.

[Lueda Alia]

The mass graves being unearthed today in Iraq bespeak the horrors of his rule. Among the occupants of these graves are 100,000 Kurdish men and boys machine-gunned to death during the 1988 Anfal genocide; 30,000 Shiites and Kurds slaughtered after the 1991 uprising; other Shiites killed during the 1980s because of their perceived sympathy for Iran; so-called Marsh Arabs, killed as the Iraqi government drained the marshes and destroyed a culture that had thrived for centuries; and many individual Iraqis of all faiths and ethnicities who were singled out, their lives ended, for real or perceived opposition to the regime.
But compare that to the number of Iraqis that have died in only 3 years? I don't think there's a comparison.

And I'd like to have a link to your sources.

[justinevans]

But compare that to the number of Iraqis that have died in only 3 years? I don't think there's a comparison.

And I'd like to have a link to your sources.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/07/18/iraq12965.htm

better one

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html

though that helps you but it is a war.

[Lueda Alia]

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/07/18/iraq12965.htm

better one

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html

though that helps you but it is a war.
Well the "better" link says this:


Saddam: between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqis killed (includes Kurds)

U.S. Occupation: about 100,000 killed directly or indirectly (includes Kurds)


I'd like to point out that that article was written in 2004. So, what are the numbers today? In 2006? I'm sure the number of the deaths is a lot higher, and lets not forget, the deaths caused by Saddam's regine have happened over 20+ years, while these other deaths have happened over only 3 years.

[justinevans]

Well the "better" link says this:

I'd like to point out that that article was written in 2004. So, what are the numbers today? In 2006? I'm sure the number of the deaths is a lot higher, and lets not forget, the deaths caused by Saddam's regine have happened over 20+ years, while these other deaths have happened over only 3 years.

Yeah it says that, but you also have to put annually. Also those numbers include Iraqi soldiers and insurgents. The civilian death is actually lower.

[konstantine94]

The entire world probably hates you too.


well, thank you for that. it was very mature of you. i'm sorry if i offended you in any way, and i mean that.

i just mean that i think we were respected a bit more before Bush was in office. we were and should still be the country everyone wants to be. i love being an american either way.

[justinevans]

well, thank you for that. it was very mature of you. i'm sorry if i offended you in any way, and i mean that.

i just mean that i think we were respected a bit more before Bush was in office. we were and should still be the country everyone wants to be. i love being an american either way.

It was joke, sarcasm.

We've been hated since we took over after World War 2.

[Lueda Alia]

It was joke, sarcasm.

We've been hated since we took over after World War 2.
Not as much as you're hated/disliked now, though.

[cal1082]

Yeah but that's different. That's what I think anyway. I mean, he just had control over everything, it wasn't just a huge mess without any control whatsoever.

But what about the civil war? I've never heard that one before.

It wasnt a huge mess because he simply killed every political opponent and crush any sort of rebellion before it happened. I suppose if the US wanted to we could do that but they dont.

[1Roth4]

did you really make a thread about this?

[justinevans]

Not as much as you're hated/disliked now, though.

eh, whats another country or two?

[Lueda Alia]

It wasnt a huge mess because he simply killed every political opponent and crush any sort of rebellion before it happened. I suppose if the US wanted to we could do that but they dont.
That still doesn't erase numbers.

[Lueda Alia]

eh, whats another country or two?
How about this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence)?

I don't know how anyone can continue to support the war in Iraq. It's a failed mission.

[Love As Arson]

The US was complicit in the murder of Iraqis under Saddam, as we supplied him with weaponry and gas which he then used against his people.

[a speedo model]

How about this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence)?

I don't know how anyone can continue to support the war in Iraq. It's a failed mission.
Saddam hussein's behind bars, i consider it a success

[Lueda Alia]

Saddam hussein's behind bars, i consider it a success
And does that outweigh the bad?

[cal1082]

The US was complicit in the murder of Iraqis under Saddam, as we supplied him with weaponry and gas which he then used against his people.

Yes.............as a car salesman is complicent in a drunk driving accident

Fact is that the weapons were supplied during the Iraq/Iran war without any prediction that he'd use it against his own people.

Now if you want to criticize supplying this stuff to Iraq to fight Iran............go for it. But the list of countries who did is long and strong and includes a # of western countries.

[captainhampton]

And does that outweigh the bad?

so you think the US should not be over in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east? we should just mind our own business? please tell me that's not the case.

[Lueda Alia]

so you think the US should not be over in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east? we should just mind our own business? please tell me that's not the case.
No, the US should have never gone to Iraq. Tell me what good has come out of being there and can someone please remind me what the US is trying to do now? What is the "mission" or "job" these days? If it is to kill all terrorists, then it's never going to happen. If it's to establish democracy in Iraq, be prepared to stay there for a long, long time.

I'd also like to point out that I read an article today which stated that most Iraqis support attacks on US troops and that they want them to leave.

Read (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion_5;_ylt=AoGgTqx80PZvIi CL0xgPgmibOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4 yBHNlYwNmYw--).

[a speedo model]

No, the US should have never gone to Iraq. Tell me what good has come out of being there and can someone please remind me what the US is trying to do now? What is the "mission" or "job" these days? If it is to kill all terrorists, then it's never going to happen. If it's to establish democracy in Iraq, be prepared to stay there for a long, long time.

I'd also like to point out that I read an article today which stated that most Iraqis support attacks on US troops and that they want them to leave.

Read (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion_5;_ylt=AoGgTqx80PZvIi CL0xgPgmibOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4 yBHNlYwNmYw--).
Saddam Hussein's behind bars

[Lueda Alia]

Saddam Hussein's behind bars
You didn't answer my question earlier....

[Lueda Alia]

I also have to say that as much as I disagree with the US on the war in Iraq, I seriously felt/feel so bad after reading that article. I can't imagine what it'd be like to have a loved one shipped over there.

[a speedo model]

And does that outweigh the bad?
what bad do you speak of?

[captainhampton]

No we will never be able to stop ALL terrorists, you are right. but if you think that means that we should give no effort at all, then you are wrong. we have done a lot of good. remember the Taliban? how powerful are they now, not very. We have done lots to stop Al-Qaeda including capturing many of their top guys. We've come close to Bin Laden, and WE WILL find him. We are making an EFFORT. How many other countries can say that besides England? do you know how much a problem terrorism is. you need to stop reading articles and realize how big a problem it is. to say we shouldn't be making some sort of effort at all in the middle east is absurd.

[Lueda Alia]

No we will never be able to stop ALL terrorists, you are right. but if you think that means that we should give no effort at all, then you are wrong. we have done a lot of good. remember the Taliban? how powerful are they now, not very. We have done lots to stop Al-Qaeda including capturing many of their top guys. We've come close to Bin Laden, and WE WILL find him. We are making an EFFORT. How many other countries can say that besides England? do you know how much a problem terrorism is. you need to stop reading articles and realize how big a problem it is. to say we shouldn't be making some sort of effort at all in the middle east is absurd.
Um, if I stopped reading and doing research, I'd be pretty ignorant. Just curious, how do you get your information if you're so against reading?

I never said effort shouldn't be made. Yes, we should try, but this time, the US tried the wrong way because they attacked a country that had absolutely nothing to do with "terrorism." Not toward other countries, at least.

Do I support the war in Afghanistan? Yes, I do. There's a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, though. Figure it out yourself.

[leftstranded]

Do I support the war in Afghanistan? Yes, I do. There's a difference between Iraq and Afghanistan, though. Figure it out yourself.
this is where i see a lot of people go wrong. they don't understand that there is a difference

[captainhampton]

umm yeah i understand the difference. that's why I asked you if you about the "middle east" and not about Iraq. you've been conisistent in saying bring the troops home. why didn't you say move the troops to afghanistan.

[Lueda Alia]

umm yeah i understand the difference. that's why I asked you if you about the "middle east" and not about Iraq. you've been conisistent in saying bring the troops home. why didn't you say move the troops to afghanistan.
Oh have I now? When did I say that the troops should come back home now?

[captainhampton]

Oh have I now? When did I say that the troops should come back home now?
my bad, that was Tate

[concretedetail]

hes a busy man, give him a break...

[geddyleesays]

I honestly can not fathom how anyone even manages to accept him as even a somewhat legit president. This current administration is one of the worst things to happen to america


ahahah. jump on the hate-bush bandwagon.

god damn. it doesn't matter what president we have, people like you will bitch. get out of the country, geez.

[justinevans]

ahahah. jump on the hate-bush bandwagon.

god damn. it doesn't matter what president we have, people like you will bitch. get out of the country, geez.

if you don't like it you can go fudge yourself and get the fudge out...God Cartman owns.

[rocktometal]

yeah i guess your right

[thejetstolehome]

ahahah. jump on the hate-bush bandwagon.

god damn. it doesn't matter what president we have, people like you will bitch. get out of the country, geez.

i love how whenever someone doesn't approve of the president or his administration, he or she MUST be on a bandwagon. they must not have their own beliefs or anything. no, no, no, no they just dislike the president because it's the cool thing to do.

:hitself:

[justinevans]

i love how whenever someone doesn't approve of the president or his administration, he or she MUST be on a bandwagon. they must not have their own beliefs or anything. no, no, no, no they just dislike the president because it's the cool thing to do.

:hitself:

well the thing is that alot of the people say they hate bush, but they really don't know why. They offer no substance to a debate about his presidency other than he is bad. And many of them do not form their own beliefs. Their opinion is what someone else says...For example look at the guy in here that posted some article someone else wrote as his own. People find comfort in being able to point the finger at someone.

[thejetstolehome]

well the thing is that alot of the people say they hate bush, but they really don't know why. They offer no substance to a debate about his presidency other than he is bad. And many of them do not form their own beliefs. Their opinion is what someone else says...For example look at the guy in here that posted some article someone else wrote as his own. People find comfort in being able to point the finger at someone.

but how do we know that the poster didn't have his own beliefs and found an article or piece of writing that helps to articulate said beliefs more effectively?

[rocktometal]

but how do we know that the poster didn't have his own beliefs and found an article or piece of writing that helps to articulate said beliefs more effectively?

if that was the case he could have quoted or referenced the article. truth is that very few of us are really fair judges on the caibur of a president. only insiders that see the actual decisions of the President are realy capable of making an adequate decision. however we can criticize or praise the decisions that we know he did make. so instead of calling bush "the worst president ever", a wiser statement might be that bush did not go into iraq as fully prepared as he could have and has closed himself off to differing points of view on the matter." this argument is much more viable and sounds like you at least have some amount of knowledge concerning politics.

[BreakerBreaker]

Bush is the worst president ever.

[rocktometal]

Bush is the worst president ever.

a sense of humor is a valued posession among those who have it.

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=175294&page=3
end of page 2 had some good points as well

[thejetstolehome]

if that was the case he could have quoted or referenced the article. truth is that very few of us are really fair judges on the caibur of a president. only insiders that see the actual decisions of the President are realy capable of making an adequate decision. however we can criticize or praise the decisions that we know he did make. so instead of calling bush "the worst president ever", a wiser statement might be that bush did not go into iraq as fully prepared as he could have and has closed himself off to differing points of view on the matter." this argument is much more viable and sounds like you at least have some amount of knowledge concerning politics.

i'm pretty sure he did post the whole article or linked to it. i'm not sure if justin and i are referring to the same thread/poster but, yea haha.

anyway, i do not think bush is a great president--i don't think he's made the country safe, i disagree with his stances on social issues--tax cuts, abortion, gays, etc. i'm not gonna call him the "worst," though i'd love to, because i obviously don't have extensive knowledge on EVERY president.

[rocktometal]

actually my least favorite president would probably be john k kennedy, and im not just saying that because im a republican. if he hadn't become a martyr, more people might agree. main reason: he got us into vietnam, did nothing to help the civil rights issue until it was front page news

[rocktometal]

side note: bay of pigs, major flop

[justinevans]

but how do we know that the poster didn't have his own beliefs and found an article or piece of writing that helps to articulate said beliefs more effectively?

You really have overestimated our generation.

[justinevans]

i'm pretty sure he did post the whole article or linked to it. i'm not sure if justin and i are referring to the same thread/poster but, yea haha.

anyway, i do not think bush is a great president--i don't think he's made the country safe, i disagree with his stances on social issues--tax cuts, abortion, gays, etc. i'm not gonna call him the "worst," though i'd love to, because i obviously don't have extensive knowledge on EVERY president.

He wrote the first paragraph, and then he linked the rest, but he said he hated America...but in fact he told us why that guy hated America.

[thejetstolehome]

actually my least favorite president would probably be john k kennedy, and im not just saying that because im a republican. if he hadn't become a martyr, more people might agree. main reason: he got us into vietnam, did nothing to help the civil rights issue until it was front page news

i think i've heard a few times that had he stayed in office longer, he was considering moving the troops out of vietnam--or drastically reducing the numbers. the real blame for 'nam should fall on johnson, though.

speaking of that family, i wish bobby had never been shot...

[thejetstolehome]

You really have overestimated our generation.

i'm just sick and fucking tired of people saying that we, the people who don't approve of W, do so only because it's the cool thing to do.

[rocktometal]

He wrote the first paragraph, and then he linked the rest, but he said he hated America...but in fact he told us why that guy hated America.

yeah the guys a retard, guys like him are everywhere-both for and against bush

[justinevans]

yeah the guys a retard, guys like him are everywhere-both for and against bush

he's not that bad, cause he can support his opinion. Alot of other people can't...both for or against.

edit: i thought you were talking about jetstolehome

[thejetstolehome]

yeah the guys a retard, guys like him are everywhere-both for and against bush

exactly. there are idiots, fanatics, sycophants, whatever, on both sides of the spectrum.

[justinevans]

i'm just sick and fucking tired of people saying that we, the people who don't approve of W, do so only because it's the cool thing to do.

Oh and anyone who supports him is an idiot, right?

[rocktometal]

i think i've heard a few times that had he stayed in office longer, he was considering moving the troops out of vietnam--or drastically reducing the numbers. the real blame for 'nam should fall on johnson, though.

speaking of that family, i wish bobby had never been shot...

johnson wasn't much of a president either. he and kennedy started a trend of average to sub-par presidents that has only been broken by ronanld reagon. i dont think it has to do with party politics i think it is just a result of a terrible system. i maen c'mon look at the last presidential election- bush vs. kerry. lose -lose situation.

[thejetstolehome]

Oh and anyone who supports him is an idiot, right?

no? i didn't say that and in no way alluded to it.

[rocktometal]

Oh and anyone who supports him is an idiot, right?

this argument is going nowhere. truth is modern politics suck, regardless of what side of the fence your on

[thejetstolehome]

johnson wasn't much of a president either. he and kennedy started a trend of average to sub-par presidents that has only been broken by ronanld reagon. i dont think it has to do with party politics i think it is just a result of a terrible system. i maen c'mon look at the last presidential election- bush vs. kerry. lose -lose situation.

i think reagan is highly overrated.

[thejetstolehome]

this argument is going nowhere. truth is modern politics suck, regardless of what side of the fence your on

if we didn't have a two party system, it'd be nice. look at parliments and other such legislative branches in european countries: they have a ton of parties and views represented within.

[rocktometal]

if we didn't have a two party system, it'd be nice. look at parliments and other such legislative branches in european countries: they have a ton of parties and views represented within.

i agree two party system's are overated, parties are overated. you know george washington warned against the 2 party system in his farewell address

[thejetstolehome]

i agree two party system's are overated, parties are overated. you know george washington warned against the 2 party system in his farewell address

political parties do suck. he also warned against getting involved in other countries' affairs. we stuck to that til WWI, too.

[rocktometal]

hey you stole my line

[Slaur]

What a fucking embarrasment

[justinevans]

no? i didn't say that and in no way alluded to it.

you didn't say it, but everyone else has.

[justinevans]

political parties do suck. he also warned against getting involved in other countries' affairs. we stuck to that til WWI, too.

and we had the monroe doctrine.

[rocktometal]

and we had the monroe doctrine.

yes the monroe doctrine. no one ever talks about monroe any more. i think he was one of the few presidents who made a good adjustment from vp to president

[thejetstolehome]

you didn't say it, but everyone else has.

ah okay. that's not cool.

and we had the monroe doctrine.

wasn't that for other countries to stay out of the western hemisphere?

[rocktometal]

wasn't that for other countries to stay out of the western hemisphere?

yeah, the key to its success was people beleived us

[justinevans]

ah okay. that's not cool.



wasn't that for other countries to stay out of the western hemisphere?

yes, and that we would stay in isolation.

Hence why in WW2, for us to have pilots fly for awhile they had to go through the Canadian Airforce and the RAF.

[rocktometal]

yes, and that we would stay in isolation.

Hence why in WW2, for us to have pilots fly for awhile they had to go through the Canadian Airforce and the RAF.
it was an interesting theory. its only problem is it helped set up our "police of the world" policy of today. back then we were protecting the americas now we seem to have broadened our area to beyond what i consider wise.

[justinevans]

it was an interesting theory. its only problem is it helped set up our "police of the world" policy of today. back then we were protecting the americas now we seem to have broadened our area to beyond what i consider wise.

yeah well point the fingers at the countries who asked for our assistance too.

the biggest joke in our world is the United Nations.

[rocktometal]

oh yeah

[rocktometal]

UN we can all thank woodrow wilson for the idea

[thejetstolehome]

yes, and that we would stay in isolation.

Hence why in WW2, for us to have pilots fly for awhile they had to go through the Canadian Airforce and the RAF.

we broke from the isolationist policy durning WWI--then went right back into it by not joining the league of nations.

but yea to the second statement. well, it's factual..not much to disagree with lol.

while on the subject of WWII, i think it's the last war that the US fought in that was really worth something.

[rocktometal]

thats because it was our last really successful war, although the korean war wasn't a total failure, and if nothing else the persian gulf war proved our willingness to take on the yoke of the world's superpower

[thejetstolehome]

thats because it was our last really successful war, although the korean war wasn't a total failure, and if nothing else the persian gulf war proved our willingness to take on the yoke of the world's superpower

well, it's also the last war where the world itself was in crazy fuckin' danger. korea could've been successful but we lost so much ground--we had NK backed up to the fuckin' chinese border but we blew it...

[justinevans]

we broke from the isolationist policy durning WWI--then went right back into it by not joining the league of nations.

but yea to the second statement. well, it's factual..not much to disagree with lol.

while on the subject of WWII, i think it's the last war that the US fought in that was really worth something.

Korea will turn out important if something stems from N. Korea cause we have bases in S. Korea. The problem with WW2 is that now Japan and Germany do not have a formidable army.

[rocktometal]

Korea will turn out important if something stems from N. Korea cause we have bases in S. Korea. The problem with WW2 is that now Japan and Germany do not have a formidable army.

i dont mind

[A picasso blue]

John Warner's not running..


the democrats better find someone better than Hilary

[Justin_stacy]

John Warner's not running..


the democrats better find someone better than Hilary

Gore, Obama, Kerry or Edwards vs. Hilary is how it looks to be stacking up. And Hilary just raised $50 million for a basically unchallenged senate set, which doesn't give much hope to the other 4.

Hell, even foley couldn't fuck this one up for the Republicans.

[rocktometal]

the democrats need to find a viable canidate or they will be lookin at four more years on the outside of the white house. at least the reps have mccain to offer.

[Lueda Alia]

Gore, Obama, Kerry or Edwards vs. Hilary is how it looks to be stacking up. And Hilary just raised $50 million for a basically unchallenged senate set, which doesn't give much hope to the other 4.

Hell, even foley couldn't fuck this one up for the Republicans.
I think Obama would be a great choice for President, but I doubt America's ready for a black President, unfortunately.

[rocktometal]

I think Obama would be a great choice for President, but I doubt America's ready for a black President, unfortunately.

or a woman either

[thejetstolehome]

I think Obama would be a great choice for President, but I doubt America's ready for a black President, unfortunately.

i feel the same way. also, i think it's too early for him to run. i think he should wait a few more terms to run. even if he is a great candidate, i think people would be apprehensive to vote for someone with so little experience. i could be wrong, though; and i hope i am.

[kshtoinks12]

Oh golly gee, a man had a brain cramp, not like he graduated from ivy league or anything.

[rocktometal]

i feel the same way. also, i think it's too early for him to run. i think he should wait a few more terms to run. even if he is a great candidate, i think people would be apprehensive to vote for someone with so little experience. i could be wrong, though; and i hope i am.

supposedly he is seriously considering running. my 2008 prediction is mccain vs. obama. with mccain winning the election. i think obama will become president but not in 2008, his resume isn't strong enough yet. ill even bet on vps-dems will go will hillary(i didn't know they made women so power hungary, but she has a habit of putting her foot in her mouthe, she could easily screw up leaving the door open for someone else), and reps will go with condelezza (it is a bit of a reach, but she could offset some of the women and ethnic vote that may have gone with the dems otherwise). any other predictions out there?