It's always the loathesome comparison these days!  It's the good state, Mississippi versus the bad state, Louisiana.  It's the good disaster response, 9/11 versus the bad disaster response, Hurricane Katrina.
Nevermind how specious and dim-witted these comparisons are.  No matter what, we have divide everybody into two camps: the deserving and the undeserving.  It makes for a divisive, jealous, and bellicose national atmosphere.  Tancredo's retarded letter illustrates the phenomenon perfectly.
Now for chrissakes, right-wingers, get this through your sauroid skulls:
THE SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001, TERRORIST ATTACKS AND HURRICANE KATRINA ARE NOT COMPARABLE EVENTS!
(and, no, even your beloved Rudy Mussolini couldn't save the day on the Gulf Coast.)

Grow up you people!

Opps!  According to this Zogby poll/study/report released today, if the election were today, Bush would get 48% and Kerry 47%.

And according to Zogby, Reagan would stand the best chance in an election againt Bush.  Zogby did a match-up between Bush and every presidential candidate since 1976 except Gore, here are the final results:

Bush 44%, Clinton, 46
Bush 34, GHW Bush, 41
Bush 20, Reagan 59
Bush 42, Carter 50

It seems the best chance to beat Bush is....yep, a more conservative republican, namely Ronald W. Reagan.


Actually it just looks like "Anybody But Bush".

Actually it just looks like "Anybody But Bush".


Is that why Bush is beating Kerry?

THE worst.... hmmm, probably not. I think that one falls on either Andrew Johnson or perhaps Grant (but only because his administration was rampant with corruption, although he himself was a good guy). Bush Jr. is certainly one of the worst, I must say. The man and his followers cause me emotional stress on a daily basis.

Last night, I forced myself to watch a "documentary" on TBN (a.k.a. the Christian station) which was actually one giant plug for what a good and godly president Dubya is. Eventually I HAD to change the channel for my own health.

Some of our best presidents. Well I rate F.D.R. as the best one we've ever had, then Lincoln for his performance (npt) during the civil war.

it's impossible to rescue everyone....I hate to be that cut and dry....they are all sad situations, and my heart goes out to each and every family....BUT, regardless if they had 2 people rescuing or 10, 000 people rescuing....people will still die.  It is impossible to reach in every single nook and cranny and make sure that everyone is ok....to think that anything of the sort could ever happen, is unrealistic...regardless of what leader is in charge. I would like to see you, or many other people being in charge of all of the efforts...it's very easy to say, "This should have been done", and "that should have been done"...when it's not you that is standing in the shoes of the person (s) in charge.  I mean, realistically, how fast exactly do you expect the efforts to move, in such a catastrophic situation as this? It's not like they could fold their arms together and blink and miraculously help everyone and make everything "all better"....get real. ::)



Does anyone remember Tropical Strom Allison in 2001?  In Houston?  Flooded it out horribly, ruined alot of stuff...Well, my parents live there, and when that happened...the big thing on the news was that Memorial Herman Hospital was flooded out, no power, no running water, nothing. ....and they managed to save EVERY patient in there.  Granted, Katrina was TONS bigger than Allison...BUT...it was the people working together, and towards a common goal, to rescue and save those patients that made it happen. 

My point being, that yes, there were deaths, but alot less than if everyone in Herman Hospital had just looked out for themselves.    Youre right, Quirk, its probably not possible to save EVERYONE, but in this instance, they could have saved al helluva lot more than they did.  IMNSHO anyway.

I remember my history teacher use to always tell the class that Grant was the worst president ever.

Last night, I forced myself to watch a "documentary" on TBN (a.k.a. the Christian station) which was actually one giant plug for what a good and godly president Dubya is. Eventually I HAD to change the channel for my own health.


You'd think Jesus was the director of the RN the way they play it!

Anyway, THE worst is hard to qualify.  There's no need to compare, anyway.  All that does is distract from how totally rotten Dubya really is!

I remember my history teacher use to always tell the class that Grant was the worst president ever.


I remember them saying Grant was pretty bad, but I remember more emphasis being placed on Johnson and also Harding. Hoover was also very unliked because he couldn't put a "chicken in every pot" (or was it coop) after the depression hit just after being sworn in. Poor guy.

I remember them saying Grant was pretty bad, but I remember more emphasis being placed on Johnson and also Harding. Hoover was also very unliked because he couldn't put a "chicken in every pot" (or was it coop) after the depression hit just after being sworn in. Poor guy.

Hoover was by all accounts an unlovable S.O.B., not a fellow you'd tend to feel sorry for.

I think Grant's problem was his own temptation to corruption, his ineptitude at coping with post-bellum corruption, both of which were compounded by the his raging alcoholism.

These Bush supporters keep pointing out how Washington, Lincoln, and FDR were controversial like Bush, but these other presidents didn't totally suck like Bush does.  Let's go over this again:

Lincoln: controversial? Yes.  Sucks? No.
Bush: controversial? Yes.  Sucks? Yes!!!

Mmmmkay?
::)


First off I wouldn't really call me a real Bush supporter.  Do I hate him, no.  Do I like him, not so much.  I am pretty much indifferent to him.  I was just pointed out the history of this country.  Second if you go back in history to the time when presidents like Lincoln and FDR where in office and you ask people from that time if they thought their president sucked, a large portion of people would have said yes just as your saying yes about Bush now.  None of us know what peoples views of Bush will be 75 years from now, for all we know people 75 years from now might say he didn't suck at all and that he was actually one of the greats.  But then again 75 years from now they might still think he sucked and put him towards the bottom.  You just don't know.  Third going back to what someone else said about Bush being irrational, again if you go back to when these other presidents like Lincoln and FDR, especially FDR, where in office many of the people back then would have said those presidents were very irrational as well.  Look at FDR's "The New Deal" program many people thought he was crazy when he first introduced that and thought it would never work, and look what happened.  Going back to Bush and Iraq.  Sure there have been things that have gone wrong overthere.  Should we have gone in there in the first place?  Maybe not.  But ten years from now if Iraq is a better place than it was 3 years ago then Bush will have accomplished what he wanted whether doing it was right or not.  And 75 years from now the result will be what matters most not so much exactly why he did it.  So saying that he is or isn't the worst US president ever at this point in time is futile, because peoples minds can and do change as time passes.

His approval ratings are extremely low right now.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_ap_poll





Cat

Third going back to what someone else said about Bush being irrational, again if you go back to when these other presidents like Lincoln and FDR, especially FDR, where in office many of the people back then would have said those presidents were very irrational as well.  Look at FDR's "The New Deal" program many people thought he was crazy when he first introduced that and thought it would never work, and look what happened.


Most of the people that sing FDR's praise tend to forget what he did to the immigrants and descendents of families that emmigrated from Axis powers after the outbreak of WWII.

Tens of thousands of Japanese, Germans, Italians, and their children and grandchildren were held in detention camps.  This was done under the guise of "National Security", and none were even cahrged with a crime.  They were simply locked up because of where they (or their ancestors) came from.

No matter what, there will be a percentage of people who hate the President, and will fight them all the time.  Notice how the people that most often lead the "Lynch Bush" movement were the same ones that were sitting around crying "Why are you blaming everything on Clinton" a few years ago.

I simply shrug, chalk it up to partaisan politics, and move on.  I detest people who are so partaisan that they use politics to view everything a person does.

m.

No matter what, there will be a percentage of people who hate the President, and will fight them all the time.  Notice how the people that most often lead the "Lynch Bush" movement were the same ones that were sitting around crying "Why are you blaming everything on Clinton" a few years ago.



Most of us here believe that Clinton was not an angel, but bush has continually been just a horror. Even
his father george the first would rather hang with Bill than jr., everyone has noticed that.

Most of us here believe that Clinton was not an angel, but bush has continually been just a horror. Even
his father george the first would rather hang with Bill than jr., everyone has noticed that.


Just like those on the "Far Right" thought Clinton was Satan Incarnate.

All I see is that the mirror is on the other side, and the same games are happening.

And the next Republican will have the same problem, no matter who it is.  Because those on the Far Left will never accept him, and do everything they can do demonize him.

And the same with the next Democrat ellected as President.

If you think I am wrong, tell me what Republican would you all be happy with?  Those on the Far Right, what Democrat would you be happy with?

I believe that there are Republicans that the vast majority of Americans could accept as President. unfortunately, they're too moderate and/or independent to get their party's nomination.

I believe that there are Republicans that the vast majority of Americans could accept as President. unfortunately, they're too moderate and/or independent to get their party's nomination.


But the nomination is done by winning primaries, where everybody votes.  That is why sometimes extreemists that are not ellectable (Barry Goldwater, George McGovern) win the nomination.

I believe that there are Republicans that the vast majority of Americans could accept as President. unfortunately, they're too moderate and/or independent to get their party's nomination.


They should go independent then, but then there out there in the cold and it's hard as heck to put up a fight against the two superpowers (ask Nader) EVEN IF you start off with people knowing who you are, which is NOT true for most candidates even when they ARE in one of the two big parties.  I don't know if Dean was a fluke or not -- we will have to see.  If you want a strong 3rd party candidate, maybe it has to be somebody people already know about and like.

OBAMA 2008!

But the nomination is done by winning primaries, where everybody votes.  That is why sometimes extreemists that are not ellectable (Barry Goldwater, George McGovern) win the nomination.


In many states, and I know FL is one of them, only registered members of a particular party can vote in their respective primaries.

I wouldn't be unhappy with a sane Republican like John McCain. But it's a cop out, I think, to immediately chalk up someone's distrust or dislike for a president merely to partisanship. Bush has let our people down, IMO. I have every right to seriously question his motives for every move that he makes now, especially after all that's happened in Iraq.

His approval ratings are extremely low right now.


I guess he won't be running for a third term now.

Is that the only reason to do the job well? To get it again?

But the nomination is done by winning primaries, where everybody votes.  That is why sometimes extreemists that are not ellectable (Barry Goldwater, George McGovern) win the nomination.

McGovern was an extremist? Git outta here!
::) ;D

McDonald wrote:
I wouldn't be unhappy with a sane Republican like John McCain. But it's a cop out, I think, to immediately chalk up someone's distrust or dislike for a president merely to partisanship. Bush has let our people down, IMO. I have every right to seriously question his motives for every move that he makes now, especially after all that's happened in Iraq.
I would be miserable with McCain if congress was still dominated by clods like DeLay and Hastert!
:P

I guess he won't be running for a third term now.


He couldn't even if he wanted to you can only be president for two consective terms.

If you think I am wrong, tell me what Republican would you all be happy with? 


I'd vote for McCain over any conceivable Democratic candidate.

Modified to add -

Unless, for some reason Gore ran.

I voted No.  There are other presidents worse than Dub-ya

I voted No.  There are other presidents worse than Dub-ya

"This is the worst president ever.  He is the worst president in all of American history."
--Helen Thomas
A reporter for  United Press International and Hearst for 60+ years, and among the White House press corps since JFK.

As far as I'm concerned, you have to go back to the 1920s with Harding and Hoover to find a President that could even qualify to contest Dubya for the worst President!  Even then it would be Hoover to show and Harding to place!
::)

Jerry Ford wasn't in it long enough to determine, but he does deserve a swift kick in the pants for pardoning Nixon.  If Tricky Dick had gone to the clink, it would have saved us a heap of trouble down the road!

He couldn't even if he wanted to you can only be president for two consective terms.


That was the joke.

I'd vote for McCain over any conceivable Democratic candidate.

Modified to add -

Unless, for some reason Gore ran.


Wow, didn't realize you were that much of a Gore fan. I think he would have been adequate in the job, but nothing spectacular like my man Clinton. He never seemed very likeable either.

Jerry Ford wasn't in it long enough to determine, but he does deserve a swift kick in the pants for pardoning Nixon.  If Tricky Dick had gone to the clink, it would have saved us a heap of trouble down the road!


But then the american public didn't have a hand in placing him in either. He could be the best president no one ever voter for and the best president no one ever voted for at the same time. ;D

I'd vote for McCain over any conceivable Democratic candidate.

Modified to add -

Unless, for some reason Gore ran.



If McCain ran, I would give it conciderable thought about voting for him. Of course a lot of depends on who else is running.




Cat

I, too, would consider McCain, although I cannot understand how he can vocally support georgie after
the disqusting smear campaign the rove and co. subjected him to.

I, too, would consider McCain, although I cannot understand how he can vocally support georgie after
the disqusting smear campaign the rove and co. subjected him to.


Probably as well as any Presidential candidates do after the fireworks are over with.

That is just part of American politics.  I remember the 3-way battle between Reagan-Bush-Anderson.  Reagan and Bush patched things up, and worked together for the next 8 years.  Anderson went and ran on his own, and nobody ever heard from him again.

In many states, and I know FL is one of them, only registered members of a particular party can vote in their respective primaries.


That is actually something I agree with.

One of the thing that disgusts me in California is the "Open Primary" system.

Over the last 8 years, California has had to suffer through horrible candidates for Governor.  This is because Democrats will "stuff the box", to help assure that unelectable Republicans win the state primary.

A great example of this is in 2000.  The main Republican Candidates were former LA Mayor Richard Riordan, and a nobody named Bill Simon.  Riordan was heavily favored by the majority of Republicans, yet Simon won the nomination.  This was mostly due to Democrats voting for Simon, knowing that Riordan having the only chance to unseat Grey Davis, the Democrat Incumbant.

And this works both ways.  I have also heard of Republicans doing the same thing in Democrat elections.  It is because of this I prefer close primaries.  Let the open part happen at the main election itself.

Probably as well as any Presidential candidates do after the fireworks are over with.

That is just part of American politics.  I remember the 3-way battle between Reagan-Bush-Anderson.  Reagan and Bush patched things up, and worked together for the next 8 years.  Anderson went and ran on his own, and nobody ever heard from him again.





I remember that. I was too young to vote then but in my high school, we had a "mock election". I voted for Anderson.




Cat

I remember that. I was too young to vote then but in my high school, we had a "mock election". I voted for Anderson.


My mom was an Anderson supporter as well.  She liked Reagan, but was not as happy with the stance he had to take on abortion.  She did this in protest to the Republican Party making Reagan run on an Anti-Abortion platform.

Most people do not realize that Reagan was actually more Pro-Choice.  When Governor of California, he actually signed the most liberal abortion law in the country.  A life-long Republican, my mom helped the Anderson committie in Ideaho as a protest to the strong Pro-Life stance the party had taken that year.

Wow, didn't realize you were that much of a Gore fan. I think he would have been adequate in the job, but nothing spectacular like my man Clinton. He never seemed very likeable either.
Don't you mean your woman, Hillary? She controlled Bill like the puppet he was. As for Gore...had he won, we'd have been slaves to the terrorists!!

Even if McCain was a Democrat, I'd probably vote for him because unlike Clinton, Gore or Kerry, He has the nads to protect our freedom :)

As for Gore...had he won, we'd have been slaves to the terrorists!!


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's... Hilarious!

As opposed to Slaves to the right wing propaganda machine right?

Give up those certain inalienable Rights Mark, the Neo-Cons are calling!

Don't you mean your woman, Hillary? She controlled Bill like the puppet he was. As for Gore...had he won, we'd have been slaves to the terrorists!!

That's just lot of histrionic rubbish and you know it.  That's the kind of BS Ann Coulter says.
"The Democrat Party is the terrorist party and the Republican Party is the Freedom party," stuff like that.  And then right-wingers have the nerve to say "liberals run on emotion."
::)



I remember that. I was too young to vote then but in my high school, we had a "mock election". I voted for Anderson.


I still remember two Newsweek covers from that campaign.  One was playing card, with Carter and Reagan as kings, and Anderson as a 2.  Then there was the one right before election day with Reagan and Carter both jumping the finish line, and Anderson puffing behind them!

1980--I was still attending the Waldorf school then, so in my class straw poll Jerry Brown won overwhelmingly....and I voted for Reagan (retch, retch, retch)!  OK, I was eleven and clueless, but it still makes me recoil with compunction! 
:-[ :-[ :-[
That year my mom (also clueless) would have voted for Reagan, but she didn't get to the polls on time.  My dad voted for the Libertarian ticket (Ed Clark/David Koch).  He said he couldn't stand to feel responsible for either one of those azz()les (Reagan or Carter) winning the race.  The first year I was eligable was 1988.  Mom and I went to the polls together and we both voted for the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket, which went down in flames!
:P

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's... Hilarious!

As opposed to Slaves to the right wing propaganda machine right?

Give up those certain inalienable Rights Mark, the Neo-Cons are calling!


There are those who find it easier to argue using speculative fiction than cold hard facts

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's... Hilarious!

As opposed to Slaves to the right wing propaganda machine right?

Give up those certain inalienable Rights Mark, the Neo-Cons are calling!



Touche




Cat

I'm clearly a conservative.  Bill Clinton is clearly a liberal.

There were many things during Clinton's administration that I did not happen to agree with. However I thought that he did a great job of running the country for the most part and agreed with quite a few things that he did and said.  I suppose it just might be a conservative thing, but I didn't have my head stuck so far up my a$$ that I couldn't see the good things that Clinton had done. I suppose it's only liberal to blind yourself from any good that a person does, instead it's only right to focus strongly on mistakes and wrong doings. 

I'm clearly a conservative.  Bill Clinton is clearly a liberal.

There were many things during Clinton's administration that I did not happen to agree with. However I thought that he did a great job of running the country for the most part and agreed with quite a few things that he did and said.  I suppose it just might be a conservative thing, but I didn't have my head stuck so far up my a$$ that I couldn't see the good things that Clinton had done. I suppose it's only liberal to blind yourself from any good that a person does, instead it's only right to focus strongly on mistakes and wrong doings. 



Um, I hate to tell you this but that is NOT "only liberal". I know many conservitives who think that Clinton was the worse president and didn't do ANYTHING right (some are board members here).





Cat

Um, I hate to tell you this but that is NOT "only liberal". I know many conservitives who think that Clinton was the worse president and didn't do ANYTHING right (some are board members here).





Cat


I love to tell you this, I'm well aware of that.  However,  let's start hearing from the libearls the things Bush has done right.  What a beautiful silence.

I love to tell you this, I'm well aware of that.  However,  let's start hearing from the libearls the things Bush has done right.  What a beautiful silence.



That is because the only thing that he has done right was his propaganda machine. If you can point out anything he has done right, I will admit to it.





Cat

How many times in this thread are you going to say this? ::) 
Sorry, I'll go back into my little hole in the wall and let you liberals go on and on about things over and over and over :D

How many times in this thread are you going to say this? ::)
I'm not the one who brought Gore into this topic but since he was mentioned, I commented ;)

I love to tell you this, I'm well aware of that.  However,  let's start hearing from the libearls the things Bush has done right.  What a beautiful silence.


I second what Cat said.  I will admit that Bush has said some good things, like "Osama dead or alive", but has done none.  So you tell us what good things you think he has done.  Maybe we are overlooking something.

I love to tell you this, I'm well aware of that.  However,  let's start hearing from the libearls the things Bush has done right.  What a beautiful silence.


I'll second Carlos question.

I second what Cat said.  I will admit that Bush has said some good things, like "Osama dead or alive", but has done none.  So you tell us what good things you think he has done.  Maybe we are overlooking something.


Within your views and your opinion's I'm probably not going to come up with anything.  Our views of "good" things are as far on opposite ends of the pendelem as one can get.  Not everything, but politically speaking.

That is because the only thing that he has done right was his propaganda machine. If you can point out anything he has done right, I will admit to it.





Cat


It's realllyyy hard to say he hasn't done anything right. That's just a little too black and white for me.

It's realllyyy hard to say he hasn't done anything right. That's just a little too black and white for me.


No when it comes to issues involving conservative disagreements, the world is nothing but a picasso shade of gray, but when it comes to liberal arguements...we get our black and white.  Strange is it not?

No when it comes to issues involving conservative disagreements, the world is nothing but a picasso shade of gray, but when it comes to liberal arguements...we get our black and white.  Strange is it not?


That is the problem with people who only deal in absolutes.

Republicans are evil.  Big Business is evil.  Conservatives are evil.  Christians are evil.

I find a lot of the "Liberal" arguements rather childish myself.  "Because I say it is" tends to be one of the most common things I hear.  If you state facts, they say your facts are wrong.  If you state an opinion, it is often because you are wrong, or stupid, or a pawn of the "Evil Neocons".  There are no rational responses, just responses full of anger and emotion and feelings.  But sadly, much lacking in facts.

Add to that, most of them tend to think that they are one of the "grey" ones.  I have asked that in here before, and was amazed to find that a lot of the extreemists in here consider themselves "moderate".  And they honestly seem to not understand why somebody would have an opposing point of view.

Now I know I am generalizing.  And I am not pointing fingers, nor am I placing blame.  Neither am I saying "you are right" or "you are wrong".  I am just saying something that I have noticed in here over the last 2 years.

There are a number that seem to be like me, and able to have a discussion and keep it civil.  But more and more are taking the "you are stupid and do not know what you are talking about" form of response.  I would never throw around the types of things they would, but they do not care.  Anything that promotes "their cause" is acceptible.

Within your views and your opinion's I'm probably not going to come up with anything.  Our views of "good" things are as far on opposite ends of the pendelem as one can get.  Not everything, but politically speaking.


We aren't asking for you to tell us what we think is good, we are asking you to tell us what you believe is good that he has done.  I think it was an honest question, and I for one wasn't being facetious, just asking.

Where has any one else repeatedly said the EXACT same thing over and over?  You've made the exact same statement twice on this thread and once (recently at least, not counting the numbers of times you've said it before) on another.  WE get the point, you think, for some unknown reason, that if Gore/Kerry had been elected, we'd all be "slaves to the terrorists".  Even some of your "fellow Republicans" think that's an asinine statement ::)
And some totally agree with it. I actually made a huge mistake the first time, by saying we'd all be wearing turbins....and then of course, I realized too late that was going to be interpreted wrong. Bottom line, Gore wasn't going to defend our country. Hey, not just MY opinion. I know people here who feel the same way but don't feel the need to come in here and get bashed for how they feel, so I guess I'll take that to heart and not "Bother" anyone in here anymore.

I think that Gore probably would have defended our country when it needed defending better than Bush did, judging from what I heard about the Clinton Adminisration having done considerable work toward keeping terrorism in check and the Bush administration ignoring the work of its predecessor. If you have some sort of tangible basis for your belief in why we're safer under Bush, I'm sure no one would object to your posting it here. And criticism of such points would be in the spirit of debate, not a personal attack.

We aren't asking for you to tell us what we think is good, we are asking you to tell us what you believe is good that he has done.  I think it was an honest question, and I for one wasn't being facetious, just asking.


You for one might.  But let me rest assure you that with what I write down, either I'll be told why I'm wrong, and how what I think is good is actually bad OR you won't have any idea what I'm talking about altogether.

I'm also not afraid to say the wrong I see in Bush.  I'm a reactor to my invironment, Bush scratched my back, I scratched his.  He kicked me below the belt, I nailed him back.  It's not an all or nothing deal, it works in moderation, unfortunately.

I think that Gore probably would have defended our country when it needed defending better than Bush did, judging from what I heard about the Clinton Adminisration having done considerable work toward keeping terrorism in check and the Bush administration ignoring the work of its predecessor. If you have some sort of tangible basis for your belief in why we're safer under Bush, I'm sure no one would object to your posting it here. And criticism of such points would be in the spirit of debate, not a personal attack.
Thanks Ethan but I thinks I'll just stay away :-\\ BTW, I actually didn't hate Clinton. I've always respected ourt president, no matter who it was. I waited until long after Clinton was out of office before I voiced my opinions of his precidency. I know both conservatives and liberals have good and bad points...but being a conservative, I can proudly say that I will never say I will leave the country if the dems win in the next election. We ALL have the right to object to who our elected officials are...but for me, when they are IN office I realize that they were elected and must show support. I don't agree with everything Bush has done but I DO agree with protecting our country. I'm off to relax and "Observe" from afar, keeping my New Year's Resolution....again :D I do appreciate your kind reply though :)

Exactly WHAT has Bush done to "defend our country"?  Last I checked, it was Al Qaeda that attacked us, NOT Iraq.  Even with intelligence "proving" the lack of a link between the two, he attacked Iraq and abandoned the hunt for Osama.  If sending our troops to a country (where there have been no threats made, no "danger" to the United States, no links to terrorism-in fact intelligence showing just the opposite PRIOR to the war) is "defending our country", I'll pbum.

If you want to make valid points about politics, I welcome them, but you don't-you make negative comments about "Billary", Hollyweird liberals and the like.....which is annoying hearing repeated again and again, but acceptable as "opinion" (I guess), if you have the facts to back them up, which you don't.  If there are SOOOO many people who agree with you that we'd be "slaves to terrorists" if Gore had been elected, where are they?  Of all the conservatives that have posted in this thread, not ONE has agreed with you or backed you up. ???
Yep, way to ignore, as you often do, the facts I made. Again, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel, Babs...whining that if Bush were elected, they would move out of the country!! Yup, FACT ;) Dagny backed me up as did others. As for the repeating things being annoying? Yes, it IS annoying to hear the truth over and over when you don't agree with it and that's just one of many reasons that I won't be wasting my time in this shark tank anymore. BTW, the others who back me up choose not to bother with this board and I have the decency not to mention names out of respect for thier privacy ;)

I second what Cat said.  I will admit that Bush has said some good things, like "Osama dead or alive", but has done none.  So you tell us what good things you think he has done.  Maybe we are overlooking something.



His ranch is looking pretty nice, from all the work he puts into it on his vacations. 

Yep, way to ignore, as you often do, the facts I made. Again, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel, Babs...whining that if Bush were elected, they would move out of the country!! Yup, FACT ;) Dagny backed me up as did others. As for the repeating things being annoying? Yes, it IS annoying to hear the truth over and over when you don't agree with it and that's just one of many reasons that I won't be wasting my time in this shark tank anymore. BTW, the others who back me up choose not to bother with this board and I have the decency not to mention names out of respect for thier privacy ;)



Alec Baldwin was against Geroge Bush being elected?  Never knew that, this surprises me.  Billy Baldwin as a alumni supporter of Binghamton University clearly would have voted for Bush, seeing in his battle with Title IX, Bush took his side and Kerry fought hard against him. Well not actually against him as in one on one. Kerry fought hard for the side that was against Billy Baldwin and the National Coaches Association of Amateur Olympic Athletics.

Surprised Alec was against Billy on this one, always saw Baldwin brothers close on everything.

Exactly WHAT has Bush done to "defend our country"?  Last I checked, it was Al Qaeda that attacked us, NOT Iraq.  Even with intelligence "proving" the lack of a link between the two, he attacked Iraq and abandoned the hunt for Osama.  If sending our troops to a country (where there have been no threats made, no "danger" to the United States, no links to terrorism-in fact intelligence showing just the opposite PRIOR to the war) is "defending our country", I'll pass.

If you want to make valid points about politics, I welcome them, but you don't-you make negative comments about "Billary", Hollyweird liberals and the like.....which is annoying hearing repeated again and again, but acceptable as "opinion" (I guess), if you have the facts to back them up, which you don't.  If there are SOOOO many people who agree with you that we'd be "slaves to terrorists" if Gore had been elected, where are they?  Of all the conservatives that have posted in this thread, not ONE has agreed with you or backed you up. ???


Where exactly are your facts that there were no threats made to the United States from Iraq.  It was no secret that Saddam Hussaine(sorry for miss spelling of someone who doesn't even deserve the respect of having his named spelled correctly) hated George Bush Sr with a deep deep passion.  Have it be known, the man had a strong dislike for the United States altogether.  He did say Reagon was "good" and Clinton was "Ok" while being held, so I suppose those could be taken as "peace" terms.  Let's not forget he's a fan of American Froot Loops, so he no way could he have possibly been a threat to the United States, because bombing us means that he might have gotten the plant where Froot Loops are made.  YOu know in the capital city of Iraq, Saddam had a picture of Geroge Bush Sr painted on the floor of a building. You know why he did this?  So that people would come in and out of the building walking all over him every single day.  It was done out of pure hatred for George Bush Sr. 
  So your telling me that you know for a fact a man who hates George Bush Sr, never ever, in any way shape or form made a threat towards George Bush Jr, the man who is the son of the man that Saddam hates with passion.  Or, are you telling me that the media never informed you of such a threat?  It may not be such a invalid accusation to think that the media is going to expose everything that they can get there hands on, but it is rather ignorant to think that the government is going to tell the media everything, or let everything leak out. 

Now granted, I see it your way. George Bush Jr attacked Saddam Hussaine for objects on his own agenda. Primarily to take vengence for his father's defeat.  George Bush Sr has been beaten like a dog for over 10 years on why he didn't finish off Hussaine when he had the chance.  Jr, got sick of it, and now it's said and done. 

I and neither do you, KNOW, that for a fact.  So instead of b*tching at Rocknroll fan to distingush his facts from his opinions, I'd take a good look from within.

I'm sick of everybody generalizing people who deal in absolutes all the time!
:D

I am seeing a trend here and that is of the media. Constantly the media is being referred to as a "source." I hardly find those clear-cut sources anymore. The media almost has me wanting to run amok with so many people backstabbing and yelling and griping and making every little thing sensational. This is the same media that devoted "specials" on the Bennifer break-up and the other Brad & Jenn break-up just a few months ago. How can respect and trust our media when they feed us all that crap?

P.S. I am really speaking of television media. Printed media or some talk radio shows are far better in presenting facts and educated opinions/observations.

I'm sick of everybody generalizing people who deal in absolutes all the time!
:D
I'm sick of everybody in general!

:D

Yep, way to ignore, as you often do, the facts I made. Again, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnel, Babs...whining that if Bush were elected, they would move out of the country!! Yup, FACT ;) Dagny backed me up as did others. As for the repeating things being annoying? Yes, it IS annoying to hear the truth over and over when you don't agree with it and that's just one of many reasons that I won't be wasting my time in this shark tank anymore. BTW, the others who back me up choose not to bother with this board and I have the decency not to mention names out of respect for thier privacy ;)


My friend, statements like if Kerry had been elected we'd be "slaves to the terrorists" make absolutely no sense. Did you REALLY mean that literally? Stop and think about it, for a minute, seriously. That statement implied that if John Kerry had been elected President of the united States, somehow, a few thousand terrorists would be able to come into this country seemingly overnight(he would have only been President for a few months) and somehow overcome all of the security forces in this country, and subdue 300 million people into bondage? Sounds pretty silly when you elaborate it, doesn't it?

If you want to participate in these debates and actually take the time to formulate a statement with actual meaning, thats fine. But by coming into threads like this, and blurting out psuedo-concious hyperbole like "slaves to the terrorists", and then preceding to talk down to us by saying we just don't like hearing the truth, you just embaress yourself, whether you realize it or not. What we want is for you to actually make some type of point, and then have the common courtesy to say why in YOUR word without reverting to sloganeering. Is that so much to ask? If you can't do that, it would be respectful of you to just steer clear of this "shark tank" from now on.

You for one might.  But let me rest assure you that with what I write down, either I'll be told why I'm wrong, and how what I think is good is actually bad OR you won't have any idea what I'm talking about altogether.



Well, that is a two way street. 

Surprised Alec was against Billy on this one, always saw Baldwin brothers close on everything.


You're so useress, Arec Bardwin...

My friend, statements like if Kerry had been elected we'd be "slaves to the terrorists" make absolutely no sense. Did you REALLY mean that literally? Stop and think about it, for a minute, seriously. That statement implied that if John Kerry had been elected President of the united States, somehow, a few thousand terrorists would be able to come into this country seemingly overnight(he would have only been President for a few months) and somehow overcome all of the security forces in this country, and subdue 300 million people into bondage? Sounds pretty silly when you elaborate it, doesn't it?


Honestly, I think that if Kerry were elected, we would be in the exact same situation in Iraq that we are in today.

One thing about a war, it is beyond the ability of just one man to control.  Richard Nixon entered office promising peace in Viet Nam.  Not even he could pull all of the troops out in less then 6 years.

Anybody that believes that Kerry would have had the troops home already has a very shaky grasp on reality.

They probably wouldn't all be home by now, but  I think there's a good chance that the national guard would have been back home if Kerry was president

Anybody that believes that Kerry would have had the troops home already has a very shaky grasp on reality.


Anybody that supports Bush's decision for invading Iraq has a very shaky grasp on reality.


Where exactly are your facts that there were no threats made to the United States from Iraq.  It was no secret that Saddam Hussaine(sorry for miss spelling of someone who doesn't even deserve the respect of having his named spelled correctly) hated George Bush Sr with a deep deep passion.  Have it be known, the man had a strong dislike for the United States altogether.  He did say Reagon was "good" and Clinton was "Ok" while being held, so I suppose those could be taken as "peace" terms.  Let's not forget he's a fan of American Froot Loops, so he no way could he have possibly been a threat to the United States, because bombing us means that he might have gotten the plant where Froot Loops are made.  YOu know in the capital city of Iraq, Saddam had a picture of Geroge Bush Sr painted on the floor of a building. You know why he did this?  So that people would come in and out of the building walking all over him every single day.  It was done out of pure hatred for George Bush Sr.  
  So your telling me that you know for a fact a man who hates George Bush Sr, never ever, in any way shape or form made a threat towards George Bush Jr, the man who is the son of the man that Saddam hates with passion.  Or, are you telling me that the media never informed you of such a threat?  It may not be such a invalid accusation to think that the media is going to expose everything that they can get there hands on, but it is rather ignorant to think that the government is going to tell the media everything, or let everything leak out.  

Now granted, I see it your way. George Bush Jr attacked Saddam Hussaine for objects on his own agenda. Primarily to take vengence for his father's defeat.  George Bush Sr has been beaten like a dog for over 10 years on why he didn't finish off Hussaine when he had the chance.  Jr, got sick of it, and now it's said and done.  

I and neither do you, KNOW, that for a fact.  So instead of b*tching at Rocknroll fan to distingush his facts from his opinions, I'd take a good look from within.


Sorry. but "He don't like my father" and vengeance for his fathers defeat are hardly valid arguments for invading another country.

Honestly, I think that if Kerry were elected, we would be in the exact same situation in Iraq that we are in today.

One thing about a war, it is beyond the ability of just one man to control.  Richard Nixon entered office promising peace in Viet Nam.  Not even he could pull all of the troops out in less then 6 years.

Anybody that believes that Kerry would have had the troops home already has a very shaky grasp on reality.


What? I can't help but feel you are directing that at me.

The funny thing about that is..I didn't say that. At all.

Seeing as NOONE has said that in this thread(to my knowledge anyway, I might have missed a comment such as that, we're all human..), it seems like you are using the infamous "straw man" tactic. Which, if you know anything about debate, you should know it invalidates your argument because you are painting the "other side"(I know you pride yourself on being a "moderate", however im talking on this particular issue) in a negative color using a hypothesis. You can't criticize who you are arguing against for something they have not even said. That is a logical fallacy.

Oh, another thing:

Anybody that believes that Kerry would have had the troops home already has a very shaky grasp on reality.

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

Within your views and your opinion's I'm probably not going to come up with anything.  Our views of "good" things are as far on opposite ends of the pendelem as one can get.  Not everything, but politically speaking.



A good way to side-step the question. Ok, let me rephase it. What do YOU think he has done that is good? That is a simple, streight-foward question. And I want to tell you right here and now, that no matter how you answer it-whether I agree with you or not, I will respect your answer. I am not asking you this question as a trap. I am asking it because I sincerely want to know.





Cat

Sorry. but "He don't like my father" and vengeance for his fathers defeat are hardly valid arguments for invading another country.


Don't forget, Saddam tried to have George Bush Sr. assasinated.

The last time I looked, that is a declaration of war in and of itself.  If Argentina tried to have Maggie Thatcher assasinated, I am sure that England would have not blinked an eye to declare war on them.  And they would have had every right to do so.

A good way to side-step the question. Ok, let me rephase it. What do YOU think he has done that is good? That is a simple, streight-foward question. And I want to tell you right here and now, that no matter how you answer it-whether I agree with you or not, I will respect your answer. I am not asking you this question as a trap. I am asking it because I sincerely want to know.

Cat


So far the only answer he has given has been what he himself termed "beautiful silence"

Alec Baldwin was against Geroge Bush being elected?  Never knew that, this surprises me.  Billy Baldwin as a alumni supporter of Binghamton University clearly would have voted for Bush, seeing in his battle with Title IX, Bush took his side and Kerry fought hard against him. Well not actually against him as in one on one. Kerry fought hard for the side that was against Billy Baldwin and the National Coaches Association of Amateur Olympic Athletics.

Surprised Alec was against Billy on this one, always saw Baldwin brothers close on everything.


Daniel Baldwin was definitly on Bush's side.  No question.  Or was that Stephan Baldwin?  I forget...I think it may have been Stephan...it was one of the less talented ones...he was the one that claimed Bush was this nations only hope. 


Billy Baldwin was against Bush...at least he was in 2000....I remember him on the Daily Show then talking about that...the only difference is that he's much more informed on the issues than his brother Alec, and he seems to be tolerant of him. 

Don't forget, Saddam tried to have George Bush Sr. assasinated.

The last time I looked, that is a declaration of war in and of itself.  If Argentina tried to have Maggie Thatcher assasinated, I am sure that England would have not blinked an eye to declare war on them.  And they would have had every right to do so.


You really need to be carefull with what you say. Do I need to remind you of the many different foreign leaders, and officials that the US has attempted to assasinate? Do all of these countries have a right to declare war on the United States and invade?

Anybody that supports Bush's decision for invading Iraq has a very shaky grasp on reality.



Sorry. but "He don't like my father" and vengeance for his fathers defeat are hardly valid arguments for invading another country.




Dont' be sorry!  We agree on that!

It's why I put, "Now granted, I see it your way. George Bush Jr attacked Saddam Hussaine for objects on his own agenda. Primarily to take vengence for his father's defeat.  George Bush Sr has been beaten like a dog for over 10 years on why he didn't finish off Hussaine when he had the chance.  Jr, got sick of it, and now it's said and done"

I know based on the findings of the 9-11 commission that there was NO LINK between Iraq and Al Qaeda.  In fact, the committee found a link with IraN, not IraQ.  So, why aren't we in IraN?  And, AFA the "threat", it's not because the media didn't report any that I believe there weren't any, it's the fact that Dubya would've used that as an excuse for the war if there had been even one.  And, I'm not talking about a perceived threat, I'm talking about intelligence showing there was an actual plan to attack the US by Saddam.  Sorry, but "he insulted my daddy" isn't even a good reason for a playground fight, much less an all out war.


I question a lot of the same things you do on this.  Although not nearly as negatively critical as yourself, I too am not happy with the Presidents decision about the war. I also view it from a "he insulted my daddy" perspective.  I also think that Bush Jr, would have used that as an excuse too, if the threat had been on the entire United States.  I believe that if there was a threat on Bush Jr, and his family, alone, he would keep his mouth shut.  Saddamm say's, "I'm gonna have my son's rape your daughter's, I'll torture your mom and your dad, then I'm gonna get you"  I don't see anyone in the U.S. seeing that as a threat besides George Bush Jr and his close associates.  So about .002% of the total U.S. population.  So maybe this story comes down to more than in the past, although I dont' think it does.  I think it's also apparent that you believe that Bush himself knew full heartedly that there never were any Mass weapons of mass destruction long before he went looking for them.  You don't know that.  You can't pinpoint that as an excuse, as to why he went into Iraq.  It'd be obvious after time, of not honestly finding them that they become an excuse for staying, but not for going in the first place.

So far the only answer he has given has been what he himself termed "beautiful silence"



Yup, you are right. I was hoping for a strieght answer from him. Like I said, I wasn't trying to trick him or anything, I truly wanted to know what he thought that Bush did right.




Cat

Actually, at first, I DID believe there may have been WMD's of some type there, but I never believed that Saddam threatened to use them on us.


Who was he going to use them on?  Or do you believe he had them for Show and Tell when he went to the local school?

Actually, at first, I DID believe there may have been WMD's of some type there, but I never believed that Saddam threatened to use them on us.

I'm not questioning you on this, but I am just curious. During Clinton's presidency I remember he had had a stand off with Saddam because he refused to let us into his vaults to find any destructive weapons or to examine them (I believe it was the United Nations that wanted to do this). Somehow we got out of this by bombing the area. Now, whether this was effective or not, we may never know because those findings were never exposed until the Iraq war. It sort of unnerves me a bit about that there was this long time before we actually "invaded" Iraq to find that there were no weapons. What does this pose? Were they ever there or were they not? Did Saddam "sell" these to other countries before we could ever find the true evidence?

You really need to be carefull with what you say. Do I need to remind you of the many different foreign leaders, and officials that the US has attempted to assasinate? Do all of these countries have a right to declare war on the United States and invade?


We also have had an Executive Order in place for over 30 years that makes such activities illegal.

The world is a much changed place then it once was.

And yes, any country who's leader we tried to assasinate had every right to delcare war upon us.  I do not have a double standard here.  However, I can't recall any of them that did.

Honestly, I think that if Kerry were elected, we would be in the exact same situation in Iraq that we are in today.

One thing about a war, it is beyond the ability of just one man to control.  Richard Nixon entered office promising peace in Viet Nam.  Not even he could pull all of the troops out in less then 6 years.

Anybody that believes that Kerry would have had the troops home already has a very shaky grasp on reality.

Well, I don't think Kerry would have had the stones to stand up to a Republican congress and say, "OK, you mother*****s, here's what's gonna happen!"
Now if we had my main man Dennis Kucinich in the White House, the troops would all be home doing yoga and eating veggie-burgers!
;)



Anybody that supports Bush's decision for invading Iraq has a very shaky grasp on reality.



Sorry. but "He don't like my father" and vengeance for his fathers defeat are hardly valid arguments for invading another country.



Agreed on both counts, but I don't think the filial vendetta was the reason for the Iraqi conquest.  Oil was and is.

You really need to be carefull with what you say. Do I need to remind you of the many different foreign leaders, and officials that the US has attempted to assasinate? Do all of these countries have a right to declare war on the United States and invade?


technicly, yes

I have no idea who he was going to use them on....maybe to defend his country if it was attacked?  All I know is that there was no THREAT made that he was going to use them on us or we'd have known about it LOOOONG ago.  We have WMD's too, does that give another country the right to invade us?  N. Korea has WMD's (we KNOW this, we were just told that Saddam had them), why didn't we invade them?  If I'm not mistaken, China does too.  The list could go on and on.  Why didn't we go bomb the crap out of Afghanistan, where we KNOW Bin Laden was?  After all, HE was the one who masterminded 9-11.  Long before the war started, it was discovered that there was NO LINK between Osama & Saddam, but we invaded Iraq anyway.

I readily admit that my position on the war has changed.  At first, my opinion was based on emotion because I bought into all the media bs.  I still think that Saddam had to be gotten rid of.  However, the more information that comes out and the more I learn through my own investigations on "hunches", the more I disagree with us being there.  Nevermind the fact that many of the Iraqis WANT us out of there.  Sure, they cheered when we overthrew the government, but now they want us to leave so they can get on with their lives.


Yes we and others have Weapons of Mass Destruction.  No, we shouldn't go around fighting everyone with them.  Yes we should killl Bin Laden.  Doesn't surprise me you bought into the media b.s., it's tough not too.  Yes Saddam had to be gotten rid of.  I too disagree with us being there at the time being.  yes they want us out of there, yes they are greatfull, but it's time to go home.

Let's get back to a different issue, so we can start arguing again. This agreeing is making me sick.

Hey, it's nice to agree once in awhile....believe it or not, I don't ENJOY arguing with everyone (well, MOST of the time) ;) :)


For something you don't enjoy, you sure are good at it.

I have no idea who he was going to use them on....maybe to defend his country if it was attacked?  All I know is that there was no THREAT made that he was going to use them on us or we'd have known about it LOOOONG ago.  We have WMD's too, does that give another country the right to invade us?  N. Korea has WMD's (we KNOW this, we were just told that Saddam had them), why didn't we invade them?  If I'm not mistaken, China does too.  The list could go on and on.  Why didn't we go bomb the crap out of Afghanistan, where we KNOW Bin Laden was?  After all, HE was the one who masterminded 9-11.  Long before the war started, it was discovered that there was NO LINK between Osama & Saddam, but we invaded Iraq anyway.

I readily admit that my position on the war has changed.  At first, my opinion was based on emotion because I bought into all the media bs.  I still think that Saddam had to be gotten rid of.  However, the more information that comes out and the more I learn through my own investigations on "hunches", the more I disagree with us being there.  Nevermind the fact that many of the Iraqis WANT us out of there.  Sure, they cheered when we overthrew the government, but now they want us to leave so they can get on with their lives.


I think the reason we haven't invaded the other countries may be supported by the point I made a few replies ago.

We also have had an Executive Order in place for over 30 years that makes such activities illegal.

The world is a much changed place then it once was.

And yes, any country who's leader we tried to assasinate had every right to delcare war upon us.  I do not have a double standard here.  However, I can't recall any of them that did.


Having the "right" isn't the issue.  The issue is having the MIGHT.  I guess the Cuban army could swim to Florida.

If they could Carlos, i'd feel afraid for Florida. Cuban soldiers are  simply some of the best in the world. Really hardcore. I wonder how McDonald's rejects would fair against them?

Having the "right" isn't the issue.  The issue is having the MIGHT.  I guess the Cuban army could swim to Florida.


Since the 1960's, we have been paying the price for our Government's antaganism against Fidel Castro.  And until there is a change in government, things in that aspect will never change.  We could open up full trade, give Cuba $1 trillion, and Castro still will not trust us.  Things there will never change until after Castro is gone.

And I do not mean that in a sinister way.  Fidel is getting old, and it is simply a matter of time before he dies of natural causes.  Hopefully, the next Premier will be open to "Normalization" of relations with the US.

Every few years, there is talk about ending the embargo.  Since it was put in place by President Kennedy, it has never gotten beyong being talked about.  3 Democratic administrations and 4 Republican administrations have all made the choice to leave it in place (I do not consider Ford as having a seperate administration, he was simply a caretaker between Nixon and Carter).

Myself, I do not see it ending until after Castro is gone.  But I would wager money that it will not last long after he does.  I bet that within 2 years, the embargo will be lessend or lifted alltogether.

And don't forget, in the 1960's and 1970's, Cuba had a very powerful ally.  I am sure that is one of the reasons that President Ford drafted and enacted the Executive Order forbidding assasination as a tool of diplomacy.  And I am sure that the attempts on the life of Castro by Kennedy and Johnson, in addition to the US backing of the Coup and Assasination of Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam had a lot to do with that decision.

Executive Order 11905 makes this very clear in Section 5 Peragraphs g-h:

(g) Prohibition of Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

(h) Implementation.

(1) This section of this Order shall be effective on March 1, 1976. Each department and agency affected by this section of this Order shall promptly issue internal directives to implement this section with respect to its foreign intelligence and counterintelligence operations.
(2) The Attorney General shall, within ninety days of the effective date of this section of this Order, issue guidelines relating to activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the areas of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence.

The order also established the current "Oversight" system.  It enabled the "Church Comission" to disect the Intelligence system, and forbit the FBI and CIA from exchanging information.

In the 1960's, it was foolish to attempt the assasination of somebody like Premier Castro.  And if we had been "caught red handed", the Soviet Union could have had a field day with the embarasment.  Much in the same way that they were able to use Francis Gary Powers and his U-2 airplane.

But things have changed.  Since 1976, assasination has been removed as a tool of diplomacy.  And I am one that is very glad that it is so.  It is one thing to support one side or another in a Civil War or Coup.  It is quite another to actively seek the death of a head of state during such an event.

Which point was that?  The UN was fully supportive of the last strike against Saddam, they were not in favor of this one.  There is no way to know when he got rid of them unless he himself tells us.  However, there was no thread made against us specifically by Saddam....in fact, based on what I've found through my own research, there were no threats to use the WMD's against anyone.  In that regard, we would have as much right to bomb Iraq as we would North Korea or China or any other country that has WMD's in violation of the UN rules.


Okay, so lets bomb em all  ;D  ;)

Which point was that?  The UN was fully supportive of the last strike against Saddam, they were not in favor of this one.  There is no way to know when he got rid of them unless he himself tells us.  However, there was no thread made against us specifically by Saddam....in fact, based on what I've found through my own research, there were no threats to use the WMD's against anyone.  In that regard, we would have as much right to bomb Iraq as we would North Korea or China or any other country that has WMD's in violation of the UN rules.


But the problem with Saddam is not just about WMD.

In April 1993, President Clinton bombed Iraw after it was proven that Saddam tried to have President Bush assasinated.

Saddam failed to follow most of the conditions of the 1991 cease fire.  Among them are accounting for Kuwaiti citizens and US servicemembers that were still unaccionted for.

He also refused to return property that was siezed in Kuwait during the invasion.

He continued to persecute and kill the Kurds, the Druse, and other Iraqi minority ethnic groups.

He continued to support international terrorism, including the payment of $25,000 to the survivors of any "suicide bomber" that killed themselves in Israel.

Iraq continued to move anti-aircraft missles into the "No Fly Zone", and to fly into them, often on attacks against Iraqi citizens.  They also frequently targeted and shot at the aircraft of the US and other UN nations who attempted to enforce these sanctions.

In violation of the cease fire agreement, they continued to import offensive weapons, including aircraft, tanks, and missles.

And the list goes on and on and on.  Iraq accumulated 16 UN Security Council Resolutions between 1990 and 1999.  They were caught red-handed on several occasions when they tried to import weapons from other nations, most notably North Korea.

If it was only WMD, that would be one thing.  But Saddam violated a lot of UN sanctions, and international laws.  He even gave aid to such terrorists as Carlos, Abu Nidal, and Al Zarqui.

If you ask me, he should have been brought down a decade ago.  And I am sure that Iran and the other Gulf nations feel much safer now that he is gone.

When the mass graves were discovered, I felt sick to my stomach.  I wish that we had taken the cork-fooking bastich out years ago.

I'm not saying that Saddam was anywhere CLOSE to a "good guy", but all we heard leading up to the war (and at the beginning) was WMDs, WMDs, WMDs.  And yes, he violated umpteen UN sanctions, but the UN was not supportive of Bush invading Iraq.  AFA the "other Gulf nations feeling safer", I would imagine they do, but that's not the point....the point is are WE safer?  IMO, the answer to that is No because the perpetrator of the crimes against the US (USS Cole, 9-11, the prior bombing of the WTC, multiple bombings of various US Embassys) is STILL out there and it doesn't seem like THAT is a priority.  Has the capture/overthrow of Saddam weakened Al Qaeda?  It doesn't appear so.

And yes, the mass graves make me sick as well and I also wish that he had been "taken out" long ago.  But, honestly, can you say that Iraq is any safer now than they were then?  There are still insurgents, still suicide bombings pretty much weekly, still fighting between groups.


I think Iraq is going to just have to rebuild without us as they don't appear to want assistance nor they do they appear to be grateful enough to accept it. I think we should just get out while we're ahead (or more like, slugging in Mesopotamian sand).

And yes, the mass graves make me sick as well and I also wish that he had been "taken out" long ago.  But, honestly, can you say that Iraq is any safer now than they were then?  There are still insurgents, still suicide bombings pretty much weekly, still fighting between groups.


With all the media there, have you heard of any "mass graves" being uncovered that date after 2003?

Have you heard of any towns depopulated?  Have you heard of families being deported, then never heard from again?

Have you heard any stories of secret underground prisons, where people are locked up by the tens of thousands, and systematically tortured because they do not agree with the Government?

I did not think so.

Have you heard any stories of secret underground prisons, where people are locked up by the tens of thousands, and systematically tortured because they do not agree with the Government?


http://www.september11news.com/January_Jan11GuantanamoBayArrivalProc.jpg

Have you heard of any towns depopulated?  Have you heard of families being deported, then never heard from again?

Have you heard any stories of secret underground prisons, where people are locked up by the tens of thousands, and systematically tortured because they do not agree with the Government?



Sure. North Korea, China, Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Iran... We could go on and on naming countries.

What was it that made the people of Iraq more deserving of your "help" than all of the others?

I tell you what, I'd rather have a secular strongman like Saddam running Iraq than an Islamofascist "democracy". :D

But what about the Iraqis you say? Well, honestly, I think THEY would be better off with the secular strongman too. Saddam's Iraq was much more secure as far as women's rights, for example. But even if they wouldn't be, I don't really care. As bad as it may sound to some of you, I wouldn't trade ONE G.I. for a million Iraqis. It just isn't worth it because like someone else pointed out, all we are getting for our "helping" them is a boatload of $h!t.

I wouldn't trade ONE G.I. for a million Iraqis. It just isn't worth it because like someone else pointed out, all we are getting for our "helping" them is a boatload of $h!t.


I would, i'd trade a million Iraqis to get back One G.I.

http://www.september11news.com/January_Jan11GuantanamoBayArrivalProc.jpg


Equating the torture and killing of innocent Iraqi men, women and children during Saddam's regime to murderous democracy hating, Jew hating, Christian hating, Hindu hating, Asian hating, women hating, gay hating, fascists at Guantanamo. 
Good one, S~M. Yeah, real good.
But don't worry, their friends in Iraq are doing their best to keep Saddam's misery alive.

I haven't heard much talk in the media about our "innocents" at Guantanamo since the London bombings. I wonder why?

I haven't heard much talk in the media about our "innocents" at Guantanamo since the London bombings. I wonder why?


::) Of course, people that have been locked up in a cell on the other side of the world were planning those attacks.

Why?

Because the Right wing cotrol all of the Media outlets in the United States and try not to rock the boat too much. Plus what with Hurricane Katrina the few independant news sources there are have a new issue to grill the neo-cons on.

I'm somewhat torn on the whole rebuilding thing.  One one hand, I think that they didn't ASK us to come over there and get rid of Saddam (although many of them were certainly grateful at the time that we did) and bomb the crap out of their country.  On the other hand, though, I agree with you.  But, let me also add that no matter WHAT we rebuild, there are always going to be the insurgents who are going to destroy it.


I don't think I will ever quite understand the thing about the insurgents. I know most of it is based on religious reasons, but it is so hard for me to understand why they do what they do. Some of the areas greatest relics have not really been destroyed by us, but by their own people.