General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2274456

    Why did we go to war?

    Locked

    by aldanatech ·

    So why did we go to war? Was it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Was it to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein? Was it because Iraq had links to terrorism? Or was it because the Bush administration simply wanted some means to go to war, regardless of its cost both economic and human?

    So far no WMDs have been found, and even Bush is this close of admitting that there weren?t any. Yes, we did find Saddam Hussein, but it was probably the most expensive manhunt in history. Also, do you think that if we would of done this differently, we would of got Osama Bin Laden instead? As for the possible link of Iraq with terrorism, the 9/11 commission says there weren?t any, but Bush says that there was simply because there was. He provides no feasible evidence or even a clear explanation for his claims. Even if there was, does that mean that we should invade every single country in the world with suspected links to terrorism?

    What about 9/11 itself, do you think it could have been prevented? Do you think we would be safer if we spent more on intelligence than in the military? By the way, what do you think is the Muslim world?s impression of the US so far? What do you think is the rest of the world?s impression of the US so far?

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2719543

      Because we could

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      Why – Because the USA is the badest kid on the block and we could …

      You get all other stories – from GWB wanted to make more money from his Oil stock – to WMD and Saddam was a Murder – But none of that is true – they are all lies …

      We did it because we wanted to – just because we could – just cause we is the badest MFer on the block and wanted to show the world – we aint taken nothing from none of them no Mo…

      Yea – We be Big – Bad – and Need laid …

      • #2719520

        Yea – We be Big – Bad – and Need laid

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Because we could

        Dude I don’t care how BAD you need to get laid, the rest of your post is pure crap and you know it, why even bother?

        • #2720376

          Do you have a sense of Humor or are you just an Arse

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Yea – We be Big – Bad – and Need laid

          Do you know humor when you read it or are you just the biggest Arse Hole I’ve seen my entire life…. God Oz you need mental help – Nan-dude just end-it and give us all a F’en break from your stupid lines…

        • #2720361

          Yes he is a self proclaimed arse

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Do you have a sense of Humor or are you just an Arse

          How dare you call Oz an arse hole?? He is much worse than that. Stop misleading the public, get your facts straight.

        • #2720344

          Exactly

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yes he is a self proclaimed arse

          Hey Jim, like you said, can’t you take a little humour once in a while.

          My post was a spin on your title, chill the hel out.

          And be careful with your friend Garion, he’s like a bad dose, scrub it well man.

        • #2713162

          A treatise on Arseholes

          by guruofdos ·

          In reply to Exactly

          Hands up anyone who thinks they could survive without an arsehole???

          Lets face it, your intestines would back up pretty quick without one. Farting just wouldn’t be the same. Which other muscle in your body has the capacity to oscillate as rapidly in times of danger?

          Whether or not Oz is an arsehole is a side issue. He oftentimes ‘proclaims’ to be an arsehole, many people accuse him of being an arsehole. I myself take it as a compliment in certain contexts when I am accused of being an arsehole. If God wanted to give the world an enema, he’d stick the tube in Benidorm…

          The arsehole is a much used, highly necessary and vastly under-rated organ. Do not dismiss arseholes so lightly. Look after your arsehole and it will reward you with many years of reliable service. Politicians only have two major organs…their mouth and their arsehole, and these are often regarded as interchangeable. In fact, on the newest generation of politico, they are even seen as ‘hot-swappable’.

          Arseholes of the world unite! The world can’t live without them and anyone who thinks they can is talking out of their rectum!!

        • #2713131

          Guru was that a deliberate spelling mistake?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to A treatise on Arseholes

          The last word was it meant to be Rectum or Wrecked-him?

          Col

        • #2714037

          Nice guy for an arsehole

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to A treatise on Arseholes

          Well I have always been stright up with people since I was a wee lad.

          “I am a nice guy…for an arsehole.”

          Some people say I’m too nice, or that I am always the nice guy (yes other people actually know me)I am quick to correct them though. As far as arseholes go, I am a nice one, that’s enough credit for me. That also alows me to accept ‘nice arse’ comments well too, “Why yes, I am a nice arse!”.

        • #2714018

          ~LoL~

          by admin ·

          In reply to A treatise on Arseholes

          Yep. Heard a story once where all the parts of the body got into a big bet about who was the most important. In the end, even the brain eventually gave up after the rectum refused to work! I guess that we need to re-think which part is really in charge! ~LoL~

        • #2713956

          Grin

          by mallardtooxx ·

          In reply to A treatise on Arseholes

          I seem to spend a lot of time with my head up my ******** just ask my wife.

          -duck

        • #2713882

          That’s so old I thought everyone had

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to A treatise on Arseholes

          Heard it so I resisted from that joke but it was effective in getting a point across.

          To be the Boss you don’t need brains you just need to be a Rectum.

          Col

      • #2700235

        JimHM if you like humor try this site

        by skipperusn ·

        In reply to Because we could

        This is the funniest Flash I’ve seen since the Osama Flash…

        http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/contentPlay/shockwave.jsp?id=this_land&preplay=1 – 😉

        • #2700231

          Link Failed – sorry try this one …

          by skipperusn ·

          In reply to JimHM if you like humor try this site

        • #2700140

          to funny – people have way to much time

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to Link Failed – sorry try this one …

          Haven’t found a working copy of the one Oz sent – but its got to be good…. people have way to much time on there hands to develop these flash things…

          But I got to say thanks – those provide a true leavity to this crazy thing we call politics.

        • #2699967

          Which one Jim?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to to funny – people have way to much time

          They are actually all available at campchaos.com, just go to the ‘OTHER SHOWS’ link in the left nav bar. The very last one ‘Viral Videos’ links to them all.

          ‘State of the Union’ is just VERY well edited (a glitch in the breakdown of the word arsenal to sound like ‘arse’) but the rest is near perfect.

          try it from here http://www.campchaos.com and follow the links as described above.

        • #2700193

          Did you see Bush Blair Read My Lips?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to JimHM if you like humor try this site

          How about Saddam singing Imagine? I can’t find a workn gcopy this time though.

          They used to be on Jib Jab but here’s a link to the Bush Blair singing, now THIS is funny, are GB and TB seeing each other in ways we don’t really ‘stand behind’?

          http://www.campchaos.com/show.php?iID=645

        • #2700192

          DON’t FORGET THE OTHERS!!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Did you see Bush Blair Read My Lips?

          On the right hand nav bar, there is a link called ‘Viral Videos’ Check out B7B at The Gay Bar and the best ever, STATE OF THE UNION, it is REALLY well done!

        • #2699978

          The Gay Bar is great

          by skipperusn ·

          In reply to DON’t FORGET THE OTHERS!!

          How did they get the looks – way to funny

      • #2701823

        JimHM you selfless barsted

        by toandyroo ·

        In reply to Because we could

        you fool, you cant just go to war because you can. The states think their so great but theyr not they are the biggest terrorist of the lot. the rest of the world sees u as stupid trigger happy idiots.

        get off your fat american ass and go have a look and fahrenheit 911. America has invaded something like 91 countries over the last 100 years and none in the mother land. get a life u fool

        • #2701778

          It’s people like you

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to JimHM you selfless barsted

          .
          That make me desire an isolationist America.

          I’m sick of the rest of the world, the Corrupt United Nations, and the lying foreign media. And it would suit me just fine to tell everyone else to just shove it up their %$%^&.

          The next time the French and the Germans let some mad-man overrun Europe, like they’ve done three times in the last century (including the Soviets in the Cold War), let them deal with it all by themselves. The next time there’s mass genocide, and millions are buried in mass graves, let them dig their own holes. If the little mad-man in North Korea wants to attack Japan and overrun the Southern half of the Korean peninsula, go ahead, someone else deal with it.

          It would suit me just fine to focus on keeping the radical and fanatical Islamist terrorists out of the USA only, and let the rest of you deal with them – or stick your heads up your butts like you’ve done for the past forty years. I would be happy to keep all the blood-sucking leaches out of the USA, and force them to remain in their own corrupt and poverty stricken waste-lands.

          Perhaps “Up Yours” should be the new American foreign policy.

        • #2701755

          Emotions….

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to It’s people like you

          Max,

          I agree with you that some people just don’t have a clue, and in this case your emotions got the better of you. But, the US hasn’t been the only nation on earth fighting terrorism, in all actuality it’s only within the last 5 years or so that the US has been putting up this brave face. Europeans as a whole have been fighting terrorism for centuries, without a single finger being lifted by the US. The 50s-00s terrorism has run rampant throughout European nations.

          You say that you are sick of the “lying foreign media” , but who is to say that the US media is not the one spinning information? You believe that the US media for the most part is telling it like it is, while Joe Citizen in whatever country outside the US believes that his media is telling it like it is. Doesn’t make him a liar or you for that matter, just different trust zones.

          The only reason the US entered the 2nd world war, was because they were attacked at Pearl Harbor.

          The rest of the world has not stuck their heads up their butts as you so eloquently put it. But, has been dealing with the same issues as the US for a longer period of time ( terrorism ). They have just chosen to deal with it in different fashions.

        • #2701691

          Yes – It was an emotional tirade

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Emotions….

          .
          Yes, of course, I realize that the time of isolationism is in the distant past. It’s the “blame America for everything” crap that chaps my ass. These people are, at best, extremely ignorant.

          Yes, the US media ALSO spins information. And I’m just as sick of them as well.

          World War Two was more than just Pearl Harbor; you and I both know that; and you and I both know that it’s irrelevant to the issues of today. (And I’ll let that discussion fall into the black-hole of nonsensical arguments waged by others.)

          On terrorism over the last 50 years, you and I are again in agreement. I’ve said dozens of times (in various threads) that the USA also ignored the terrorism issue – every administration of both parties going back to Richard Nixon – until we got a swift kick in the ass in September 2001. However, the United Nations and the European nations have, at best, been tolerating world-wide terrorism, giving it little more than meaningless lip-service. And they want to continue to do the same thing. As far as the USA doing nothing about it, which way does the world want it? Do they want us to mind our own business, or do they want us to intervene? I’ve heard both, but either way, we get criticized.

          I agree with President Bush. We need to identify them and go after them RIGHT NOW, wherever they may be, whatever it might take, and before they strike again. And we should not, as President Bush suggested, wait until the threat is imminent. And yes, Iraq was part of it – just as Iran should be; just as Syria should be; and yes, just as Saudi Arabia should be. (At this point the “ignorant” ones will ask why, then, don’t we “invade” Saudi Arabia or North Korea. You just can’t reason with such stupidity and ignorance behind such a question.)

          And I also agree with President Bush that it will be an effort that will take decades to complete. We’ve tried the United Nations way for 50 years and the result was 3000 dead Americans in New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania. It’s time to try a different way. President Bush is the only American president who’s done anything significant at all, and look how he’s rewarded for his efforts. It’s enough to make me want to throw-up – or say “up yours” to the ignorant ones.

        • #2701653

          To clarify my awkward sentence

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Yes – It was an emotional tirade

          .
          In my awkwardly worded sentence, I said, “And we should not, as President Bush suggested, wait until the threat is imminent.”

          Better wording:

          President Bush suggested that we should not wait until the threat is imminent, and I agree with him.

          (Proof reading is a beautiful thing – if, of course, it’s done BEFORE hitting the submit button.)

        • #2701745

          Max you have to remember that it is

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to It’s people like you

          Places like North Korea who are into wholesale drug smuggling on a “State” level so while you might like to draw down the blinds and hide behind you own borders the reality of the situation is that the USA can no longer exist without involvement by the rest of the world.

          Your own companies in a rush to make bigger profits have moved most of their manufacturing plants off shore and into Islamic countries like the Philippines or Malaysia so without these two countries the supply of HDD’s and Intel CPU’s would immediately stop.

          There is a saying that “No Man Is an Island” and it is even truer now for most countries as well all depend on each other to survive {at least the developed and developing ones anyway!}

          Col

        • #2701679

          Colin – Complete the sentence

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max you have to remember that it is

          .
          You said, “…the USA can no longer exist without involvement by the rest of the world”.

          The WHOLE sentence would also include the fact that the rest of the world can’t exist (in its present form) without the USA.

          (See my “emotional tirade message.)

          On your criticism of American companies, I’ll simply suggest that you are looking at it with blinders on. You’ll see what you want to see, no more, no less. But perhaps the folks in those countries you mentioned – the ones making some $$ off those American companies – would be better off without them. Either way, it will be blame America if we do, and blame America if we don’t.

        • #2701019

          Max you’re misreading me again

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Colin – Complete the sentence

          I was only trying to point out that the US rely just as much on many other countries as they do on the US.

          There was never any intention to level any criticism at any one in general and the USA in particular.

          It is just a fact of life! We live in a “Global Community” and we just have to accept this of course if you where one of those who where up in arms about outsourcing to Third World Countries this might be some form of criticism but it was never intended that way.

          Col

        • #2713807

          American foreign policy

          by steve biko ·

          In reply to It’s people like you

          Hate to break it to you Mr Edison, but America’s foreign policy is already up yours. Take a look at how many times talks have been de-railed by the US, such as world environmental policies and world trade agreements.

          America’s response is Up Yours, we’ll continue to look after our own, stuff the environment up and stuff the rest of the world.

          One of the comments in the first message in this thread was “what does the rest of the world think of America?”. In South Africa it is: we are not surprised that 9/11 happened. We don’t think anyone deserves what happened, but are you that ignorant that you did not think someone would try to hurt America as much as possible.

          I wonder if you know where South Africa even is or who Steve Biko is?

        • #2713781

          To answer your questions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to American foreign policy

          .
          You asked, “I wonder if you know where South Africa even is or who Steve Biko is?”

          The answer is yes and yes.

        • #2714565

          Interesting

          by steve biko ·

          In reply to To answer your questions

          Well if you know that then you would also know who Robert Mugabe is and what he is doing to his people and how it is affecting the entire Southern African region. After Iraq, many people wondered why Bush does not come and bomb Zimbabwe? Mugabe has made it clear how much he hates the USA and UK, is reportedly one of the world’s richest men and not much different from Saddam Hussein. The answer given by most people is that Bush is not a humanitarian as he claims (and “cares” about the suffering of people in Iraq), but there is no oil in Zimbabwe and therefore no interest in Zimbabwe from the USA (plenty of interest in Nigeria though). Since you are a Bush supporter, maybe you can explain this to me.

        • #2714535

          A faulty conclusion

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Interesting

          .
          Just because a nation takes action against one adversary and/or injustice, doesn’t mean that it will, should, or can take action against any and all. Each must be considered on its own merit; each must be dealt with individually; and each may require different methods, depending on the political and logistical realities at the time.

          But the bigger question is, why isn’t the United Nations involved; why can’t the United Nations correct this wrong; or why aren’t the other nations of Africa dealing with it?

          Instead of blaming the USA for every problem, and the USA is always blamed for something by someone whether it acts or not, why not blame the United Nations? After all, it’s the UN who is “supposed to” deal with these kinds of things, isn’t it?

        • #2714451

          Simple question

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Interesting

          While reading through I noticed something that raised a simple question and I know you can offer an explanation.

          I noticed that your reply was ‘why doesn’t the UN do anything about it?, Why is it up to the USA?’ (or something to that efect).

          Now from what I read here daily, you all see the UN as a waste of time and they are pretty useless. You stepped aroud the UN to go into Iraq and ivade as they were not doing anything to stop this threat you all feared so much. The justification is that it is YOUR responsibility to take pre-mptive actions against your enemies ad pretty much say FU to anyone who stands in your way.

          Now with other countries also out to ‘get’ the USA, you are saying it’s up to the UN to do something about it and why must you?

          Sounds like you’re expecting the best of both worlds, or whatever suits the moment.

          Just a observation, but I’m sure you can twist it into a logical conclusion to support the US actions, or lack thereof.

        • #2714422

          Simple Answer

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Interesting

          .
          I said what I said, no more, no less.

          As far as “twisting” to reach a desired conclusion, I’ll leave that up to you.

        • #2713709

          Double standards

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Interesting

          I suppose as you said what you said, then you are agreeing that the UN is of no use to the USA, or anyone else for that matter, and you are warranted in taking care of things yourself. F**k the UN, which you have said many times, though perhaps in different/prettier words though.

          At the same time, you are suggesting that it is up to the UN to resolve OTHER matters that don’t benefit yourselves directly and it shouldn’t be YOUR duty to protect yourselves against terrorists in countries or help repressed citizens where you have no interest in gains from thier resources?

          You will do what is best for America, forget the terror and liberation smoke screen, if it’s not for the benefit of America, it’s just not worthwile.

          So there’s your TWIST, as I’m sure you will call it. Unfortunately, that’s the conclusion your prior statement CLEARLY points toward, not much TWISTING needed at all, you were quite clear where you stand, unfortunately.

          Do ALL American citizens know this or do some actually believe you are attempting to conduct a humanitarian effort by shelling Iraq?

          What I do find interesting is that The UN is useless to Americans but the rest of the world is supposed to listen to them.

          It’s as if you have washed you hands of the US/UN association and simply feel it is okay for those who don’t want to follow UN rules to break out and be cowboys (well those that are on your side anyway, Saddam he must obey the UN though), I mean why should you (who are always saving the thankless world from certain doom) listen to the UN for God’s sake?

          Well this is exactly what happened when you ignored the sanctions the first time, you were accused of breaching sanctions just as you had accused Saddam and it has finally lead to Americans doubting the UN and other allied countries who they were told didn’t follow America’s rules.

          How many understand that America didn’t hold up THEIR end of the bargain either?

          America went against UN sanctions and virtually starved Iraq of needed resources, so when you point the finger at Germany, Russia and the other ‘unpleasant’ countries, do you actually believe that America played by the rules too?

          You either stand by the UN or you don’t, or if you prefer, you are either WITH them or AGAINST them. If you are AGAINST them, why would you invade a country based on the fact that they never followed UN regulations? You don’t think YOU have to.

          So do we obey the UN, do we obey them only when it is in our best interests or do we obey America and do what is in your OWN best interests? You tell me.

          Noting that ANY resolution that declares each country for itself is completely absurd when fighting a global terrorist threat.

          There MUST be SOME form of organization on a global level, I suppose you will say it should be the USA that dictates how the world will handle terrorism, I say it should be Bella Coola that’s in charge.

          You cannot continually isolate yourself from every other country, and then complain that nobody supports you.

          You say how people don’t react to threats and how detrimental it has been in the past, leading to modern day terrorism.

          Then in the same breath, the US will do as it wants when it wants and it’s nobody else’s business?

          Unfortunately, Saddam had that same mindset, he did what he wanted and it is nobody’s business, including yours.

          Of course you wouldn’t stand for this and BS’d America into supporting the war. So where do the lies and deception stop? They don’t and they won’t as long as you all suport such things as they get spewed from your government.

          Save America, screw everyone else. If others don’t play by our rules we will invade them, yet don’t expect US to play by YOUR rules.

          What a two-faced and hypocritical crock of crap.

          Yup, two sides to your mouth and yet you have the uncanny ability to speak from both simultaneously.

          This is just more know it all BS from Oz though so there’s no need for you to go out of your way and tell everyone I am a liar. Especially when I have just provided observations based on your comments.

          Everyone can see how the discussion flowed and your pals will always see you as right and me as wrong, some minds are so fixated on an specific conclusion no plot changes could possibly take them off track. the easiest way to discout any opinion without having a justified response is to somply discount the opinion as a whole, or the poster as you usually do.

          The more I speak to you, the more I realize how single minded you are and how you simply MUST put everything into it’s rightful place so that you can apear to be somewhat open minded.

          Then again, some people will believe anything, even Bush.

        • #2713621

          All in agreement then?

          by steve biko ·

          In reply to Interesting

          I have heard comments made by some: If everybody just agreed with Bush (and the USA), then we would have no conflict (you’re either with us or against us? Remember that?). It’s like being in an abusive marriage: “if she would just listen, I would stop hitting her”!!

          USA, land of the free and the brave (once they’ve hammered their opposition into submission); and the maker and enforcer of rules.

        • #2714344

          Ahhh you’ll get used to it.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Interesting

          Jim’s not a bad guy, he tries hard and means well, unfortunately it just doesn’t seem to come together too often.

          We used to have a real nutter here called RiverFreight, who’s most common answers in tech Q&A usually involved replacing and soldering semi conductors on the motherboard, he disappeared from here but pokes his nose into Tech Q&A still.
          Anyway, Jim’s got NOTHING on that guy.

          I will say he (Jim) usually leaves me stunned and rereading his posts over and over again as I can’t actually believe a modern day living human would see the world that way. For he most part it’s simply cheap entertaiment and a good way to kill time. On the other hand it get’s frustrating if you are here on one of your ‘bad’ days, and then it seems to just get plain annoying. Then the loop begins again.

          Many people disappear for a month or so but they almost always come back. Sometimes it’s like vistiing the zoo and watching the monkeys toss feces back and forth all day. 🙂

          The hardest part has got to be sitting back and watching the show, you almost ALWAYS get dragged in by someone.

        • #2714246

          Immigrant

          by steve biko ·

          In reply to Interesting

          Hey Oz, you sound like a really good guy. You didn’t immigrate to Canada from South Africa did you?(don’t take that as an insult). Many South Africans immigrated to Canada, not too many to the US though, despite the cold in Canada.
          My ramblings probably give you a bit of entertainment as well, comments from a country struggling to get of the third world and into the first world. We speak about different things to what I have seen on these discussions, it’s interesting to see how different priorities are.

          We’ve had enough of war, it cost our country R 8 million per day when the exchange rate was nearly R1 = 1USD in the 80’s. Lost a lot of good young men for nothing and probably killed a lot more. But hey, they were fair game, on the other side and some were even armed!

          In general South Africans are interested in politics just because we all have a say for a change. Does’nt make much difference sometimes, we really only have 4 serious parties: ANC, Democratic Alliance, Inkatha Freedom party and the New National Party (these buggers should just pack it in after what they did to the country in the past, I’d be too embarassed to keep going!).
          ANC still have more than a 2/3 majority though, mostly because they represented the masses when they weren’t allowed to vote.

        • #2714108

          neat observation!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Interesting

          No I am not from South Africa but Southern England. I am oftenconfised as South African or Australian though because of my broken English/Canadian accent.

          Your input is a valued as any, moreso in some cases because it is an outside view. At one time we had several Australian and British peers here but now it seems just few. Several have emailed me and said it is simply a waste of time debating politics with Americans and they have just disappeared due to the futility of it all.

          Stick around and have some fun, it gets going pretty good sometimes and people start to trip and stumble on themselves all the time, it is truly a three ring circus here, if you have patience.

          🙂

        • #2714530

          A faulty conclusion reply

          by steve biko ·

          In reply to To answer your questions

          Sorry, other thread maxed out.
          I would agree with you to some extent, it’s not up to the USA to get involved in the world’s problems, United nations should be more involved.
          Regarding others in Africa: Our people have been pushing Mbeki to get more involved in Zimbabwe. His response has been interesting: he has talks with Mugabe, but he is also working a hell of a lot to promote peace and stability in most of Africa. Due to this, South Africa has become a huge investor in Africa (I’m involved in a project in Zambia at the moment). This is a different approach to what seems to be the USA’s policy of go in, bomb them and then re-build (also giving additional work for Americans). That is the perceived way the USA handles things and what makes it worse is that people running for the presidency at the moment keep talking about their military careers, making you seem like a very militant nation.
          I am convinced that if you and I sat at a table together, we would not be vastly different from one another. The country you and I live in however, makes us different. If you made the decisions you may have chosen differently. Your leaders however make the USA look like the militant bullies on the block.
          By the way, how on earth do you post all the messages you do?

        • #2712875

          Hey. Take your Prozac and have a nap

          by itgirli ·

          In reply to JimHM you selfless barsted

          I have no problem with the war on Iraq other than it should have been planned better and we should have made sure we were finished wiping out Osama first. I would love it if Bush just went and ended terrorism everywhere. The problem is that Bush’s buddy Blair is from a country that used terrorism to get to where they are today. Don’t let me start on Oliver Cromwell. The british were terrorist and look at where they are today. You just never know.

        • #2713063

          In case you hadn’t noticed

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Hey. Take your Prozac and have a nap

          Cromwell and his excesses were replaced – by the same system he overthrew. It was called the restoration. And after that, democracy grew, but at a slow and steady place. There is a reason why people call them revolutions – things go around.

          And its fair to say that many American revolutionaries were inspired by Cromwell. The Pilgrims were of the same strict faith as Cromwell. There was the same intolernace of other faiths; British leniancy in their treatment of the french in Quebec was major sore point with the Americans who had fought the french alongside the British, and the sore point was based on religious tolerance(but that doesn’t make the high school history books).

          And if you want to talk terrorism, have you not heard of tarring and feathering? This was done by american revolutionaries to drive out loyalists. Indian settlements on the frontier at the time, were often raided, longhouses burned, so that there would be more land for settlers(hence most of the Mohawks fought for Britain).

          I don’t know of any country that has no dark pages in their past. The Hagganah in British controlled Palestine set off bombs in British hotels in their effort to establish the state of Isreal.

          Britain abolished slavery a generation before America, and went further – attacking slaver’s ships and blockading Africa with the Royal Navy. That too never makes American history text books.

          So I am not sure what your point is about Blair’s support for the war – doesn’t seem ambivalent at all to me. Britain had been fighting IRA terrorism for more than a century. But many Americans supported that.

          James

        • #2713062

          In case you hadn’t noticed

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Hey. Take your Prozac and have a nap

          Cromwell and his excesses were replaced – by the same system he overthrew. It was called the restoration. And after that, democracy grew, but at a slow and steady place. There is a reason why people call them revolutions – things go around.

          And its fair to say that many American revolutionaries were inspired by Cromwell. The Pilgrims were of the same strict faith as Cromwell. There was the same intolernace of other faiths; British leniancy in their treatment of the french in Quebec was major sore point with the Americans who had fought the french alongside the British, and the sore point was based on religious tolerance(but that doesn’t make the high school history books).

          And if you want to talk terrorism, have you not heard of tarring and feathering? This was done by american revolutionaries to drive out loyalists. Indian settlements on the frontier at the time, were often raided, longhouses burned, so that there would be more land for settlers(hence most of the Mohawks fought for Britain).

          I don’t know of any country that has no dark pages in their past. The Hagganah in British controlled Palestine set off bombs in British hotels in their effort to establish the state of Isreal.

          Britain abolished slavery a generation before America, and went further – attacking slaver’s ships and blockading Africa with the Royal Navy. That too never makes American history text books.

          So I am not sure what your point is about Blair’s support for the war – doesn’t seem ambivalent at all to me. Britain had been fighting IRA terrorism for more than a century. But many Americans supported that.

          James

        • #2714554

          You and Oz are the same – Just An Arse from another country

          by jimhm ·

          In reply to JimHM you selfless barsted

          You got to be a big of Arse as Oz – Did you read the above posts? Me Thinks Not … You sense of humor is in your arse (we call it an Ass – but its better to just say F’Off) ..

          You all – no matter what unless it is pure – weak kneed – arse licking – sucking up to some mad-man you all don’t like it… The next time someone kicks the crap out of europe let them deal with it… And they will bread another one – gee they had 5 or 6 so far – Americans are tired of paying for your support against these people then getting slapped for doing it… You are big boys and girls now – take care of yourself – we will keep our money (Oh yea – how about paying the US back for all the lend lease stuff during WWII – pay your bill plus interest)-

          That isn’t a joke – Next time we will be netural – and sell goods to both side like the Swiss did – then keep the billions in Gold in our banks like the Swiss did. Or England that didn’t give back gold – and pressured the Swiss so that Britian had money and Swiss credits to rebuild their country… Yepper – Britian was really kind to the Jews and other countries that had their treasuries looted by the Germans… Go Britian..

          Take the log out of your eye before you want to take the toothpick out of ours… Oh not even to mention the terrorism and murder of civilians in the US by Britian during the American Revolution – Even thou it took France a few years – that is one thing we can thank them For…

          So KISS MY SWEATY ARSE –

        • #2714448

          What a mouthful of givverish

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You and Oz are the same – Just An Arse from another country

          Very evasive fact logging jimbo, keep your arms inside the windows while the bus is rolling.

          Well Jim, actually I have NOTHING in common with the poster you are comparing me to. In fact, I don’t se the same views at all, well not exactly anyway.

          This is just yet ONE MORE USELESS POST FROM JIM, who has NEER had a relevant comment, NEVER had anything to add, NEVER had a statement that he made clear. JIMHM’s ONLY use for TR discussions is to call people names and discount posts. Call people an arse or start flaming thier countries (WHICH NOBODY BUT AMRICAN CITIZENS GIVE A TOSS ABOUT). so I don’t know WHO you ae trying to show off to, but it isn’t anyone outside of America, I think your just looking for a hummer from your countrymen.

          ONE DAY, actually probably not, you will have somethig relevant to say or add to a discussion that provides more than just a slam against someone. YOu may even be clear on you point or even have a point to begin with, but until that time, as it as been for over a year now, you just spout pure nonsense and never have anything worthwhile to add.

          Keep it up Jim, you ae a perfect example of the high level of education and individual logic taught in you country.

        • #2713545

          How long does his Kboard last?

          by steve biko ·

          In reply to You and Oz are the same – Just An Arse from another country

          Hey Oz, I think Jim has to replace his keyboard quite often, with all the drivel that comes out his mouth. It probably runs out and keeps short circuiting his keyboard. His arse isn’t the only thing sweaty!

        • #2714343

          What a goof !

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to How long does his Kboard last?

          I just posted a reply in the wrong place!
          I meant to reply to your last comment but somehow ended up posting above. Ahhh, you’ll get used to it.

        • #2714437

          Fahrenheit 911??

          by ljmathi ·

          In reply to JimHM you selfless barsted

          Anyone who uses Michael Moore as an authority fits solidly in the category of “idiots and fools”.

        • #2714433

          In the same sense

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Fahrenheit 911??

          not that I disagree with you quote;
          Anyone who uses George Bush as an authority fits solidly in the category of “idiots and fools”.

          If we say that MM’s 9/11 is MOSTLY fabricated, what 5 or 10 percent of it being truth do you wish to accept? I know NOTHING as it is Anti-Republican and strictly unAmerican. If you don’t supoprt reublicans yuo must be against America and all that BS. No wonder your country is divided within itself.

        • #2713657

          Have you even watched it?

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Fahrenheit 911??

          Fahrenheit 911 only shows what Michael Moore?s opinion about Bush and his administration. He does present you with evidence to back him up, and it is up to you determine if they are legitimate or not. The purpose of this film is not to actually make you change your mind, but to help you make a more informed decision. He will present you with information and points of view that you would most likely not get the media or the administration. You still have the right to verify that information yourself. If you still disagree with Moore than it will be your choice and your opinion.

        • #2703233

          Funny

          by tommydaschle ·

          In reply to Have you even watched it?

          to see someone so poorly informed. If you were to look at that film without your political glasses on, you’d feel quite foolish.

          But only if you are honest with yourself.

        • #2703216

          Actually…

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Funny

          Actually I am honest with myself. When I watched the film it confirmed about 80% of what I already knew. You see, I live near the border to Mexico so I get to see the news from both sides. Mexico’s news media is not biased regarding this issue and they could openly report and discuss about it from every possible point of view with virtually no restriction. The other 20% was new material and I would like to find some time to check on its sources myself.

    • #2719537

      THe weekend paper

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      The weekend Priovinc enews had an article printed by some newspaper in California, about the fact that the CIA was acting upon the thoughts of the administration and not the other way around, as it should be.

      I will type it all out and post it later.

      It CLEARLY states that there was absolutely NO concern of WMD and that it had been confirmed, also shows how there was absolutely NO ties between Saddam and AlQaeda (which was recently confirmed through the courts system I believe).

      I am not too sure but I will post it later, it is actually quite interesting as this has been my personal stand since before the war began and now it is coming to light that you were all purposely mislead due to Republican interests.

      I will NOT debate this topic with anyone or anything said in my post, there is no cause for feedback at this point as nothing has been said, just suggested, and I will provide the information in the newspaper later.

      But it’s uinteresting this post came up because I was wondering whether to post the article or not, I decided not to as it would simply be reduced as flaming th eUS or baiting people. Now I suppose it is simply offering what OUR news reported your news said.

    • #2719530

      Arogant Faith is easy to manipulate

      by klaken ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      With a totally confused President who leads by abdication, coupled with a hobbled intelligence community, and reinforced by a defacto defence contractor Vice President, the fog of war started in the Florida vote scandal. So the system just went there.
      America got what it let’s government do. We went to war in Iraq and squandered our military initiative agains terrorism, however we solved the unemployment problem by creating the TSA to make sure Americans leave their fingernail clippers at home. So most Americans are happy that someone seems to be doing something. As long as we think like a school of fish, the sharks will continue to herd us. The external sharks (terrorists) are herding the internal sharks (Defense)against the will of the American people.

      • #2700532

        ROFLMAO

        by dwdino ·

        In reply to Arogant Faith is easy to manipulate

        hehehehehehehehehehe
        hahahahahahahahahaha
        hohohohohohohohohoho
        [gasp]
        hehehehehehehehehehe
        hahahahahahahahahaha
        hohohohohohohohohoho

    • #2719521

      Critical Mass in a Chain Reaction

      by paul.tiffany ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      If the U.S. had a problem with terrorism before and a fair amount of apathy, that has all changed after the Iraq War. Where there was one terrorist, now there are fifty. Critical mass has finally been reached. As citizens of the U.S., we’ll be paying for this war for a long, long time.

      Of course, the oil companies and arms merchants are getting richer and richer, so not everybody lost. And, you thought the Enron saga was nearing completion…

    • #2720450

      AIPAC is to blame

      by john_wills ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      The Free Palestine marches were getting serious: it looked as though they would eventually cause the U.S. to stop arming and subsidizing the Israelis. Now the demonstrating classes have the conquest of Iraq to complain about, and the Free Palestine angle is just a minor side-issue. It is to the Zionists’ advantage that the U.S. be embroiled in wars so that the U.S. will not feel guilty about supporting the Israelis.

      • #2720411

        I love reading anti=semetic diatribes

        by jeff@customerselects.com ·

        In reply to AIPAC is to blame

        I love reading about how the Jews control the banks, the newspapers, radio and TV stations, the trilaterial commission (whatever the hell that is), hollywood, that department of the interior, etc., etc., etc. I had no idea I was so powerful.

        Israel is the only democracy in the middle east. That in itself is a terrific reason to support her. Furthermore, if you look at a map of the middle east, you will have much difficulty finding Israel – it’s tiny. There are 4 Million Israelis, some of whom are Arab. There are about 200 Million people living in Arab and Muslim countries (Iran is Muslim but not Arab). Israel is the only place in the middle east where there is no oil underground – and the Jews got there with divine guidance.

        And finally, a lot of Jews marched in protest of the Iraqi war. I was there – I saw them. The Iraqi war and the Palestinians have nothing to do with one another. The only reason why anybody links them is to confuse the issue. You are correct when you write that Palestine is a minor side-issue – so why bother to bring up?

        • #2720260

          anti-Israel does not equal anti-semetic

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I love reading anti=semetic diatribes

          And its an irritating argument.

          I definately haved mixed feelings about Isreal and its treatment of the palestinian people.

          But that doesn’t mean I am anti-semetic – I know Jews in Canada who have the same feelings – are they anti-semetic?

          And while we are at it, its a big mistake to equate Muslims and Arabs – the majority of Muslims live in south east asia – Indonesia etc. Arab Muslims are about a third of the total Muslim population.

          James

        • #2699415

          Totally agree James

          by hargerd ·

          In reply to anti-Israel does not equal anti-semetic

          I’m getting a bit fed up of everyone showing even the slightest notion of a pro-Palestinian stance being dubbed “anti-Semetic”
          I have no issues with Judaism or the Jewish people BUT I do have a problem with the right wing Israeli government stance of land grabbing and almost complete occupation of Palestine, its people and their movements (yes I do call the occupied territories Palestine!!)

          AS ARE EVERYONE ELSE (i.e those backward ?commie? countries as some in here would call them)

          FLAME IF YOU WISH, I DON?T CARE ! ? THESE ARE MY VIEWS

        • #2699414

          Totally agree James

          by hargerd ·

          In reply to anti-Israel does not equal anti-semetic

          I’m getting a bit fed up of everyone showing even the slightest notion of a pro-Palestinian stance being dubbed “anti-Semetic”
          I have no issues with Judaism or the Jewish people BUT I do have a problem with the right wing Israeli government stance of land grabbing and almost complete occupation of Palestine, its people and their movements (yes I do call the occupied territories Palestine!!)

          AS ARE EVERYONE ELSE (i.e those backward ?commie? countries as some in here would call them)

          FLAME IF YOU WISH, I DON?T CARE ! ? THESE ARE MY VIEWS

        • #2720171

          divine guidance

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to I love reading anti=semetic diatribes

          When Jeff says that Jews had divine guidance in taking Eretz Israel he presumably means the Israelites, who later split into Jews and Samaritans. The Jews later still split into Christians and Rabbinical Jews. It is a mistake to think of the Israelis as descended from the Biblical Israelites. Obviously a Rabbinical Jew will think that he belongs to the truest branch of Israel, but he should not expect either Christians or Samaritans (of whom there are about 500) to share his opinion. And from the point of view of a Rabbinical Jew, Christians are certainly Israelites within the meaning of Joshua and Muslims are pretty close.

    • #2720446

      September 11 avoidance

      by john_wills ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      September 11 could have been avoided by the U.S. refusing to sell weapons to undemocratic states, in particular the Israeli state and the Arab despotisms. President Carter issued an executive order preventing the export of weapons to American despotisms and 10 years later every American country except Haiti and Cuba was a democracy. If the same policy had covered the world the Arab states would include some democracies by now, and Osama bin Laden would have been leader of a political party. Also, the Israelis would have at least started letting the exiles home, ending a source of bitterness.

      • #2720360

        Somewhat agree

        by garion11 ·

        In reply to September 11 avoidance

        I agree with selling arms to undemocratic countries but unfortunately Reagan, senior Bush, and Clinton didn’t follow that and we have a frigging mess.

        “September 11 could have been avoided by the U.S. refusing to sell weapons to undemocratic states, in particular the Israeli state and the Arab despotisms”

        Israel is not a non democracy. It is a fully democractic state…the only one in that cess pool they call the middle east.

        • #2720212

          What Israel is

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Somewhat agree

          According to the CIA –

          confederation with parliamentary democracy

        • #2720176

          democracy

          by john_wills ·

          In reply to Somewhat agree

          The Israeli state was founded or authorized by the UN on the condition that “non-Jews” in its territory would retain full civil and political rights. The people expelled in 1948 are therefore Israeli citizens, but they are not allowed to vote in Israeli elections. They are such a large proportion of the citizenry that excluding them from the vote makes the state a non-democracy.

          Besides that, depending on what you mean by “Middle East”, there are democracies there: think of Turkey, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran (okay, Iran’s irresponsible judiciary has fairly recently made that a non-democracy too).

    • #2720382

      Here are some answers

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      “So why did we go to war?”

      To prevent another 9/11 because….

      Was it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

      …based on the intelligence that GWB and Tony Blair received. GWB came to the conclusion that to protect America, Saddam had to go. Waiting for the UN isn’t a “smart” decision and isn’t in America’s interests.

      Was it to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein?

      No that was the secondary cause.

      Was it because Iraq had links to terrorism?

      Iraq had links to terrorism, it didn’t have links to 9/11. Big difference. “We will not make a distinction between terrorists and countries which harbor them or support them.”

      Or was it because the Bush administration simply wanted some means to go to war, regardless of its cost both economic and human?

      Based on those reasons, Bush administration could have picked any nation, and/or multiple nations. GWB could have used nuclear weapons if you feel it was “regardless of economic and human”. We could have left Iraq in a state of disarray and moved to the next country in the “axis of evil”. We are there rebuilding, again its not “regardless of economic and human.”

      “So far no WMDs have been found, and even Bush is this close of admitting that there weren?t any. Yes, we did find Saddam Hussein, but it was probably the most expensive manhunt in history. Also, do you think that if we would of done this differently, we would of got Osama Bin Laden instead?”

      Hmmm..Bin Laden is quite possibly dead. How do you really know he isn’t?? Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, its possible or it isn’t possible that we would have gotten him.

      “As for the possible link of Iraq with terrorism, the 9/11 commission says there weren?t any, but Bush says that there was simply because there was.”

      No the 9/11 conclusion said that Iraq doesn’t have connection or link to 9/11. They clearly stated it didn’t mean Al Qaeda or other terrorists organizations weren’t dealing with Saddam.

      “He provides no feasible evidence or even a clear explanation for his claims. Even if there was, does that mean that we should invade every single country in the world with suspected links to terrorism?”

      NO we don’t need to “invade” every country in the world that has susupected links. War is necessary when it is necessary. Diplomacy is an option that has been and is being used very much so (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia), much more than war.

      “What about 9/11 itself, do you think it could have been prevented?”

      Yes it could have been prevented if the last administration paid attention to terrorists and responded after the first world trade center bombing, instead of chasing 18 year old interns.

      “Do you think we would be safer if we spent more on intelligence than in the military?”

      Clearify this statement. Sometimes the military and intelligence go hand in hand. One is dependent on the other depending on the situation.

      By the way, what do you think is the Muslim world?s impression of the US so far?

      They hate us, they always hated us, and they will continue to hate us because we support the only democracy in the middle east…Israel. They feel that Jews run America, LOL.

      As far as what I think about the whole thing, I really don’t care what they think. They feel that blowing themselves up and killing innocent civilians and justifying it legitimate, or teaching 3 year old girls that Jews are apes and pigs, or teaching 8 year old boys in simulated camps on how to kidnap Jews and Americans is not a healthy culture or civlization. They started the war on 9/11, we will finish it.

      What do you think is the rest of the world?s impression of the US so far?

      The rest of the world, hmm..I dunno. Based on the media spins provided by Max (especially Australia’s media) I am not sure if the rest of the world is getting the correct information. So I can only assume that unless and until 9/11 in their own countries (based on the moral values of these so called terrorists, if you are not a muslim you are an infidel and you have to die, I think its only a matter of time) happens, they won’t support or understand what US “feels”.

      • #2700254

        Is this correct?

        by oweneg ·

        In reply to Here are some answers

        http://www.catsprn.com/cowboys.htm

        Someone just sent this to me and told me it was middle America’s answer to Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11”.
        Click on your speakers and listen up.

        • #2700178

          :-P

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Is this correct?

          I was waiting for the punchline……….it didn’t come.

          WOW, this guy’s serious! Despite the message, it’s a little loud, a tacky midi track (wher’d he find THAT)and…well…..RED…and WHITE…..and BLUE….and get me a bucket.

          Priceless, but I’d say he is SOLD!! 🙂

        • #2700163

          Cowboys

          by pctech ·

          In reply to Is this correct?

          While everyone can agree that it easy to like someone that “cowboy up” when they have been knocked down, it is harder to agree with someone that “cowboys” their way into a bad situation. Nearly anyone in uniform, policeman, fireman, rescue workers, and military can agree that the quickest way to become a part of the problem and not a part of the solution is to try to “John Wayne” your way into a bad situation.

          All of the “cowboys” depicted in the link are former or present actors. What do any of these men have to do with GW and the “Cowboy Way” image he tries to portray?

      • #2700291

        You should find out more about George W. Bush

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Here are some answers

        With all due respect, I believe your answer is the result of what the Bush administration wants all of us to believe. For one thing, it wasn?t a smart decision ?not? to wait for UN because eventually it turned out that there were no WMD, so Iraq was really not a treat to the US. Those countries that opposed the war in Iraq did so because there was simply not enough evidence to back it up. Also, remember the UN weapons inspectors were pulled out a lot earlier before they could finish the job to bring in military action. Going to war was a hasty decision. Now the country is seen as some sort of a liar and a bully.

        Even Colin Powel once said on an interview that the president rushed him kind of hard to find some means to get Saddam Hussein out of power. Some of the countries of the coalition already pulled their troops out of Iraq, primarily because they consider that this is going nowhere. Spain?s main reason to pull out is because ?this war was a disaster, and it is still a disaster?. As for Bin Laden, it seems that he is still alive and well. As a matter of fact, there was a recent recording of him saying that he was planning a big time attack on the US on Election Day.

        There are a couple of reasons why Islamic extremist kill themselves for terrorism purposes. They don?t fear dead. From a very young age they are taught that god is waiting for them to reward them for their sacrifice in the name of their religion, and they generally believe that attacks from the US on Islamic regions are attacks on their religion. As long as this goes on, terrorism will continue its threat on the world.

        Now don?t think George W. Bush is such a nice guy himself. As a matter of fact, he attempted to place a nuclear waste land very close to border with Mexico when he was governor of Texas. This was in clear violation of an international treaty. The reason why he didn?t make it was because people from both sides protested heavily and government officials fought against it. But let me tell you, he was just one step away from making it. He never admitted he was wrong, much less give apologize. The 2000 election day was very strange and when I found it he was elected I got pissed! I continued to ask myself: ?How can somebody who doesn?t even have the ethics to comply with a simply treaty can have what it takes to properly run a country?!?

        • #2701555

          So John Kerry is the answer?

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to You should find out more about George W. Bush

          Give me a break, if you think Bush is Bad wait until “Old Flip-Flop” gets in if he wins.

        • #2701425

          You tell me

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to So John Kerry is the answer?

          I find that Kerry’s proposals make better sense than Bush’s. What do you think would happen if Kerry wins?

        • #2700637

          Gridlock

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to You tell me

          Since it’s likely the republicans will at least control the house and the senate might be split, there will likely be a lot of stalemates and basically gridlock. This will be good in some ways as it will keep the democrats in check from “stealing” more of our money but also bad in that some needed programs will probably not get funded, ie defense etc.

        • #2699733

          It is still up to the people

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Gridlock

          I think the major reason why republicans control the house and the senate was because the elected president is a republican. If the people elects Kerry (a Democrat) then the same can eventually happen in the house and the senate. By the way, in my record, republicans have a higher score in stealing money than the democrats.

        • #2699429

          Actually

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It is still up to the people

          .
          When the Republicans took control of Congress (in 1994), there was a Democrat in the White House. Moreover, when the Democrats controlled Congress for the 40 years before 1994, Republicans were in the White House more than Democrats. (Actually, there was a short period in the 80s when the Republicans held a majority in the Senate, but not the House.) Your logic simply falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

          On your other note, will you please share your “record” comparing the money both Democrats and Republicans have “stolen”? Please itemise each instance of theft, placing the Democrats in one column and the Republicans in the other. That would be interesting to see.

        • #2698686

          The Republican Party in terms of economics

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to It is still up to the people

          Somebody asked to itemize the expenses from the Democrats and Republicans. Oh, common! I got far better things to do. That is like watching grass grow. However, I will summarize in a few specific points of what I think when I hear the word ?republican? in terms of economics:

          1. ENRON
          2. Tax cuts, good for the top 1%
          3. Going from a big time surplus to an almost 600,000 million dollar deficit
          4. Loosing millions of jobs
          5. Making up some of those jobs by outsourcing from abroad

          By the way, I was one of the millions that lost his job. It was a nice IT job. Now I’m lucky enough to get an entry-level position.

        • #2712975

          aldanatech – it was the “stealing”. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It is still up to the people

          .
          …that I was asking you to itemize.

          A targeted tax cut (or anything else you mentioned) does not equal stealing.

          Language is a beautiful thing if the correct words are used. But language can also be a misleading thing when those words are used incorrectly.

          Personally, I think better dialogue results when we avoid misusing the language. And the use of “stealing”, in this case, is a misuse of the language – not to mention how it reduces the credibility of your overall comments.

        • #2698624

          How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          by k_needles ·

          In reply to Gridlock

          Boy, is that a stretch. You accuse Kerry of stealing our money if he gets into office. What do you think Bush has been doing over the last four years! He has outdone Reagan with a deficit. He has stolen money that Congress voted for Afghanistan and put it into Iraq even before his war was declared. I kind of think that that was anti-democratic, HUH! I haven’t reaped any benefits of his tax cuts. And I am still looking for a job to replace the one I lost in 2002 with budget cuts!
          Billions have been blown overseas, America is being financed and is liened to foreign countries, mainly China and Japan, our infrastructure is a disaster, our schools are crumbling, and our firefighters, police officers, and first responders are being hauled off to Iraq to fight without the proper weapons and armored vehicles needed.
          I financially can’t afford another four years of George Bush, so who do you recommend as an alternative? Nader?

        • #2712971

          Ralph Nader – Absolutely – Yes

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          .
          I encourage you to follow your principle and vote for Ralph NAder. My hat’s off to you.

        • #2712820

          Facts mam’ Just the Facts!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          I think I would ask you for some proof of your claims. If what you say is true why is not congress or anyone else pushing for criminal charges? I think you are allowing your emotion to get the best of your reason.

          I hear a lot of this nonsense from leftists. It is usually do to a lack of a clear and concise argument. What is your point here? Do you honestly believe that the President of the United States STOLE government funds? I think you need a lesson in political science, government and the powers of the Presidential office.

          If you have not benefited from keeping more of your own money then perhaps you don’t need a job. I for one among millions have realized a benefit from the tax cuts. I keep more of my money which is a good thing.

          As for military spending: Perhaps you should talk to someone who has been or is in the military before you pass judgment. Bill Clinton and the democratic left spent eight years during the last decade dessimating our military just as it was dessimated in the 70’s by Jimmy Carter.

          As for China – Perhaps we should ask Mr. Clinton about his dealings with the Chinese and what technologies were transfered to that COMMUNIST government during his tenure in office?

          As for our Infrastructure? Please give a good example and explain how George W. Bush has adversely affected this system during his presidency.

          Please explain how George W. Bush caused you personally to loose your job. Can’t? Then please explain how any United States President can cause a non-government worker to loose their job (unless your talking about how Reagan fired the union air traffic controllers back in the 80’s).

        • #2712817

          You Crack Me Up…

          by gateboy1 ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          I don?t understand how you could be looking for a job for over two years. I left one state, went to another with out a job, and was hired within a week. I think it?s called interviewing??????? Jobs are everywhere!!!! The economy is doing good, the unemployment numbers are even lower than when Bill “Smoke My Johnson” Clinton was in office, and as for the “firefighters, police officers, and first responders are being hauled off to Iraq to fight without the proper weapons and armored vehicles” you can thank Kerry for dropping the ball and not voting for the funds required to outfit them. Go ahead and vote for John ?Herman Munster? Kerry or Ralph ?Who is that?? Nader. Just wait, when the Democrats get in office taxes will go way up, jobs will go out the door, and the only people that will benefit from any of this will be the people on welfare!!!If the Dem’s get in office then we’ll all be joining you in the food kitchen!!!

        • #2713663

          Try Kerry as an alternative

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          Bush’s tax cuts were outrageously irresponsible and unfair. It is only good for the high class, not for the working middle class, let alone the lower class. So they made the richest people in the country even richer while the rest of the country gets very little if anything at all. Because of this, vital programs are underfunded, millions and millions of jobs were lost, some of them are outsourced from abroad, and we are still a 40,000 million dollar deficit. So if we want to restore our economy then this a good place to start and Kerry wants to do just that. First he would roll back the tax cuts for the high class and give them to the middle class. The high class is already financially secured, so it is not like this would affect them or anything like that. The working middle class on the other hand is what keeps this country running. Remember that a productive economy is what makes it grow. We can make far better use of tax cuts than the high class.

        • #2714334

          aldanatech – Seven Questions

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          .
          Why do you demonize those who make more money than you?

          Why do you want them to give their money to you?

          How can you give a “tax cut” to someone (low income earners) who pays no taxes in the first place?

          Has a “poor guy” ever given you – or anyone – a job?

          Why do you think it’s right for a government bureaucrat to take a dollar from the person who earned it, just to give it to a person who didn’t earn it?

          Don’t you think taking ONE TRILLION dollars a year from the people who earned it, just to give it to people who didn’t earn it, is enough?

          Do you think a person is born with the inherent responsibility to take care of him/her self, and not become a burden to society?

          Seven questions. That’s enough for now, but can you answer them without falling into the normal “class envy” rhetoric?

        • #2714322

          Reply to the seven questions

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          Here are my answers:

          Why do you demonize those who make more money than you?

          Answer: I don’t, but the government should treat everyone fairly. If the middle class (which is a working class, people that do pay taxes) can pay taxes, so should the high class.

          Why do you want them to give their money to you?

          Answer: Its not that I actually want them to give me their money, but the middle class deserves those tax cuts more than they do.

          How can you give a “tax cut” to someone (low income earners) who pays no taxes in the first place?

          Answer: Again, I’m not talking about the low class, I’m talking about the middle class; people that work hard and do pay taxes.

          Has a “poor guy” ever given you – or anyone – a job?

          Answer: You mean the middle class, right? Yes, I have worked for small businesses and government programs.

          Why do you think it’s right for a government bureaucrat to take a dollar from the person who earned it, just to give it to a person who didn’t earn it?

          Answer: Both the high class and middle class earned it, so if the high class can get money back, why can’t the middle class.

          Don’t you think taking ONE TRILLION dollars a year from the people who earned it, just to give it to people who didn’t earn it, is enough?

          Answer: Well Bush thought HIS Tax cuts were enough. It turned out to be a total bust, and again you are still refering to the low class, not the middle class.

          Do you think a person is born with the inherent responsibility to take care of him/her self, and not become a burden to society?

          Answer: Ask the low class.

        • #2714160

          On the seven questions – For some reason. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          .
          …I knew you wouldn’t (or couldn’t) answer them honestly.

        • #2714123

          Check your own actions first Max

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          Look. If you want to right answers you must to ask the right questions. The whole point is not about giving tax cuts to the low class, but the middle class. Or is it that you don’t know there is such a thing as a middle class? Do you think the entire country’s social status is divided into the low and high class only?

          Now IF you finally got it, I’ll move on the next point. Both the middle class and the high class work and pay taxes, so if the high class can get tax cuts, so should the middle class. The low class doesn’t pay taxes, so forget them. Then again, everybody pays taxes one way or the other.

          Other the other hand, we can’t just assume tax cuts alone will do the trick. That was one of Bush’s biggest mistakes. It is not exactly a magic wand. There’s a lot more involved. First of all, tax cuts should be approved responsibly. If certain cuts would underfund vital programs such as education or health care then you must slim it down a bit. Bush did quite the opposite, and now whe red numbers all over the place and a deficit of over 400,000 million dollars. I would love to continue this, but I got to get going.

        • #2714115

          You’ve identified our differences

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How can you accuse Kerry of Stealing our money

          .
          You spew nonsense about the right questions and right answers – how about honest answers to honest questions? My questions were honest questions, and you just don’t want to honestly answer them.

          I don’t necessarily see an America divided by classes. You, on the other hand, do see a nation divided by classes – and you exploit the fears of one class to demonize another. That’s not to say that I don’t realize many people are better-off or more wealthy than others, but I say more power to them, while you, on the other hand, want to demonize them and take from them the fruits of their success.

          I don’t begrudge anyone who succeeds and becomes wealthy (no, I’m not even close), nor do I want anything from them. A tax rate cut that’s distributed equitably to the people who paid the tax in the first place is fair. If a certain group of people pay 90 percent of the taxes, I have no problem with 90 percent of any tax cut being returned to them.

          Consider the following scenario:

          If the overall tax rate, for example, is reduced by 10 percent across-the-board (using 10 percent for illustration purposes only), that means that a person who earns one million dollars a year, might see a rate reduction from 38 percent to 28 percent. A person who earns 100 thousand dollars a year, might see a tax rate reduction from 28 percent to 18 percent. The rate of reduction is equal. However, since 10 percent of one million is more than 10 percent of 100 thousand, the dollar amount will be higher. But I don’t have a problem with that. Apparently, because of your class-envy tendencies, you do.

          In the most recent round of tax cuts, everyone who pays taxes received a tax cut. I received a tax cut, and you received a tax cut – unless, of course, your income is low enough so that you don’t pay any taxes at all.

          Instead of simply repeating the tired old cliches of the Democrat party talking points, why don’t you share with us what you’ve learned about the past tax rate cuts, and how much was returned to each “class” (as you put it)? Do a little research, and stop repeating the Democrat Party tired old talking-points.

          You spew your clich?s about what “is needed”, so will you also please share with us your expertise, experience and education in the field of economics. And why should anyone believe you and not these experts?

          http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-03-01.html

        • #2699435

          Which Kerry proposals?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You tell me

          .
          Would you please articulate exactly what those proposals are? Be exact and be precise.

      • #2713863

        Definition of a terrorist

        by zuhairl ·

        In reply to Here are some answers

        We keep hearing over and over the word “Terrorist”

        Did anybody hear a definition of a terrorist? What about freedom fighters? This word was all over the media during Regan’s era

        I think there are a lot of injustice in the world, and commom people have nothing to do with it. Does anybody know that even the CNN we get here in the Middle east is different than the one you are viewing in the states? We ought to use our heads to evaluate what we hear.

        • #2713800

          I’d watch out for a massive turnout against you here

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Definition of a terrorist

          Most of the people who post here are so caught up in what their country is doing that they are either unable or unwilling to actually accept that there may be another side of the story.

          However I hope that it doesn’t put you off continuing to post here as we all need a different prospective on events so we can get a balanced view.

          Keep up the great work

          Col

        • #2714561

          Expected

          by zuhairl ·

          In reply to I’d watch out for a massive turnout against you here

          Thanks for the warning HAL. I went to school in the Midwest, and traveled all over the US. Loved it there, I know how some uneducated Americans on the world affairs think. But the majority are very open minded and willing to discuss and accept the facts. Some, sorry to say, think that the world revolves around their Neighborhood. This is an opportunity to get educated on the world affairs and educate in the process.

          I wonder how would anybody feels if some bully comes from nowhere and start kicking you out of your own house. Naturally, you fight back. in the process, god forbid, your brother, sister, and god knows who else from your family get hurt. You are labeled a terrorist. Injustice?

        • #2714655

          Yes, Internet re-broadcasts of TV

          by admin ·

          In reply to Definition of a terrorist

          Yes, Internet re-broadcasts of TV offer one way accessible to most of us to view many different takes on these situations.

          Of course if the past is any indicator, the line between Freedom Fighter and Terrorist is not so clear as time progresses. Our support for Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are clear examples of Ops in our interest that turn sour in time, but there are many examples under both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

          It is interesting to me that there are not a lot of arguments about the outright sinking of The Maine anymore. The Lusitania is also generally accepted to have been sunk with partial responsibility because the Germans even tried to keep Americans off the ship by directly warning us and it was not heeded for probably political
          reasons, then munitions were loaded on board even according to Lord Mersey’s official description of the facts (the New York to Liverpool Manifest has still not been made public) and still, we widely hold that The Maine was sunk by the Spanish and the Germans killed innocent people for no reason and without warning. The only factual part of that is that the people were, indeed innocent.

          No one bothers with facts really, unless they help the Republican Conservative side or the Democratic Liberal side. I agree strongly that: “We ought to use our heads to evaluate what we hear” and yet it seems to take a century before it is far enough that people can admit that their government acts in their best interest at times by deliberately manipulating a situation. Maybe in 50 or 60 years the general public will face facts and realize that the Freedom Fighters were largely the equivalent of terrorists fighting for our concerns. Fire is often best fought with fire at some point and we need to just accept this.

          I do agree though:”commom people have nothing to do with it” in almost all of these cases. We need to keep these actions as far away as possible from the innocents as we can and not use them for cover like the Lusitania. If there is one thing we can learn through history it is that with our post WW2 military in the US being so strong, it is still not truly strong and will not be until we can take out specific targets and leave the innocents to live, laugh and love in peace.

          This is the sign of true strength- that you effect the desired outcome with the least force, the least cost, the least damage and the most protection of the area and life in proximity. This is truly acting out of strength.

      • #2659097

        obviously you haven’t researched this.

        by lujohnson ·

        In reply to Here are some answers

        We DID find WMDs. we found about 500 chemical WMDs
        spread throughout Iraq.

    • #2720372

      My Cynical view

      by thechas ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      Since the plan to invade Iraq was first announced, I have had my own cynical views of why we invaded Iraq.

      1. The cabinet members from George H.W. Bush’s team felt that Iraq was unfinished business.
      They were disappointed that the coalition in the first Gulf war stopped the US from toppling Saddam then.

      2. With Saddam removed from power, there were jobs available for US contractors in the Iraqi oil fields.
      Iraq is a much more “lucrative” target then Afghanistan as Iraq actually has natural resources that can be converted into money to pay contractors for rebuilding the country.

      3. The invasion of Iraq is / was part of a scheme to assist in the reelection of GWB.
      With the Iraqi oil flowing into the world market, the cost of crude oil was supposed to drop significantly last year.
      This would result in lower US fuel and energy prices. That would then boost the US manufacturing economy.

      Nothing helps an incumbent President like a booming economy.

      Chas

      • #2720359

        yes but

        by garion11 ·

        In reply to My Cynical view

        the fact that the oil prices have been increasing, jobs and the economy are still somewhat not there yet (a year after the war) just shot your theory to s**t.

        So anymore conspiracy theories??

        • #2720342

          Just a view

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to yes but

          I am definitely not going into a four day rant with you but you have reached some early conclusions.

          Oil prices have been decreasing in Vancouver already and just across the border gas has dropped considerably BUT it is still far from affordable or even reaosn able yet. The Iraqi il fields are not producing enough oil yet to make a substantial difference and many crews and contractors are not in Iraq yet as the violence is still a major issue and daily car bombs and attacks on US soldiers and the Iraqi government continues. The day WILL come, next year I would guess, when American contractors are all over Iraq along with all the others including Canda and Australia. They are just waiting for the dust to settle still (bad pun sorry).

          This WILL boost the economy, as the fields are brought up to full production, it WILL reduce gas pricesin the US.

          So I think Chas was speaking on a basis of long term goals, in which case I couldn’t agree more.

        • #2720325

          Just means it didn’t work

          by thechas ·

          In reply to yes but

          From my point of view, the “plan” to boost the economy with lower energy costs failed.

          Why?

          Iraq’s oil infrastructure was in worse shape than anticipated.
          Combined with sabotage, the oil just has not been flowing from the Iraqi oil fields as needed.

          China and the third world countries are using more oil every day.
          Increasing global demand was not factored into the plan.

          Opec decided to cut production just as Iraqi oil was starting to flow.

          By the way, I never said there was any conspiracy.
          I just speculated on a possible “political” motivation for the invasion of Iraq.

          And yes, I am personally convinced that the “real” reason for invading Iraq had little to do with weapons of mass destruction, or global terrorism.

          After all, nearly every reason for the war, and every report of “good” news about the economy and Iraq is proven to be exaggerated several weeks after it is announced.

          During the 2000 campaign GWB claimed to be a uniter not a divider.
          He has succeeded in uniting the global terrorism community. Giving them a common goal of attacking US interests.
          On the plus side, GWB has also made the US Democratic party the most united it has ever been.

          Chas

        • #2720313

          Very astute, Chas

          by pctech ·

          In reply to Just means it didn’t work

          I think you have covered everything fairly well Chas, and proves that you have paid attention to the details.

          Bush has proven to be the great uniter, indeed. As you have stated, he has united the Democratic base and has done so with the efficiency that Clinton had in uniting the Republican base. Someday we may become lucky enough to have a president that unites Democrats and Republicans alike towards the common good of this nation as opposed to the common good of a political party. Rarely throughout the history of this great nation has this been the case. This should not imply that it can not happen again. We, as voters, just have to want it to be so and get the attention of both major parties to move towards this goal. Balance our deficets, both domestic and with foreign trade. Keep spending low but, have the courage to spend when spending is needed. Keep taxes low but, have the responsibility to tax when taxes are needed. The UNITED States of America should be more than just the name of a country. This should be our common goal.

          Thank you for comments, Chas. We need more with the clear mind and thoughts that you have exhibited here. You show courage to go against the grain and intelligence as to when to do so.

    • #2720255

      Violation of UN Resolutions

      by dbertsche ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      It looks to me like, from the posts I’ve read, everyone has conviently forgotten that Iraq was in violation of numerous UN Resolutions stretching out over many years. Therefore the actions taken were actually a continuation of the first war.

      Should we have kept going back to the totally inept United Nations and getting more resolutions passed only to be ignored by Iraq? There comes a point in time when action is required.

      The only reason the French and Germans were so against it is because they were making money off of Iraq and they didn’t want to see that come to an end.

      Support our Troops and our commander-in-chief.

      • #2720227

        Not at all

        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to Violation of UN Resolutions

        Being held in violation of UN resolutions does not necessarily allow any other nation the right to invade. Since the UN was inspecting Iraq to see, for sure, whether or not there was a violation we should have let them finish. More and more the inspectors were establishing that the “common knowledge” that Iraq possessed WMD was to be questioned. Waiting any longer and the best excuse to invade Iraq was beginning to look like it just might fade.

        I did not feel that what we had at the time rose to the level of forcing the US to change its historical perspective of no preemptive strikes against other sovereign nations.

        Yes, Hussein was a bad guy – one who was propped up by earlier US administrations. [An all too common trend.] We should have supported the people of Iraq in their rise against Hussein, but we did not [after “leading them on” that we would aid them]. That resulted in the slaughter of man people. The hands of the US are not entirely clean.

        Would Hussein have been in violation of these UN mandates had the US not given him the materials to do so? Was he actually in violation? [Or had he used all of the gas in the Iran/Iraq war and whatever was left over on the Kurds during their revolt against him – again, which was left unsupported by the US?]

        Why was the US meddling in the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan [where we were supporting and training bin Laden] so many years ago? Well, because they sat in strategic places with respect to Oil. Iraq sits on big reserves while Afghanistan has a major pipeline. The connection between the US interest there and Oil is stronger and more evident than anything produced about Iraq and al Qaeda.

        So were France and Germany opposed to the war for JUST monetary reasons? Unlikely. I have no direct monetary stake in the event and I was not supportive of the idea, either.

        • #2701558

          Don’t totally agree

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to Not at all

          While it’s true violating UN resolutions does not give a country a right to invade, what should the US have done then, wait another 10 years for the UN to try to get Iraq to comply? Remember part of the problem here was that Iraq was suppose to offer proof they had no WMD, they failed to do this, the burden of proof was on them not the US or the rest of the world.

          As far as the inspections that were being conducted, they were a farce. There were numerous times when inspectors were not allowed into particular areas. Are you so naive to think they wouldn’t hide things and/or move things given the chance?

          I’m generally not in favor of preemptive strikes but in the world we’re now living in it can’t be ruled out. There are those out there who would love nothing better than to deliver an even more devestating attack on us than 9/11 and we need to be ready.

          Yes, we have supported questionable characters before because it was in our best interest at that particular point in time to do so. We can’t go back and redo history, what’s been done is over with. Things change which requires changes in our response. This is nothing new and we are not the only country that operates this way.

          Why is there always this big “clamor” about oil? It’s not like we’re taking the oil. What would these countries do if all of sudden no one needed their damn oil? They benefit because they have a resource that’s in demand. Sure a lot of economies in the world are dependent on using oil, what would you have us do? I do think the US needs to develop another fuel source so we can get away from depending on foreign oil but until that happens we have to deal with the situation.

          Concerning your comments about France and Germany. Making money was not the only reason but it was one of the reasons. It is a well known fact that France sold a lot of military equipment to Iraq and both countries were heavily involved in building infrastructure within Iraq so to say making money was not a part of it is to deny known facts.

        • #2701547

          OK then

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Don’t totally agree

          So, preemptive strikes should be OK? So, what happens when you were wrong to have invaded? Just say, “Hey, you should have done what I told you?” Countries cannot dictate to other countries. You need to fully work the diplomacy angle, at least.

          Just as in capital punishment, where you can’t bring the dead back to life if the lead witness admits to having lied to get the guy convicted, you can’t go to war with another sovereign nation preemptively without pretty damn solid proof.

          Iraq was a weakened country. In order to hold off their enemy neighbors, they needed to prop up their capabilities. So they kept the world guessing about their weapons stockpiles. This is a plausible reason for their actions. Did this factor into the decision made by the current administration to preemptively strike? I have found no evidence of this. Bush, in a remarkable and rare display of intellect, said something along the lines of “This is the best you’ve got?” to the CIA director when he showed what evidence they had that Iraq carried WMD. Unfortunately, this also displays Bush’s strong desire to go to war anyway – even with such flimsy proof to back him up.

          Lack of proof is lack of proof. In our own judicial system we are innocent until proven guilty. How can we, as a nation, then condemn another nation when there is circumstantial evidence at most? Most of the proof was heresay, and that from political enemies.

          Did someone [I’ll not attempt to point fingers] lie when they said we know how much and exactly where the WMD were? If we knew where they were, why did we not share this information with the inspectors?

          Oh, don’t forget that the only WMD used by Iraq were sold to them from the US.

          It’s the meddling of the US that created all of this in the first place. Now we’re meddling and sending in troops. I can’t see things getting better.

        • #2701459

          Sometimes

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OK then

          You just have to put your hands in the air ad shake your head.

          I see and agree withyour comments completely. Saddam was a condemned (sp?) man LONG before the whole WMD issue was raised. He had something Bush wanted and he wouldn’t let him have it, resources. This was the cause behind all the OFF issues, the US sanctions against Iraq, the US breaking it’s OWN sanctions etc. just a mess that turned into a bigger mess before it could be swept neatly under the carpet.

          As for Kerry, I won’t hazzard a guess whether he will be beter or worse for the United states, taxes, jobs etc., that’s internal politics and does not concern me in any way, thank God.

          As long as your choice doesn’t bring further enemies to North America I don’t give a damn who you elect. GWB was/is the worst mistake America has ever made, PLEASE for the sake of the free world, don’t repeat this mistake again.

        • #2701443

          Yes

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to Sometimes

          Sometimes you do have to put your hands in the air and shake your head when you people just don’t get it!

          We should have finished the job the first time and we wouldn’t be catching all the damn flak now. That was Bush Sr’s mistake.

          Gee you won’t venture a guess if Kerry will be better or worse but yet you trash Bush. So typical of Bush-haters. What do you think he will do differently now that the US is in Iraq and it’s likely if he’s elected he’ll have to deal with a congress where his party will be in the minority? Guess you’ll be trashing him come next march when the US is still in Iraq, right?

          GWB may not be the best president we ever had but by no means is he the worst. Jimmy Carter was by far one of the worst we ever elected, I lived through his double digit inflation and his namby-pamby handling of the Iran hostage crisis, Bush doesn’t come anywhere near being as bad as he was.

          Contary to your conclusion, it would be a colossal mistake for the US not to reelect Bush. Kerry offers no solutions and flip-flops on every position, additionally he will definitely lighten my wallet because he will raise taxes, it’s a forgone conclusion.

          As far as bring further enemies to North America, you have to be kidding, the just released 9/11 report covers 8 years of Clinton and 8 months of Bush. North America’s enemies have been growing in size long before Bush ever took office.

          Bush isn’t perfect but he’s a damn sight better than Kerry will ever hope to be!

        • #2701421

          Like I said

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yes

          Give your head a shake.

          I couldn’t care less how much of YOUR money Kery takes, I couldn’t give a damn about BUSH either except he has MADE your business MY business.

          If he was simply screwing around with your economy, your taxes, your employment etc. Then it is completely up to you guys who you elect and I would have no opinion either way.

          THE REASON I dislike Bush btu have no comments on kerry is no even remotely close to your analogy. GWB has MADE your business and HIS agenda MY business by performig his antics on the global stage. If he kept Americas business IN America then nobody would give a crap WHO you relected.

          As for enemies, BUSH has created MORE resentment and hatred of anything American than ever before, he has stoked the coals ad raked you across them, the funny part is SOME people STILL support him, while many of his former supporters now see him for the clown he is and want change.

          For all I care you could elect OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson for president, as long as they don’t brig MY country into harms way with thier absurd Bs that fuels thier personal agendas on a global scale, I dont care.

          GWB has dragged America through the mud, why is it that every citizen in EVERY country other than America can see this? Are you still under the false premise that everyone’s jealous of America? If so for what? The need to live in fear? The need to be hated by the world? The need to piss off Allied countries?

          GWB has done NOTHING to help the world except make a mess in Iran and an even bigger mess in Iraq.

          Gee thanks for saving my life that was never at risk of attack from these people. Well done, thanks for saving your own country from a non-existent threat. At least you can claim THAT victory. You weren’t threatened so you effectively stopped a threat, well done.

          Next time, leave the world out of your ridiculous attempts to save America from invisible, false enemies and fabricated threats.

          You want to go and kill all your sons ad daughter that’s fine. If you feel it is needed because you were scared into believing so, that’s fine. if you want to go and believe the smoke screen to take your focus away from Americas real threats, that’s fine.

          Just don’t drag the whole damn world along with you and then bitch that nobody else buys your presidents BS.

        • #2701417

          I agree

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to OK then

          Okay. So now the reason to go to war was because Iraq didn’t provide enough evidence that that it had to weapons of mass destruction. Well the US didn’t provide solid evidence to attack Iraq either. Well, the US now has the evidence it demanded from Iraq, and that is that no WMDs have been found so far. Can the world ever trust us again?

        • #2701380

          “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I agree

          That’s an interesting point and I know that right now nobody trusts Bush as far as they could kick his sorry arse. He is seen as the enemy even in Canada, God only knows what they think of him in Iraq.

          What wil it take to win back the world’s trust? Well first of all Amrican citizens realizing what a disaster Bush’s term has been and not reelectig him is a good start. If he gets another term, your citizens are gonna be seen as
          absolute morons who can’t face the truth and realize Bush will be the end of America. You will be seen as confomists fools who will beliee anythig you are told and have no ability to see outside your own backyard, it won’t be good at all.

          So how do you win back the trust of others? Perhas four years of solving your own problems and not trying to drag the rest of the world into your fear issues. In short, America needs to see a shrink. Once you have proven once again that you can conduct youselves in a professional manner and can actually live your own lives, you MAY begin to earn some trust again.

          As it stands, Canada and other countries are looking to others for the partnerships they used to get from the USA, we have no interest in having any affairs with the USA now ad people here don’t even want to visit the USA anymore, which is a great deal of your Northern economy and retail support.

          People ae working hard to eliminate the USA from the picture as they dont want to be associated with your politics any longer, it is placing others in harms way.

          These are just my personal feelings from what I have headr and felt locally, you guys think I am a bush basher or anti-American, I am NOTHING in comparisson to people I talk with who literally despise ANYTHING American. This is from your neighbours and allies, not the middle east, which should cause some concern for America, you need others to support your own country. We can get our resources elsewhere, but where will you go for yours? You need friends for that and friends are something the USA could REALLY use these days.

          I don’t like to say it because I actually like Americans ad America, just not the dork in the White House that has hung onto coat tails long enough to get elected.

          Personally I feel sorry for you all because of what Bush has done to you once good name.

          I would DREAD being American in such times and feel for those who never supported GWB to begin with and yet find themselves stucj in the same hole the rest of America is.

          Only YOU guys can change things, not GWB not Kery, YOU guys have to find a better resolution han the last which has caused more damage to America than terrorists ever had or could.

          Bush is YOUR worst enemy, he has defaced your good name all over the globe and dragged America’s citizens with him.

        • #2700627

          Meaningless Drivel

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          You speak for all Canadians? I don’t think so. This is like a lot of your posts, hate Bush propaganda.

          You’re obviously brainwashed.

        • #2699731

          At least make SOME sense in your replies.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          Firstly you say I speak on behalf of Canadians, when did I do that?

          “These are just my personal feelings from what I have headr and felt locally, you guys think I am a bush basher or anti-American, I am NOTHING in comparisson to people I talk with who literally despise ANYTHING American.”

          Secondly, you are American, how can you POSSIBLY have ANY idea whatsoever how Canadians veiw Americans? Don’t say by visiting here, because as individuals, Americans are not a problem to Canadians, a little annoying but not a problem. If you speak with authority because you used to live here that also means squat, people USED to like America.

          So I am left wondering how you made the two following statements especially after titleing your post ‘Meaningless Drivel’ when neither apply to my post?

          Either that or your title was to reflect the content of your post, which without any substance to suport it is simply ‘Meaningless Drivel’.

          Brainwashed? By whom? The other side? The black hats? The ‘wrong’ people? What makes you think you as a Bush supporter have not been brainwashed? Most of the evidence proves he has deceived you all, you say he is stright-up? Please prove that one.

          What HATE Bush Propaganda? The only propaganda I’ve seen is all the pro-Bush, pro-War BS that keeps covering up the real issues that people are pissed off at, like the title of THIS discussion.

          “Iraqi’s are better off!”, “Saddam was an evil dictator that repressed his people!”, “Just look at 9/11!”

          How about, “Saddam is going to kill us with WMD and because he is stopping inspectors from looking around, he MUST be guilty and really be hiding these weapons that are going to kill us all.” THAT’S WHY YOU ALL SUPPORTED THE WAR.

          So with kidnappings of Iraqi children escalating to the point that schools are hiring armed guards and some kids are siomply staying home out of fear to go to school, all I see you doing is changing the violence, not stopping it. Kids are being held for ransom, so the US isn’t funding Iraqi’s anymore, they will find themselves.

          Still waiting for the happy ending.

        • #2699610

          I see your point.

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          You’re right. Before the world can trust us again we must first prove that we are truly self-reliant. We can probably start by balancing some of the national deficit, which is now somewhere around 600,000 million dollars! Ouch! Or we can start by fixing our presidential election system. To be quite honest, the 2000 election was rather embarrassing compared to those in other countries. In Mexico for example, the results for the presidential election of July 2000 were confirmed and presented on the night of the same day of the election. I hope we can at least have something close to this on this year?s election.

        • #2701877

          EXactly

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          If there is a decent and fair election that anyone wins beyond a shadow of a doubt then so be it, may the best man win.

        • #2701779

          Response to your response to mine

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          First off I didn’t say that you reflected what all Canadians think. Check my post ozboy and you’ll find I asked a question. Since I don’t live in Canada and you do I figured you might know the answer to the question. I do not have any idea if your opinion represents what the majority of Canadians think. Once again that’s why I asked the question.

          You state somewhere in your rambling response that there is a lot of Pro Bush news etc. Maybe in Canada but not on the major networks here, it’s anti-bush. I don’t know what you’r watching but I see a lot more liberal bias than conservative bias.

          Just as you state over and over, I am entitled to my opinion and I still think you’re brainwashed and that the overwhelming majority of what you post is pure “crap”. You can choose to disagree as I’m sure you will but tough, that’s my opinion.

          You know, since the US seems to be a real bother to you perhaps you should move to another country that’s not as close, say…France! That’s it, you’d probably fit in real well there. Hey, just an opinion!

        • #2701249

          France?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          Interesting that you should pick France as a nation that disgusts you.

          So any ‘allied’ country that doesn’t back the US sucks? There is so much crap about France for some reason, did they attack you too or are you simply gonna invade them anyway?

          Why don’t you protest them again in true American style, have American’s all over your country buy French products and throw them away (that’ll show them !). Then you can go and buy more French products and throw THEM away, now they’ll learn! If they want to mess with America they better start increasing production of exports to the USA, the US citizens are buying them up in protest! Very clever guys, well done!

          Now do ME a favour, go and protest European hard rock music and buy up all the CD’s, I love the residuals.

          But as my unce now lives in the South of France, I was able to visit his coutry home a couple of years back, and yes, I would move there in a heartbeat (long before I ever considered moving to the US that is).

          As for moving away from the US to begin with, it can’t be done. No matter what country you live in, the US is your your life as a daily event, it cannot be avoided as YOUR peresidet has made your business EVERYONE’s business.

          As for my media, I watch the EXACT same channels you get in the USA, MOST of our TV here is US networks and local Noth West news. We also get Middle Eastern channels (amusing), Asian channels, Canadian networks, British chanels etc. So who is only seeing PART of the picture?
          I would say those that rely on American networks and local news.

          Do I speak for all Canadians? No of course not, and I wouldn’t begin to. What I have seen from ANYONE I meet in BC is that Bush is an idiot, Bush is a warmonger, Americans are ‘waraholics’, etc. I have not heard, seen nor met a single Canadian that agrees with Bush. So from what I have seen and geard from Canadians, I can say ‘yes that’s what they think’.

          I aso get the same from British and Australian relatives that I and have talked to recently. Plus from overseas news, polls etc. that all say they are against Bush’s actions.

          Is it so hard to comprehend that NOBODY likes Bush but yourselves, and even that following is thinning more and more daily as people wake up to reality and realize that you were blatantly mislead due to the presidential Administrations own agenda and not your own personal safety, which is still not proven asd being in jeopardy of an attack from Saddam’s non-existant WMD, that he had no possible means of attacking the USA with.

          So in my case you can take the easy way out, instead of justifying the unjustified, you can simply say, if you don’t like it move. (first of all WHY THE HELL SHOULD I HAVE TO MOE TO AVOID THE USA?) secondly, what do you tell fellow americans with the same conclusions? If you don’t like it leave? What about Democracy and personal rights, the Constitution? Isn’t this what you are ‘apparently’ trying to set up in Iraq? You are instantly ready to remove all these rights from someone who disagrees.

        • #2701228

          France? Response

          by dbertsche ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          More meaningless drivel! You are so totally predictable, I knew you would respond with a rant which is exactly what you did.

          You read way too much into things, France was suggested because it’s further away from the US than Canada, it could have been Iraq, Germany, or any other country across the pond. Pick one.

          I also never suggested the US invade any other country, don’t know where you’re getting that from.

          We did once think about invading Canada and making it the 51st state, but then…..nah we don’t need it! Besides it would unbalance the flag with 51 stars.

          Come on back with another rant, you’re so good at it!

        • #2701205

          Actualy you are wrong

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          You say you THOUGHT about invading Canada. IN fact, you HAVE TRIED to invade Canada when under British/French rule, you were defeated miserably and pushed back into the USA. America had fewer citizens at that time however. Out of 286,730 US servicemen between 1812 and 1815 nearly 0.03% of your population was killed or wounded.

          Funy enough, this is the same percentage of the US population killed or wouded during Vietnam (0.03%).

          Vietnam was America’s worst hororshow, while the defeat of 1812 is barely recognized, although the numbers were far fewer the percentage of your total population that were killed are the same.

          So yes, in a very broad conclusion, America tried to invade Canada already, they were about as successful as they were in Vietnam.

          “The War of 1812 is one of the forgotten wars of the United States…The offensive actions of the United States failed in every attempt to capture Canada.”

          And this was a cute yet barely related or credible conclusion:
          http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/06/30/canada/index_np.html

        • #2699480

          US/Canada invasions

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to “Can the world ever trust us again?'”

          I know Oz was just aching for me to step in.

          The War of 1812 is pretty much forgotten in US and British history, but is remembered in Canadian history as a defining moment.

          The cause of the war is up to debate. The official US version is that the British were boarding US vessels and impressing sailors into service. The fact that some of them were British Navy deserters isn’t brought up that often.

          But the real cause, if you read the history books, was the American “manifest destiny” to rule north america – this was sweeping the US, and in particular areas like Kentucky, the “warhawks” were actively pushing for war as a means of expanding territory and preventing British/Indian treaties. Something to note, many New Englanders were violently opposed to the war(sound familiar?) as they were profiting from trade with Canada.

          On the Canadian side, it was an alliance of British troops(not too many, as Britain was fighting Napoleon at the time), Canadian Militias, and native warriors, including Tecumseh.

          At one time Canada held Detroit, at other times the US held a Canadian Fort on the north side of the Niagara, but it was pretty much back and forth. Time and time again, outnumbered Canadian forces drove back American forces. Battles on the great lakes went back and forth – Oliver Hazard Perry did score the US navy’s biggest win, but then again, his ships outnumbered the British, and for the first part of the battle, the superior seamanship of the British nearly won out.

          Every american seems to remember that the white house was attacked, but they forget that it was a reaction to the US attacking York(now Toronto) and burning parliament(and generally behaving badly). The White House raid, and the whole New Orleans campaign were not attempted to try and take over any american soil but were meant to draw US troops away from the border battles. So when the Americans crow about kicking butt at the battle of New Orleans(with that silly Johnny Horton song), they don’t realise that the point was not to take New Orleans, the attempt was to cause mischief and draw US troops away from Canada.

          Nobody really won the war- it was ended by treaty. If it had gone on, the US might have faced more British troops, as by the time of the treaty, the Napoleonic wars had ended.

          Canada was also invaded after the US Civil war by fenians – anti-British Irish and their decendants living in america. The US government turned a blind eye, though they certainly were aware – many of them had served in the Irish regiments of the war. They got drunk in Buffalo, crossed the border and had their butts kicked by Canadian Militia. The only real importance to this is that it hurried up those who were negotiating the creation of the Canadian nation(Upper Canada=Ontario, Lower Canada=Quebec, and two of the maritime provinces).

          If you visit cities like Kingston, Fort Erie, Toronto, Quebec City or Halifax you can see the evidence of our defensive nature – fortifications built to forestall american invasion. It has shaped out history. America is the only country that could invade Canada – even at the height of the cold war, the Soviets could not put enough soliders on ships to land on Canadian soil(they had no real aircraft carriers). Nonetheless, Canada has fought in WWI, WWII, Korea and the first Gulf war from day one.

          James

        • #2699425

          The bigger question

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I agree

          .
          Can the USA trust the rest of the world? It looks rather bleak, at this point.

        • #2699421

          You and Me Against the World

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I agree

          You and me against the World
          Sometimes it feels like..You and me against the World
          When all the others turn their backs and walk away,
          you can count on me to stay.

          Remember when the Terrorists came to kill…
          and we were damaged by their ill,
          wasn’t it nice to be around someone that you knew?
          Someone who was big and strong and looking out for you and me
          Against the World

          Sometimes it feels like you and me against the World
          and for all the times we cried,
          I always felt that God was on our side

          And when one of us is gone,
          and one of us is left to carry on
          Then remembering will have to do
          Our resolve alone will get us through
          Think about the days of me and you,
          You and Me against the World

          – Paul Williams (lyrics slightly changed by Maxwell Edison)

        • #2699367

          Thanks

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to You and Me Against the World

          I just don’t know whether to puke or cry.

          I don’t know how all the world can turn thier backs on your poor downtrodden country that sufers so from the evil men of the world.

          Other countries have just NO idea what it’s like tto be terrorized, they hae never lost men, women and children to attacks on thier own soil. No sons and daughters were sent to war, no families were broken and no love was lost.

          They just don’t understand how the sorry little USA has been bullied for so long and has finally had enough of it. Awwwwwwwwwwwww. 🙁

          I am so sorry Maxwell, I didn’t realize you were all being picked on and nobody understands.

        • #2699204

          thanks

          by claudiamesna ·

          In reply to You and Me Against the World

          was that Helen Reddy? Way kewl…and thank you. I find many of your comments cogent and other good stuff..

      • #2720165

        So was the USA

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Violation of UN Resolutions

        Part of the sacntions the the US placed upon Saddam was that ALL goods MUST be inspected by US incpectors before they were released into Iraq.

        These inspections of much needed Food and Medical supplies were held indefinitely by the US insspectors, SOME inspections taking in excess of 9 months, as outlined by the US Embassy. So the US was not holding up their end of the deal either. One thing I noticed when the US is trying to instill blame on people and come out smelling of roses is that they will automatically point the finger at everyone BUT they will never look at their own actions as a reason for the problems.

        No I am not saying the US is as guilty as anyone or that it’s all your fault, but you cannot start looking at every other country involved and start pushing blame on peple if you are just as much your doing as it is theirs.

        This is the habit of the US that REALKLY pisses people off, the HOLIER THAN THOU attitude that you have done nor could do no wrong under your presidential democracy. Pure crap, you guys screwed up too, you just won’t admit it as you refuse to see your own faults.

      • #2699997

        Quick to cast blame

        by sullyman ·

        In reply to Violation of UN Resolutions

        How quick some of you are to cast blame on other countries because they didn’t support your war. Your mess, your problem….

        The US created the situation in Iraq, the US funded Saddam when he was useful knowing that he was a madman. The US supported OBL knowing that he was a madman….

        Just because we didn’t support your war, does not mean that we had something to gain by not fighting by your side.

    • #2720208

      While a good question it’s a bit late

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      Now well after the event it is miles too late to even consider asking this question and even if WMD had been found what threat could they pose to the US?

      Perhaps Saddam was going to make a Fission bomb and “FedEx it to Washington” that would be about the only way that anything like that could have an impact on the US.

      The reality of the position was GWB needed a Scape Goat and Saddam fitted the bill nicely as North Korea who is a very real threat is just too big of a mess to stir up again. A Gulf Way Veteran asked me why did I think that Iraq was targeted and his response was that they where not in a position to defeat or for that matter even slow down the invasion where as NK would have bitten back hard.

      Col

      • #2699608

        True, but…

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to While a good question it’s a bit late

        Remember that the country, the people, and the world changes continuously. We must always keep ourselves updated because our opinion yesterday is not necessarily the same today.

        • #2701727

          While I agree

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to True, but…

          The worst thing possible would be to pull out now once things have been placed in motion that are impossible to stop.

          We made the mess that is there now and we MUST clean it up or we will all be far worse off than we where previously.

          If we where to withdraw right now there are insurgents that have no interest in Iraq at all who would become the leaders and their sole aim would be to inflict as much damage as possible on both the USA and the COW at large.

          Well here in AU we just do not have any really serious targets that would cause massive damage like the US has but even still there are places where massive pollution could be caused without too much trouble and while it would be inconvenient for us it really would not be the same long term problems that could occur in the USA.

          Just after Sept 11 I suggested that while the World Trade Center was a very noticeable target really that is all it was as there where far more serious targets not all that far away and could render massive amounts of the US country uninhabitable. Now some regulars here tore me down on that but as they obviously do not know what they where talking about it was no big deal and now these targets are taken seriously by the administration and protected accordingly.

          But even with the best laid plans of mice and men things can still go wrong with terrible consequences that just do not bear thinking about. We have to clean up the mess that we made in Iraq and while the insurgents continue to think that they are succeeding it will only be that much harder.

          Col

    • #2720159

      War for profit

      by gbrownlee ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      As history has shown, theres nothing like a war to boost a sluggish economy.

      Theres something I don’t understand and that is, If america is such a peace loving nation, why are you in so many darn wars?

    • #2720138

      This is an IT related forum?

      by md.harrison ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      What on earth has this got to do with I.T.

      • #2700266

        Easy

        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to This is an IT related forum?

        The poster is an PC Tech and he has a life outside of work which he would want to share / debate with other people who share similar interests and / or have similar backgrounds.

        What did your posting have to do with the thread at all?

      • #2700263

        No but you replied to it didn’t you?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to This is an IT related forum?

        Tech Republic is not JUST for IT information. If you look at the Discussions topics yuou can filter the non-IT discussions by choosing the topic of your choice, MS Server, Novell, security, etc.

        THIS dscussion would fit into the GENERAL discussions forum, which is simply a ‘water cooler’ where we discuss anything that interests us. It allows us to take a break from the droll and hum drum IT world.

        You can simply go to the front DISCUSSIONS page and select the topics that interest you and you have no need to pore through non-IT topics if you don’t wish to. The choice is yours.

      • #2700227

        The Water Cooler

        by thechas ·

        In reply to This is an IT related forum?

        MD Harrison,

        If you take a look, the Miscellaneous section of the Discussion Center is often used like the water cooler at work.

        It is a place to exchange ideas and blow off steam on non-IT related topics.

        I consider many of the peers who post to these discussions to be my friends.
        Even if we do not always agree on the topic under discussion.

        If you desire to see only IT related discussions, I suggest that you avoid the Miscellaneous section.

        However, you can learn a lot about your peers who use these forums by browsing through a few of these “off topic” discussions.

        Chas

    • #2700218

      Greed, Corruption, Oil – Go to this site and read War on Terrorism

      by black panther ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      • #2700191

        yeah well

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Greed, Corruption, Oil – Go to this site and read War on Terrorism

        While I am avidly against Bush’s handling of foreign policies and using scare tactics to coerce the US population into backing the need for a premature invasion (I think it was needed but not as a solo ‘cowboy’ mission), such websites are the reason that nobody will give the left wing a second of their time.

        Although many of the points are probably worth a second look by Bush supporters, the website itself is DRAINED of any integriy purely by its garbage appearance and style.

        This informtaion is available from much more credible sources.

    • #2700166

      Nationality please

      by antipodes ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      It appears that some American members of this website are finally waking up to the fact that Bush pulled the wool over their eyes, and that the flawed “intelligence” which was used to justify the war, was also used by the other two initial members of the COW, Australia and Britain.

      While apparently Tony Blair has been forgiven by his comrades for being sucked into this illegal and disastrous debacle, Australia’s John Howard and George W. Bush will no doubt pay the price of their foolhardy actions at elections to be held this year.

      So I would be pleased if American peers who now consider the invasion of Iraq to have been an unwise and unjustified course of action, could identify their nationality in these discussions, so that we may know if there has been a genuine shift of viewpoint by at least some Americans.

      • #2699601

        You’re right

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Nationality please

        At least some Americans see the truth behind the Bush scheme. Those that don’t probably don’t want to oppose the president. Well just because he is the president doesn’t mean that he HAS to be right. If he messed up we have the right to get him out.

    • #2700164

      fat and ugly

      by defdc ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      I think that our attitudes are somewhat less than caring, certainly complacent. If the only reason we went to war was to create one better day for the women and children of Iraq it was worth it! Open your eyes and look at the life style, the demeaning treatment, the mind bending education, the lack of seeing a new day with some hope or joy for all of the people of Iraq. NOW save the talk about it isn’t up to us to push our thinking on others. If we don’t allow freedom it ring in every opportunity, you will always have what you saw in Iraq. Imagine if Hitler had achieved his goal, we would all be at the mercy of his sick mind. Thank God for men and women who feel that freedom is for all creation, not just for a few.

      • #2700109

        If that is the case..

        by maecuff ·

        In reply to fat and ugly

        Then there are atrocities committed against mankind all over the world. That argument does not hold water.

      • #2700026

        General population

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to fat and ugly

        While these citizens of Iraq did not have it as good as you or I (by out standards) they were hardly repressed by Saddam the way women in Afghanistan were, they are two diferent places.

        The ruined streets and infrastructure is due to th econstant state of war Iraq has been in, not from Saddam killing his citizens.

        Certainly I will agree he was an opressive dictator and I would never defend him, BUT these people weren’t being repressed the way so many people seem to think. Just your post stating “Open your eyes and look at the life style, the demeaning treatment, the mind bending education, the lack of seeing a new day with some hope or joy for all of the people of Iraq.”…reflects this well.

        These people had lives, had schools aand sewage/water treatment, much of the Iraqi inrastructure, including oil production was damaged due to the constant state of war Iraq has been in, not solely because Saddam was destroying it and repressing Iraqi citizens.

    • #2700150

      America Rocks!!! :0)

      by marketing ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      We went to war for several reasons. I’m just happy to live in the greatest Country in the World. We always wanted to kill Saddam, but we never really had a good reason. He had it coming and I’m sure he’ll get all that he deserves and more.

      Thanks to the USA. :0)

      • #2700025

        Nice attitude

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to America Rocks!!! :0)

        The same one that turns the world against your country.

    • #2700128

      Threat or payback….

      by sullyman ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      Was Saddam a threat to US national security? But, lets draw an analogy. Democratic or as some call it Republic Representation based systems are founded on some very simple principals. The first being innocent till proven guilty…

      GWB is now beginning to take steps backwards, Iran might not have been as involved as we first thought. Actually, it is beginning to look like it was Iran. That my friends is a very big mistake. Or was it? Was Iraq a show of power? The least threatening of the AOE? We will never know……

      This point from a previous thread…

      The US government has continually been blaming Canada for the increasing POT problem in the US. These facts just released

      Imported from Mexico – 96%
      Imported from Canada – 4%

      Quick to accuse and slow to acknowledge mistakes….

      • #2700092

        Politicians versus Government

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Threat or payback….

        In the ongoing Canada-US relationship, it seems our actual government bodies actually work well together – its the politicians, who in an effort to get attention from their voters, make outrageous claims.

        I’m not suprised by the pot figures – the RCMP and American authorities work well together.

        American politicians were quick to blame Canada for security issues after 9/11, even after their own internal sources proved that none, not one, of the 9/11 terrorists came to the US through Canada.

        The same can be said for mad cow, softwood lumber, salmon fishing treaties and so on. I was amazed when it was announced that the 2 Great Lakes Provinces (it all flows into the St. Lawrence and Quebec)and 8 Great Lake States came to an agreement on water conservation and export permits. I just hope that no US senator decides to campaign against it.

        James

      • #2700021

        That’s because Canadians won’t cros the border anymore.

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Threat or payback….

        Canadians are simply reusing to enter the US the way we so freely did for so many years.

        Stores and malls (Bellis fair in Washington foe example) are advertising BLOWOUT prices all oer the Vancouver Lower Mainland as they are starving for the Canadian dollars that built these HUGE shoppig districts.

        A great deal of the Canadian population has had SOMEONE, at SOMETIME smoke pot or roll pot in his/her car. Even if a USED car, people will have smoked pot in it before they even bought it.

        Well after a $250.00 detailing session, you can still be nailed at the border.
        Even rental cars (probably the worst) will have pot smoked or rolled in them. It simply isn’t SANE to cross a border into the US as the paranoia level increases at the borders.

        Now add that to the fact that America is not a SAFE place to visit anymore, who knows when Bush’s next enemy will attack, he as so many of them now?

        Many people in Canada just don’t want to hear about America anymore, yet alone spend their money in te USA.

        As for you figures, I think they are VERY low, there is a MAJOR problem with Caadian marijuana shipments going to the USA and being traded pound for pound for cocaine. The cocaine has a good street value here, pot is as common as water.

        • #2700001

          What?

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to That’s because Canadians won’t cros the border anymore.

          Come on now, pound for pound for coke not even a chance. A pound of pot wholesale is around 1000 bucks coke closer to $8000 for a lb. . As far as the numbers go it is being reported in all major media

          http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20040720/RCMPdrugreport_potsupply_20040720/TopStories?s_name=&no_ads=

        • #2699960

          Well that’s the news

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to What?

          Well what the news says is one thing.

          What actually happens is another, other than that I will not offer anymore information online.

          I will tell you for certain, coke is traded straight across for BC Bud, not even the best BC bud either. Coke today is definitely not what it was 20 years ago though. Today, coke is mainly speed or MDA as opposed to cocaine, the price is about 1/3 of what it was in the 80’s and the quality matches price. That’s what I hear anyhow, I work with touring rock bands but haven’t touched the stuff in years.

    • #2700085

      This is easy to answer…

      by tomsal ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      Simple. The USA was attacked with our pants down so to speak. We were hurt. We were pissed off. We needed to get revenge. So there you go.

      Not saying its right – morally or ethically, not saying its acting mature, but you asked and I answered. That’s why we went to war. Plain and simple. All the other theories of why is just fluff and trying to throw a distraction from the real reason which I just explained.

      Funny when you think about it….more often than not the truth is plain and simple.

      • #2700084

        Occam’s razor

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to This is easy to answer…

        The simplest answer is usually the right one.

        James

      • #2700069

        Well then Tom WHY IRAQ?

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to This is easy to answer…

        After all the Saudi’s would have been the logical alternative as that is where Ben Laden comes from as well as most of the money backing that organization not to mention the people.

        Col

        • #2700017

          Easier target with better gains

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Well then Tom WHY IRAQ?

          Iraq was an easy target, Saudi’s would have actually put up a better fight. Conmsidering the mess in Baghdad, can ou imagine th emess if USA attack Saudi’s?

        • #2699985

          Exactly.

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to Easier target with better gains

          Yep, what Oz said. Again…the truth is simple.

        • #2700511

          So the invasion of Iraq

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Exactly.

          Was only a “Token” effort to fly the flag?

          There must be cheaper ways of getting your point across than what has happened surely!

      • #2699937

        Another theory

        by garion11 ·

        In reply to This is easy to answer…

        The issues that faced the Bush administration:

        1 – we were viciously attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and it’s time to fix a big problem
        2 – who is the real enemy here? One of the most important questions that faced the administration (was it only al Queda? was there any help from governments of other countries? are more attacks likely? etc.)
        3 – final answer – al Queda did it, but al Queda’s message is identical to 40 other terrorist groups that operate freely in 22 Arab nations so all terrorist groups are a threat to America’s security.
        4 – Since all terrorist organizations are a threat…not just al Queda, declare war on terrorism
        5 – the next big questions facing the administration: Who’s funding them? Who’s training them? Who’s giving them freedom to train and prepare for attacks? Who’s most likely to help any of the terrorist groups get extraordinary weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc)?
        6 – The Afghanistan Taliban gov’t is under complete control of al Queda and must be taken down and replaced with a gov’t that won’t let Bin Laden dictate their every move.
        6 – Outside of Afghanistan, the major players that are most likely to feed weapons to terrorists are: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, etc.
        7 – the next big question, “what can America do about it”?

        We cannot attack Saudi Arabia because they have feigned cooperation and the Saudi royal family has so much money tied up in our stock market that if they were to pull their money out, the stock market would crash and cripple the American economy. Also, we are helplessly dependant on Saudi oil…without it, America is shut down and would act like a plane that just ran out of gas while flying at 13,500 feet. Conclusion: Saudi Arabia out!

        We cannot attack Iran as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Iranian government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Iran out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

        We cannot attack Libya as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Libyan government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Libya out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely

        We cannot attack Syria/Lebanon as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Syrian/Lebanon government had anything to do with 9/11, even though we know they are scum bags in the highest degree. Conclusion: Syria/Lebanon out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

        We cannot attack North Korea because it is not in the heart of the Islamic extremists terrorist groups and is a bigger problem for China and Japan, who can keep them in check. Attacking North Korea would have little impact on the terrorist activity (planning, funding, training, etc.) other than take away one of 22 countries that could eventually sell extraordinary weapons to terrorists. Conclusion: N. Korea out. But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

        Iraq………….hmmmm……..they are every bit as much a problem as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, but they are not cooperating or feigning cooperation with the US and we are not being held by the balls needing their oil or their money in our stock market. Also, Iraq has by far the largest and most advanced military of all the 22 Islamic countries that are supporting terrorists. Also, Iraq also has ignored 18 UN resolutions trying to bring them back into civility and to stop attempting to get more powerful weapons. Also, Iraq also is under the terms of surrender to the US from Gulf War 1. Also, Iraq has thrown inspectors out. also, Iraq has been firing daily on US military personnel for the last 8 years. Also, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that are unaccounted for and we know they aren’t afraid to use them as they used them on their own people. Also, our intelligence agencies as well as Britains has discovered that Iraq has been trying to secure enriched uranium from Africa. Also, Iraq is strategically located in the heart of the terrorist problem area which allows the American military to be stationed on the borders of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and no longer need to spend billions and plead with an Arab nation to use their land to fight a war with one or both arms tied behind our backs. Bingo!!! Iraq is the best option and from a strategic military point of view, offers the best position to have a footing for the coming years to fight terrorism that is likely to be a 10 – 20 year war. It’s a no brainer…..go into Iraq.

        As far as trying to install a democratic government goes, that is necessary for several reasons. 1) the first taste of freedom by an Islamic country might become so eniticing to neighboring muslims that they want the same thing in their countries and will do more to pressure their dictator run countries to give democracy and freedom a chance. 2) If we don’t influence what the next government will be, there will be a vacuum that gets filled by the most ruthless and best organized despot to replace Saddam and we’re back to square one. 3) If we are on good terms with the new Iraqi government, then we can buy Iraqian oil for the first time in decades and put pressure on Saudi Arabia to start bringing their prices down as a big time competitor in the oil business joins the international game. 4) From a humanitarian point of view, it gives the people of Iraq the opportunity to not live in fear and to join the civilized world of open thinking, open speech, etc., without the fear of being killed enmasse.

        • #2699935

          The politics of power

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Another theory

          You can all sit here and debate and talk and even call each other names as to who “mislead” or “lied” to whom.

          This game of power has certain rules, terrorists don’t play by those rules. America after 9/11 is not going to take that chance, and will not “ASK UN” for permission to defend itself nor prevent any attacks. If other countries don’t like what we are doing, then the other countries and its people don’t understand America and her people’s prespective (just as some people on this board accuse the American people of).

        • #2700543

          Excellent theory…..

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Another theory

          I might not agree with the reasons, but I do think that you hit the nail on the head!!!

        • #2700501

          So what you’re saying is?

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Another theory

          Try to look as if you are doing something but do as little as possible and as cheaply as possible and certainly do not stir up a hornets nest right?

          About the Islamic countries seeing a “Democratic Government” you should have spelled it out a bit more as there are numerous Islamic Countries who have a Democratically Elected Government just not in the Middle East.

          And with Israel almost next door they can see what it is like ands to date have refused to have anything to do with this system of Government even the Palestine’s Elected someone little better than a dictator recently as he was the head of the PLO and not for any other reason. These people have a LONG TRADITION of being led by their noses and currently seem to like it so I for one do not really see the great experiment in Iraq being the hoped for success that you seem to think it will be. We already have had accusations that the new US supported Iraq leader has shown his true colors and it is no better than his predecessor just better hidden.

          By the way Libya was held responsible for the Pan Am flight crashing over Scotland all those years ago and only very recently gave up the people responsible who where in fact spy’s for Libya. All that action brought about was tighter security at airports nothing more.

          I can however see just why the US would not like to attack North Korea as they are still smarting from the “Police Action” all those years ago where at best a Peace Treaty with the North Koreans was the only “Face Saving” way out for the combined Allied Forces who while better armed where held to a virtual stop by the more willing North Koreans and was a direct result for the Nam fiasco as the US needed to reestablish their supposed superiority on the “Field of Battle” and we all know where that one ended don’t we?

        • #2701594

          Stop confusing the issue

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to So what you’re saying is?

          A key point you missed is, this “project” takes TIME. Bush never mislead anyone about that, and frankly commonsense should tell you that building a Democracy is a LONG LONG process. 20-30 years is a conservative estimate. After 20 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a 1000 years of living under fundamental and extremist living conditions (politically) this won’t disappear overnight.

          Yes you are right, Israel’s influence is very much a big factor. Here is an article…

          http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians&cid=540&ncid=716

          Again it takes time, granted you need changing factors to fuel the process/democratic revolution etc…I like to think Iraq would be that change.

          As far as other Islamic democratic countries, there is no doubt there are, but are they influencing other countries in the middle east to join their democracy, to beome democratic?? other regimes to change their tyrannical ways?? No. Someone has to, after 9/11, US had no choice.

        • #2701543

          Time

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Stop confusing the issue

          You want to allow for 20 to 30 years, if not more, to let democracy catch on in Iraq, but you cite 10 years as being way to long to ‘prove’ compliance with UN resolutions – an organization you feel the US shouldn’t have to prove anything to…

        • #2701347

          Yeah I guess so

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Time

          “You want to allow for 20 to 30 years, if not more, to let democracy catch on in Iraq, but you cite 10 years as being way to long to ‘prove’ compliance with UN resolutions – an organization you feel the US shouldn’t have to prove anything to…”

          Words are funny you know that. They can be twisted, spun, streeeetched, taken out of context to have a WHOLE new meaning.

          “”You want to allow for 20 to 30 years, if not more, to let democracy catch on in Iraq”

          NO, I am nor the US administration isn’t “allowing” anything. I am telling you thats how long it might take (estimating conservatively) for a nation that is being rebuilt such as Iraq to become a stable Democratic nation. US isn’t “allowing anything” YOu don’t allow something so to speak, LOL. It either happens or it doesn’t, and it lands squarely on the citizens of that country to fight and to preserve it.

          “but you cite 10 years as being way to long to ‘prove’ compliance with UN resolutions – an organization you feel the US shouldn’t have to prove anything to”

          When you lose a war like Germany, Iraq, you are for good or bad, bound to obey the victor’s “demands”. Germany was bound by Treaty of Versailles after WWI. It disobeyed and broke the treaty with Hitler’s rise to power.

          Iraq did have terms of surrender to UN and US after and they disobeyed them. After 9/11 the administration wasn’t going to take that chance.

          As far as the UN involement and that whole fiasco, listen and understand something, UN is not a governing body to US’s interests and security. UN is not a governing body to any nation’s interests and security. It is an intermediary (sp) organization. It is not the world’s government, nor is it the world’s peacekeeper. It has its own self interests as well as its own agenda depending on whose controlling it or which number of nations have a majority. No US is not going to be accountable nor do we have anything to prove.

        • #2701288

          Sorry but the US does have something to prove

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yeah I guess so

          And that is that you really are better that those you you dispose.

          Unfortunately from reports that keep originating from these places it is the US sinking to the level rather than the US making the level higher.

          When someone else does something it is considered as bad but when the US does the same thing it is thought of as OK. Exactly what am I missing here?

          Col

        • #2700938

          And where do you see this so called report?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Yeah I guess so

          Hmmm..?? No, US is accountable for anything and everything it does, just like other countries and nations.

          Bush went on Arab TV and apologized for the prison scandal. Have the Arabian leaders came on American TV and apologized for 9/11?

        • #2700887

          Just out of Curiosity

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Yeah I guess so

          Exactly which Arab Leader was responsible for 9-11 or for that matter Bali?

          From my memory I seem to remember almost every one from the Arab Leaders condemning these action. But as they where not responsible for it just why should they appear on US TV {Even if they could get on} and apologies for the actions of others?

          When they condemned the actions wasn’t that enough? Perhaps in the US these where never shown as a way to entice the general population into believing that all Arab countries where attempting to attack the US but over here we at least get a more balanced news report or at least what is in the owners best interests.

          Col

    • #2700027

      It is a valid question – but do these folks want freedom

      by jimhm ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      The question is valid – the real questions that should be asked are:

      1) What would a working/successful democratic form of government do to the middle east?

      2) Do the major of these people want these freedoms (not want the media wants us to hear – right or left). What do these people want.

      These are the two major questions that should be answered… 1 – could mean much more involvement – 2 – is it worth the price we are paying.

      • #2700014

        A possible predecessor to #2

        by admin ·

        In reply to It is a valid question – but do these folks want freedom

        What does freedom actually mean to the average Iraqi?

        We like to talk about freedom an awful lot, but it’s a pretty difficult concept to pin down, especially across cultures. Almost every country is for freedom, but the definitions of where it should start and stop, (and even what it actually means) are not easy to produce, and often the source of more conflict than resolution in a dispute.

        Is freedom the ability to do whatever one wishes?
        Can anyone truly be free?
        What do we do when freedoms conflict?

        Freedom is great in theory, but living together as a free society is by necessity defined as it develops according to it’s own history, customs and moral codes.

        • #2700009

          Astute observation.

          by mlayton ·

          In reply to A possible predecessor to #2

          .

        • #2700527

          Be prepared

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to A possible predecessor to #2

          for the fact that they may want the freedom to be a radical muslim theocracy – or at least many of them may want that.

          Don’t forget that Hitler was massively popular in Germany and won an election.

          We should not be so “western” centred to think they all want exactly the kind of democracy that we want.

          James

        • #2700521

          Agree

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Be prepared

          100%

        • #2700288

          I think that’s been the problem all along

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Agree

          It seems the US administration feels it knows what everyone wants and needs. THis is why people are calling it arrogance or sticking their nose in other people’s business.

          in the UK 3500 Iraqi exiles wrote a plea for Blair to Liberate Iraq, was this in THIER best interests or the interests of those who were actually living in Iraq?

          How can someone in one country possibly even GUESS what is best for another country’s people? They simply cannot, no matter how much we THINK Iraq is better off, perhaps they were fine in thier own minds before. I think World Affairs should be called Other People’s affairs.

      • #2699939

        Good question

        by garion11 ·

        In reply to It is a valid question – but do these folks want freedom

        You know I am beginning to think that these people don’t want freedom and democracy. They are happy the way they are with their opressive non democratic governements. Atleast from what I see as a lack of response against their own governments but they have crazy obsession with driving Israel out of the middle east.

        I see a lot of Palistinians screaming and yelling about Israel, but not ONE Arab nation lifts their hand to welcome these so called “refugees” to their country. They keep these people opressed so they can blame Israel for everything.

        Lets face it, is it in our intersts?? Yes most definitely it is in America’s interest to see successfull democratic governments in the middle east, but in the end it has to be up to the poeple to sustain it. Watch for Iran, if there is going to be a Democratic revolution in the middle east, Iran is where its going to start.

        • #2700535

          Two Cents…

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Good question

          Democracy if it is ever going to evolve in the middle east is going to take time. As much as we try and differentiate church ( read religion ) and state, they are integral parts of each other. Now what I am going to say does not mean that I want to change religions in the middle east……

          For centuries the middle east has been a hot bed of traditional, fundamentalist, and extremist religions, and in most middle eastern religions there is no room for democratic process ( or democracy as we know it ). Trying to instill democracy as we know it on countries that have been living in dictatorships, or monarchist regimes is a long long process. We are asking people who have been living for generations in what they feel is normal, and introducing them to a concept that is foreign to them. Introduce them to democracy, the concepts and ideals and let them decide if they want to evolve their political system. In some cases democracy is not the answer, in theirs it might be. But, it is not our place to force our beliefs on them. It’s the Crusades of the middle ages all over again, only this time we are promoting it as democracy………

        • #2701598

          Agree on somethings

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Two Cents…

          Yes Democracy will take time no doubt. It always does, Japan and Germany under the Marshall plan took 20 years to get back on their feet after WWII, but still nevertheless, they are very much successful democratic countries and in fact one of the richer and more powerful countries in the world today.

          I understand it takes time but where I disagree is this “it is not our place to force our beliefs” statement. Yes, every nation has the right to self-rule, part of being a Democracy is that. But after a vicious attack, we are forced (in national intrests and the survival of US) to go in there and change it for them. Believe me US has its own issues, noone wants to deal with this Terrorism issue. We can concentrate our resources on other much more important domestic and foreign affairs. This wasn’t something we asked for, but another 9/11 prevention is the goal and in order for that to succeed, you must take the cause of 9/11 out. Its not just terrorists, its this as you said, “hot bed of traditional, fundamentalist, and extremist religions, and in most middle eastern religions there is no room for democratic process”. Will they grasp upon the idea of Democracy and fight for their freedoms instead of this obsession with Israel?? Time only can tell and for their sake, I certainly hope that they do embrace the idea of a Democracy.

        • #2701461

          That’s all fie and true

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Agree on somethings

          But you are continually mentionig 9/11 and America responding to being attacked.

          Saddam was’t the mastermind behind 9/11, in fact they have since said he had NOTHING to do with 9/11 at all and it was the Saudis and Iran you should be looking at.

          With the war in Iran being such a wasted effort, how can it then be justified to go after someone not involved in such an attack, it seems like you had to get someone, BinLaden effectively eluded the USA and Saddam hid in a hole in his homeland. It’s easier to get SOMEONE than to get the target you originally aimed for.

          Perhaps your military needs to adopt the RCMP’s slogan of ‘always catching thier man’.

          Perhaps this would in turn lead to credibility for the US forces and leaders who feel it is thier duty to police ad protect the world from hidden enemies.

          It’s like Evil Kenevil (sp?) missing a 150′ jump over a bunch of buses, then expectig to gain his fame back by jumping 20′ over some Hot Wheels cars. Or Stuart on Mad TV, “Look what I can do!”

        • #2701357

          OZ you keep missing the point.

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to That’s all fie and true

          No matter how many times you repeat this tiresome rhetoric about Saddam and Iraq connection with 9/11, you keep missing the point about Bush’s overall plan. Read below.

          The issues that faced the Bush administration:

          1 – we were viciously attacked by terrorists on 9/11 and it’s time to fix a big problem
          2 – who is the real enemy here? One of the most important questions that faced the administration (was it only al Queda? was there any help from governments of other countries? are more attacks likely? etc.)
          3 – final answer – al Queda did it, but al Queda’s message is identical to 40 other terrorist groups that operate freely in 22 Arab nations so all terrorist groups are a threat to America’s security.
          4 – Since all terrorist organizations are a threat…not just al Queda, declare war on terrorism
          5 – the next big questions facing the administration: Who’s funding them? Who’s training them? Who’s giving them freedom to train and prepare for attacks? Who’s most likely to help any of the terrorist groups get extraordinary weapons (chemical, biological, nuclear, etc)?
          6 – The Afghanistan Taliban gov’t is under complete control of al Queda and must be taken down and replaced with a gov’t that won’t let Bin Laden dictate their every move.
          6 – Outside of Afghanistan, the major players that are most likely to feed weapons to terrorists are: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Lebanon, North Korea, Sudan, etc.
          7 – the next big question, “what can America do about it”?

          We cannot attack Saudi Arabia because they have feigned cooperation and the Saudi royal family has so much money tied up in our stock market that if they were to pull their money out, the stock market would crash and cripple the American economy. Also, we are helplessly dependant on Saudi oil…without it, America is shut down and would act like a plane that just ran out of gas while flying at 13,500 feet. Conclusion: Saudi Arabia out!

          We cannot attack Iran as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Iranian government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Iran out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

          We cannot attack Libya as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Libyan government had anything to do with 9/11. Conclusion: Libya out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely

          We cannot attack Syria/Lebanon as they have feigned cooperation and we have no proof that the Syrian/Lebanon government had anything to do with 9/11, even though we know they are scum bags in the highest degree. Conclusion: Syria/Lebanon out! But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

          We cannot attack North Korea because it is not in the heart of the Islamic extremists terrorist groups and is a bigger problem for China and Japan, who can keep them in check. Attacking North Korea would have little impact on the terrorist activity (planning, funding, training, etc.) other than take away one of 22 countries that could eventually sell extraordinary weapons to terrorists. Conclusion: N. Korea out. But put them on notice that we are on to them and watching them closely.

          Iraq………….hmmmm……..they are every bit as much a problem as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria, but they are not cooperating or feigning cooperation with the US and we are not being held by the balls needing their oil or their money in our stock market. Also, Iraq has by far the largest and most advanced military of all the 22 Islamic countries that are supporting terrorists. Also, Iraq also has ignored 18 UN resolutions trying to bring them back into civility and to stop attempting to get more powerful weapons. Also, Iraq also is under the terms of surrender to the US from Gulf War 1. Also, Iraq has thrown inspectors out. also, Iraq has been firing daily on US military personnel for the last 8 years. Also, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons that are unaccounted for and we know they aren’t afraid to use them as they used them on their own people. Also, our intelligence agencies as well as Britains has discovered that Iraq has been trying to secure enriched uranium from Africa. Also, Iraq is strategically located in the heart of the terrorist problem area which allows the American military to be stationed on the borders of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and no longer need to spend billions and plead with an Arab nation to use their land to fight a war with one or both arms tied behind our backs. Bingo!!! Iraq is the best option and from a strategic military point of view, offers the best position to have a footing for the coming years to fight terrorism that is likely to be a 10 – 20 year war. It’s a no brainer…..go into Iraq.

          As far as trying to install a democratic government goes, that is necessary for several reasons. 1) the first taste of freedom by an Islamic country might become so eniticing to neighboring muslims that they want the same thing in their countries and will do more to pressure their dictator run countries to give democracy and freedom a chance. 2) If we don’t influence what the next government will be, there will be a vacuum that gets filled by the most ruthless and best organized despot to replace Saddam and we’re back to square one. 3) If we are on good terms with the new Iraqi government, then we can buy Iraqian oil for the first time in decades and put pressure on Saudi Arabia to start bringing their prices down as a big time competitor in the oil business joins the international game. 4) From a humanitarian point of view, it gives the people of Iraq the opportunity to not live in fear and to join the civilized world of open thinking, open speech, etc., without the fear of being killed enmasse.

          I am not sure where you keep coming up with “protecting and policing the world from hidden enemies” LOL. We frankly don’t care, we do have better things to do. The enemies aren’t hidden, they are right out in the open, in the terrorist camps and streets of certain countries in the middle east. The enemies’ philosophy and culture is what is hidden.

          Why do you keep insisting on the war being such a wasted effort? Its not over, its LONG LONG fight. Politically, financially, militarily, diplomatically.

          As far as Saddam and 9/11, again read the above posting.

          I will agree where Bush screwed up is in declaring he has WMD (although at that time the intel stated that he did or was pursuing), what he should have said was the above which is closer to the truth, but again can he say this in international waters?? its like showing all your cards.

          As far as Saudis and Iran?? How do you know its not being done? As I said, war is necessary when it is necessary, diplomacy, covert ops, black ops, etc…are also being used.

        • #2701334

          Interesting points

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OZ you keep missing the point.

          I think from number 5 onward the US fits in with all the others that have supported, supplied, trained, funded the Taliban and Iraq terrorist groups. ut we all know that, I am just surprised that you conveniently avoided mentioning that the US has ignored the use of chemical weapons when in thier best interests, when they aren’t they must be a terrorist to be stopped.

          It’s all just confortable convenience, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc.

          Just don’t foget how they got the power, the training, the weapons.

        • #2701319

          Yeah I agree

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to OZ you keep missing the point.

          GASP, whoa, I am actually agreeing with you. Isn’t that amazing OZ? Yeah US did fund the mujahadeen and the Afghan rebels. Thats because there was a bigger enemy to fight at that time, the Soviet Union. Where we did make a mistake was we let em go. We didn’t “untrain” them if that makes any sense. But oh well, now they bit the hand that fed them, and they will be taken out.

          Yes its a self interest convenient comfort. You took the words right out of my mouth. Every nation, city state, organization, down to the last individual acts in self-interest, but isn’t it interesting that America’s invasion and rebuilding of Iraq while it is in the self interest of America (which is a flourishing Democracy in the middle east), it actually benefits the world at hand and Iraqis and I sincerely hope all of middle east. Your shortsightedness and self centered view may not see that, but a democracy in Iraq is 1000x better than a dictatorship under Saddam. But yet you criticize the US for???

        • #2701300

          I’ve never criticized that though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OZ you keep missing the point.

          Of course a country that is repressed will benefit from democracy, if they want a democracy, but either way someone else can run the show, who knows may be better may be worse.

          You post was quite eloquent until you reduced it with your character assumptions again, I think you’re getting there but not quite yet.

          You cannot take the long term efects of overthrowing the Iraqi dictatorship and see them as justification in any way, that’s a multi-billion worldwide effort, not Americas intention, just a positive benefit when the dust settles (literally).

          No you aren’t going to claim any kudos from anyone by saying that Iraqi’s are better off. You invaded a country under false premise, this shouldbe considered a war crime at best.

        • #2701289

          See this is where we differ

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to OZ you keep missing the point.

          Based on these reasons I gave above US was entirely justified in going into Iraq. But you can easily say thats my opinion because the key word is JUSTIFIED. Justified to whom exactly? The world at large? UN? There is no objective justice in international relations. The victor always has written history. If Hitler won, what kind of an earth and world would it be?? He is wrong because?? the world won?? or was he wrong because..?? we measured his actions against…?? what system of objectivity? There was none. So simply the victor wrote history (prevalent throughout humanity’s past and present). Its all relative.

          So hence we come to my point…which I will repeat. US after 9/11 was entirely justified in going into Iraq based on these factual reasons I presented above. What is the justification for 9/11 from these terrorists? What reasons did they present to attack America and kill innocent civilians?? What reasons did Saddam present after his unprovocked attack against Kuwait and thus leading to Gulf War I with UN approval (last time I checked I didn’t elect the UN Genereal Secretary and neither did you)??. They don’t need to present anything, but America does?? They don’t play by any rules, but America has to??

          If you are angry at the US for going into Iraq, what kind of anger do you have for these terrorists that killed and continue to kill innocent civilians?? Thats why people call you an anti-american on this board. Its your anger against American actions, but at the same time your failure to see the terrorists and their glaring faults. Now based on your so called reasons that you stated why America shouldn’t have gone to war, do you hold these 9/11 terrorists and Saddam for that matter by the same moral standards? You rant and scream at the American civilian/military casualties and Iraqis’ civilian casualties, the difference is, America doesn’t target civilians on purpose (at least in this war), the terrorists do. Iraq may or may not have anything to do with 9/11, but again based on the reasons above its better not to have Saddam around, for America’s sake.

          Which in turns leads to, self interest of a nation is the only objective justice in the world. UN or any international body of “government” will not work because of self interest of nations and various governments. The only way UN or any other international body of “government” will work is if every country is the same government (and even then you might have issues, but at least there is a common denominator).

          Isn’t it intersting that America with its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppeled two repressive regimes and implanted Democracy in those two countries, based on the self interests of US?? Don’t you find it *GASP* pleasantly surprising, that a self interest of a Democratic nation actually is benefitting Iraqis and Afghanistans? You can argue and debate whether their Democracies last, and I hope that they do, but don’t tell me we were unjustified after 9/11.

        • #2700943

          YOUR justification

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to OZ you keep missing the point.

          May all seem well and true to yourself as an American, there are a few flaws in your analogies though.

          Firstly you said; “or was he wrong because..?? we measured his actions against…?? what system of objectivity? There was none.” (referring to Hitler in WWII.

          Well to begin with, Hitler invaded Western Europe and had hundreds of thousands of Nazis taking over the less powerful Western Allies. His goal was defeated when he was inable to bomb Britain into submission and invade rfom France to England. Canadian and british soldiers held a strong front against the Luftwaffe lond enough to diminish Hitlers resources and fade his visions of taking England.

          You cannot equate Saddams, known terrorism against his neighbouring countries to Hitler in any way, they are not even remotely close other than the act that America went to war, other than that NO connection or similarity whatsoever. Saddam hasn’t taken over the Middle East.

          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          Next, you say that I am seen as un-American because I don’t force the same resposibility upon Iraq as I do America. Well Iraq was a dictatorshp run by a tyrant that housed terrorist regimes. Are you now justifying America actions because you should be seen the same way? What’s okay for them is okay for you? if Tommy broke the law, you can too?
          I have always said Saddam is an evil and repressive dictator that needed to be removed, I do not give Iraq any leeway in that respect and never have, in fact I agree he needed to be removed and you know it. Don’t make me keep backtracking through the same thing all the time as you reach and stretch for ways to make it SEEM okay, you prematurely invaded another country based on false premise, bottom line, this SHOULD be a crime. We condemn Saddam for his actions that go against the better interests of the free world, when GWB does it, we are all supposed to accept it. (As if modern and powerful country wouldn’t make a horrendous mistake and be held accountable for thier actions?)
          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          As for Iran, perhaps you should do a little digging and you will see that you haven’t ‘toppled’ anyone in Iran. AlQaeda is as bigand string as ever and has even been said to be planning the next attck on the USA. What regime have you removed that was responsible for 9/11? It certainly isn’t the Taliban, in fact the Taliban and other terrorist regimes all now share a single focus against the USA with a vengeance never seen before. Instead f having small groups of poorly equipped terrorists all disliking America, they have now united with the same goals. Iran was a major flop and everyone in the world knows it, including the terrorists you attempted to disband or ‘topple’.
          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          Iran was a mess, Iraq is a mess, so far I’d say you are 0 for 2. Okay perhaps .5 for 2 because you at least caught the enemy that stayed inside his country as expected.
          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          But yes, I supose we could justify your invasion by comparing you to Iraq’s terrorism and you’d look pretty good. It’s POSSIBLE to justify it that way, if you wish. I don’t think mainstream America would see it as a positive thing though.
          2 wrongs don’t make a right.

    • #2701333

      Two Texas oil men…

      by runner.17 ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      …had obligations to keep once they were elected to office. The Iraq invasion was a “given” for this administration. We learned in 1991 that the vaunted Iraqi army were pissants. We learned also that so was their leadership. Hussein and his sons were greedy “punks”. Such an easy target to knock over, to covet the planet’s second largest oil reserve.
      The “super-patriots” had hoped to capitilize on our grief and anger over the Sept. 11 attacks. But instead of killing our killers, they have carried on business as usual.
      This is why our country is divided.

    • #2700897

      Reply To: Why did we go to war?

      by martin ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      Why did YOU go to war.

      Well, Iraqi didnt have anything with you. Why should the US have weapons of mass destructions when noone else is gonna have it? is the US a superior country to anyone else? Well, to bad, USA is the youngest country of us all, and we can see why they (you) act. Myself is Swedish. I have always liked the United States. But i have been thinking about it for a while. You hunt the native people of your or THIERS country. The indians if you didnt know. The USA put thier nose in anything they can. I think it was for business that USA striked the Iraqi.

      • #2700885

        Interesting thought

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why did we go to war?

        Your right this was the first time that the US has instigated action against another country rather than reacting to actions from those countries. Like Germany in WW1 and Japan in WW11 in both cases there where attacks on US interests or bases.

        While Afghanistan was a valid target Iraq wasn’t as has been shown but maybe it was just a case of “Sour Grapes” in an attempt to get even with an administration that had for a very long time been unpalatable to the US. Perhaps if the job had of been finished in Gulf War 1 this would never have come about but then again it just may of happened sooner and been far worse.

        Unfortunately it is something that we will never know.

        Col

      • #2699718

        What is your country’s opinion

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Reply To: Why did we go to war?

        So what do the Swedish people think about this war. Do they think it was the right thing to do? Do you think anything should of done differently?

    • #2700883

      Money

      by addison ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      As we all know, Afghanistan is the worlds leading exporter of Heroin.

      Bottom line, Bin Laden fronted Bush a few billion dollars of Heroin, and Bush decided to get amnesia!!!

      As we also know, Iraq is the worlds largest producer of oil, and Papa got his but whooped in desert storm!!!

      Go figure@@##@??!!

      • #2700848

        Or maybe

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Money

        The previous President was too happy getting “Blow Jobs” in the Oval Office and this one isn’t getting the same service so he in a fit of sexual repression had to start a war with a country that just couldn’t fight back.

        The North Korea’s also produce a lot of “White Powder” for sale on the elicited drug market so it could have come from there and not Bin Laden.

        OH I should have added at the start “SARCASM ALERT!”

        Col

        • #2700826

          SPAM filters to blame

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Or maybe

          Well there is the uncanny resemblance between missile and phallis. Perhaps along the same line you had mentioned this is a form of subconcious ‘compensation’.

          Perhaps GWB should be opening more spam mail, being American he is able to partake in many opportunities for personal enhancement that are completely guaranteed to be unique to work better than all other solutions and they REALLY WORK!

          If only the White House didn’t have spam filters, perhaps none of this would have ever happened.

      • #2700811

        Misinformation

        by thechas ·

        In reply to Money

        It seems to me that you have a little bit of misinformation. Or at least a misunderstanding.

        Afghanistan has been a major source of opium not heroin itself.
        Under the Taliban, opium production was brought to the lowest levels it had been in years.

        The Bin’Laden family does have ties to the Bush family and other US interests.
        However, even the Bin’Laden family has severed it’s ties with Osama.
        Osama is sort of like the spoiled rich kids who became part of the underground anti-war groups in the US in the late 1960’s.

        George H.W. Bush did NOT get his arse whooped in Desert Storm.
        Quite the contrary, the US troops where over half way across Iraq when it was decided to stop the war and withdraw.
        The first gulf war came to an end because President Bush understood the politics of the Middle East, and agreed to stop the war when our Middle East allies said that enough had been done.

        Who can predict what history would have been if the coalition in the first Gulf War had agreed to remove Saddam Husein from power?

        An interesting point to ponder.

        Chas

        • #2699855

          Very Interesting point

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Misinformation

          12 years of the UN tip toeing around Iraq would have been avoided democracy would have been installed in Iraq. I also think there would have been more security in Iraq since we had more partnerships with our coalition at the time. Not to mention the thousands of Iraqi lives that would have been saved from Saddam after the war, since he murdered many of his people because they supported the US.

        • #2699725

          Even if your right

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Very Interesting point

          The purpose of the UN is not to impose a form of government from a particular country. It is to avoid war or to endorse it when it was necessary like in Desert Storm. The Bush administration sent the country to war for the wrong reasons, and no matter how you put it they lied to us. Even if the purpose was to “free Iraq”, that should of been the reason in the first place, not weapons of mass destruction. Maybe then we would of gotten more support from the international community and this process would of gone far more smoothly.

        • #2699691

          So…

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to Even if your right

          If Bush would have said we are going to “free Iraq”, you would be okay with going into Iraq? Or because he lied about WMD we shouldn’t be there? (Oh my God! A politician lied, that’s the first time in history) Which way do you want it? To me it doesn’t matter what was done over a year ago, but what is going to happen now. Saddam needed to go, most people agree on that. But there are some that like to dwell on the past for whatever reasons, not going to change anything. The Senate committee gave their report and blamed both the Clinton on Bush administrations and the CIA for the problems that led up to and after 9/11, they gave their report, let’s move on to the next issue at hand please.

        • #2699674

          Dewelling on the past

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So…

          It’s really interesting to see that when many modern day issues are justified by what America’s forefathers would have done, or the foundation of America shows us that we must…

          NOW, it is convinient to simply forget last years issues and keep looking forwadr without looking back.

          Well that IS a positive way to get through lifes little troubles, we are talking about The Leader of The Free World declaring war upon another country. LIES cannot be simply excused. You never excused Clinton for his lies about relations with Minica Lewinski, yet THIS should be forgotten and pushed aside?

          That is EXACTLY what the Republican administration has done for over a year now, looked high and low for SOME form of justification to cover the underlying BS that you were mislead into a premature action that has killed US soldiers. Now there are SO many different reasons for Iraq, including even 9/11 but not a SINGLE reason has proven why you refused to follow allied wishes ad postpone the invasion until the inspectors were finished, yes they were working effectively at that time.

          So no more smoke and mirrors, get your heads out of…..the sand. Clinton was impeached for getting a freebee from an intern (heaven forbid!), GWB is EXCUSED for sending America to premature WAR??

          You can’t equate GWB’s misleading FALSE premise that caused you to go to war in Iraq to the fact that it was both Bush and Clinton to blame. Clinton isn’t leading your country and it’s soldiers to thier death, BUSH is.

        • #2701649

          You got that right

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Dewelling on the past

          And let me tell you; ever since Bush came in to power, it seems as if somebody simply flipped the switch from “You better watch what you’re doing” to “Just don’t ask and say ?yes? to everything he says”. Someone even said on an interview that this was probably something that was ripped off the Nixon era.

        • #2701115

          That’s the wired part

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Dewelling on the past

          Americans are generally [b]VERY[/b] politically savvy and hold thier leaders accountable for everything they do. In this case it seems everyone has excused GWB because of the fear of Iraq. No matter if he was wrong or right, he is excused because America is at war.

          Now this is the type of thing I would expect Canadians to do, we dont give a crap about our PM or the government and it would be EASY for them to deceive Canadians [i](except the fact that even a threat of Saddam’s henchmen comig at Canada on a 747 would go mainly unnoticed as nobody would even pay attention to the news report.)[/i]

          So how does this get so easily ignored in a country where the main focus from birth is politics and prsonal political views?

          [b]FEAR[/b] This is the easiest way to forget everything, including your own name, [i]scare the crap out of people and they won’t backstep to ask questions later.[/i]

          Thee’s no other logical explanation for it, otherwise people would have burned Bush ( ]:) ) at the stake ages ago.

    • #2699642

      I wonder what the Bush bashers

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      are going to do if Bush gets reelected. LOL.

      • #2699640

        Start looking for Pro-Bush voters

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I wonder what the Bush bashers

        Well seeing as nobody really likes Bush, outside the USA, I would keep it pretty quiet if I was accountable for Bush being elected again.

        In fact, you would probably be safer to say you voted for Kery or even Ronald MacDonald (much better choice by the way).

        IF Bush gets reelected, kiss your allies goodbye. Bush maybe able to smarm his way into foreign leaders books again but they are certainly gonna hear it from the people if they try to back him.

        It doesn’t matter WHO you elect, you can elect the same moron for 20 years if you want, just don’t expect him to get your country anywhere on the world stage. main focuse for candidates running outside the USA has been “I will NOT cater to the Bush Administration” This gets votes! people refuse to support leaders who follow or listen to GWB, a politicians worst mistake right now would be to favour GWB.

        So as for what people think if you make stupid mistakes, it doesn’t matter. Whether your president will have ANY credibility left should be more of a concern. Who cares what intentions GWB has if nobody wants to play his game, it’s kinda useless to you isn’t it? What’s he gonna start to try and run the rest of the world too? Will he be able to provide your country’s much needed imported resources? Will America’s support system be in tact?

        Is America on its own if Bush is reelected? If not, what country’s citizens do you think will be backing thier leader’s conformity to Bush’s ideals?

      • #2701935

        Do our best to survive

        by thechas ·

        In reply to I wonder what the Bush bashers

        If GWB does win (or steal) another term in office we will be able to take consolation that it will be over in 4 years.

        We just need to survive the spiral that the economy will fall into as the Government uses up the available capitol with the borrowing that will be needed to pay for the war and the tax cuts.

        Chas

        • #2701785

          Reason and Real Facts Mean Nothing

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Do our best to survive

          .
          I’m amazed that people insist on interjecting such rhetoric, and continue to suggest that GWB stole the election. Facts and truth mean nothing, I suppose, if lies and fabrications suit a person’s desired outcome.

          GWB did not STEAL the last election. That’s been proved time and again. But regardless of how many times that nonsense is dispelled, people continue to say it.

          To resort to such tactics is most disingenuous. No wonder there’s so much divisiveness in this country.

        • #2701748

          hmmmm interesting

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Reason and Real Facts Mean Nothing

          snip – “Facts and truth mean nothing, I suppose, if lies and fabrications suit a person’s desired outcome – ” max

          Lets use our quote, where are the WMD in Iraq? Why the backpeddling by GWB, that Iran is probably more of threat than IRAQ ever was. I guess facts and truth do mean nothing after all………

        • #2701704

          hmmm interesting

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to hmmmm interesting

          He never backpeddled. In his “Axis of Evil” speech, Iran was named one of the countries.

        • #2701694

          Most certainly is….

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to hmmm interesting

          The Bush administration is most certainly back peddling, yes Iran was part of the AOE. But, now the administraion is starting to realize that the real threat was probably coming from Iran. It’s kind of like finding someone guilty before having all the evidence. Remember innocent until proven guilty……there is NO evidence that Iraq had WMD, or that Saddam was a threat to US interests. In fact evidence points to Saddam not wanting to have anything to do with OBL..

        • #2701680

          See this is the kind of

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Most certainly is….

          illogical and unreasonable arguments from the left that is spewed out.

          Blah, blah, there is NO evidence, blah blah, we should have went after IRAN, blah blah..

          If we attacked Iran instead of Iraq, NK instead of Iraq, Syria instead of Iraq, you would be saying the same thing that you are saying about Iraq right now. Saddam was required to obey UN and US demands after he signed the treaty because he lost Gulf war I. When he refused by again (look at my facts from my previous posts) we took him out. Now, if he wanted to stay in power, he should have payed attention and not acted so arrogant.

          Oh well, I always wondered what would have happened if Neville Chamberlain stood up to Hitler instead of letting him have Poland.
          In fact its the British and French that caused WWII by bending over to Germans.

        • #2701663

          Sullyman – you’re being disingenuous unless. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to hmmmm interesting

          .
          ….you include EVERYONE who was suggesting that IRAQ had stockpiles of WMDs – including the Clinton administration, and including the United Nations. Would you like me to post – AGAIN – all the quotes about Iraq’s WMDs prior to the war?

          Besides, it’s never been proven that WMDs weren’t there.

          To the contrary:

          http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0%2C%2C2-10-1460_1340941%2C00.html

          http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

          http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463

          (Syria, by the way, won’t allow inspections.)

          http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/index.html

          (Gee, I wonder where they came from?)

          http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0%2C%2C2-10-1460_1397233%2C00.html

          http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C120137%2C00.html

          http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

          http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/003499.html

          Of course, none of this will suit your desired outcome, so you conveniently overlook them.

          (Okay, go ahead and “discredit” the sources. That’s how the game is played.)

        • #2701643

          Here’s some “hmmmm interesting ” reading

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to hmmmm interesting

        • #2701241

          Amusing

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Here’s some “hmmmm interesting ” reading

          Well who am I to miss a nice rhetorical argument?

          Great links Max, well posted. Do you have ANY sources that are non-Rpublican suportive or possibly from OUTSIDE the USA?

          “Or are you going to ignore these (those) things because they don’t suit your desired outcome?”

          Here are some of the quotes ffrom your non-biased sources of information.

          “The Democratic party is just sober enough to realize it needs a designated driver.”

          “Democrats use computer hysteria to get out the vote.”

          But the best quote I think I ever read on TR comes from your own post,

          “Besides, it’s never been proven that WMDs weren’t there.”

          Ahhh, if ONLY I had known that before. Icertainly would hae supported the war in Iraq and GWB’s premature invasion decision would have made SO much more sense. I had NO IDEA that Saddam was guilty until proven innocent, now I can see why other country’s don’t understand the USA and vice versa, they have it backwards and expect people to be proven guilty, not innocent.

          Thanks for the lesson Max.

          “Besides, it’s never been proven that WMDs weren’t there” OMG! :-0

        • #2701174

          More drivel and games from Oz

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Amusing

          .
          You’ve never addressed the fact that there’s more proof that there were WMDs than proof that there weren’t. The foiled terrorist attack in Jordan, for example, which recovered enough chemical agents to kill 20,000 people (reported in the Jordanian press), or the numerous reports that WMDs were moved to Syria (reported by various foreign outlets) are only two such items you conveniently and continually overlook.

          You never mention that numerous people, organizations and nations made identical claims as President Bush – even before HE made them – including Britains and Canadians.

          ——————– Such As ——————–

          “Sooner or later, it seems likely that the current Iraqi regime will eventually achieve its objectives. Wait and the threat will grow.”
          ? John Chipman, IISS director

          “The argument in favour of taking action now, whether it’s to compel Baghdad to accept inspectors or to use military force to change the regime, is that it’s better to act when (Iraq’s) capabilities are still short of reaching their ultimate objective.

          If you wait, you run the risk that the Iraqis will get further along, perhaps even acquire a nuclear weapon, and that will make it much more difficult to pressure Baghdad or to prevent them from taking actions in the region that would jeopardize U.S. interests.”
          – Gary Samore, a senior fellow for non-proliferation at the IISS

          The report also assesses Iraq’s biological, chemical and ballistic missile capability. It estimates that Iraq retained “perhaps thousands of liters of anthrax” from before the Gulf War.
          Saddam could resume making biological weapons within weeks and could have produced thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinum toxin and other agents since weapons inspections ended in 1998, it says.

          On chemical weapons the report says Saddam probably has a few hundred tonnes of mustard gas from before the Gulf War as well as “precursors” for a few hundred tonnes of sarin and perhaps the same amount of VX.

          Saddam could resume making chemical weapons in months and could have made hundreds of tonnes of mustard and nerve gases since 1998, the report adds.

          David Rudd of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies has said that the most plausible threat comes from Saddam’s willingness to ally himself with terrorists, and that Saddam could put chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

          ————————————————-

          You’ve never admitted that the United Nations was extremely corrupt in the oil-for-food program, and they personally reaped billions of dollars in bribes and kick-backs. Nor have you admitted that France and Germany undermined the USA’s efforts in the UN because they were conspirators in the scheme.

          You continually lie about what President Bush did and did not say. However, whether it’s intentional deception or unintentional ignorance is something I can’t comment on.

          You blab on and on about the most nonsensical drivel, and base your arguments on false assertions.

          You…….oh, never mind. This is a waste of time.

        • #2701170

          Worthy of reposting. . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Amusing

          .
          …since Oz, obviously, didn’t notice this was a non-American and non-Republican claim.

          http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

        • #2701159

          Who missed the point?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Amusing

          As for WMD existing at ONE time, yes it is global knowledge. (Is this a LIE?)

          Saddam was asked to disarm, and he CLAIMED he did. (Is this a LIE?)

          Inspectors were FINALLY allowed to inspect for ‘dual purpose goods’ or ‘WMD’ (WMD has far better impact that dual purpose goods.). (Is this a LIE?)

          Inspections were coming up empty, with the exception of some unused war heads that were from missiles incapable of an intercontinental attack. (Is this a LIE?)

          US informants CLAIMED that Bush had WMD still. (Is this a LIE?)

          GWB thought it was a suitable reason to invade Iraq. (Is this a LIE?)

          I had no reason whatsoever in any part of this thread or in my responses to mention France or Germany, as neither are the responsible for the USA invading Iraq. (Is this a LIE?)

          I had no reason whatsoever in any part of this thread or in my responses to mention how the UN had failed or fuelled the abuse of the OFF program. (Is this a LIE?)

          The question is secifically “Why did we go to war?”

          It was not because of France, Germany, the UN, Weapons inspectors, past presidents truning thier back etc. YOu went to war for one reason and one reason only, you went to war because you can ONLY go to war for ONE reason and one reason only, because George W. Bush TOLD you to.

          Other countries said not to. Other countries said it can’t be so. Other countries said the weapons inspections were being effective, which they were beyond ANY shadow of a doubt (have you proved they weren’t?).

          So I had absolutely no reason whatsoever to raise any of the questions you say I have conveniently not asked, they are irrelevant. Did you go to war because of Germany? Nope. France? Nope. Weapons Inspectors? Nope. Failure of the UN? Nope. WMD and an attack on America? Yep. Were WMD proven to STILL exist in Iraq? Nope. Did you FIND any WMD that started the invasion? Nope.

          It’s not rhetorical, it’s fact! YOU HAD NO VIABLE REASON FOR INVADING IRAQ BASED ON THE WMD PREMISE.

          This isn’t rhetorical at all, it is the TITLE of the freakin’ discussion, Max! It has been sidestepped, avoided, evaded, segued and scoffed at since the beginning, but that’s the reality, “WHY DID AMERICA GO TO WAR?”
          BECAUSE YOU WERE SCARED THAT SADDAM STILL HAD WMD AND WAS GOING TO USE THEM AGAINST THE USA.

          End of story, bottom line, no more to be said.

          All of the other little segues such as France, Germany, Britain, the UN, wepaons inspectors, Liberation, rebuilding etc. is all just stuff to fog the horrendous mistake of invading a country without proper justification. It was an act of fear, not an act of courage.

          So I guess your inability to retract the following must then in turn show this is your true belief,
          “Besides, it’s never been proven that WMDs weren’t there.”
          Guilty until proven innocent.

        • #2701155

          The real WMD Found

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Amusing

          .
          Oz = WMD

          Windbag of Mass Drivel

        • #2701148

          Such wit!

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Amusing

          Really Max, where do you come up with this quality material?

          I think I just ned to learn that instead of actually offering an opinion, it is best to just defame the posters comments then I don’t need to actually have a point!

          “Worthless drivel”, yup, can be applied to ANY comment anytime and simply shows that you have neither the patience or the ability to offer an educated response. Well done Max! Very witty squire, very witty.

          I just wish I had comebacks and degrading comments quite as clever, then I would never need to use any thought process, I could just reduce all posts by reducing the poster!

          Man you are a clever one, I can see how you got so far in life! If only us disingenious liars could all learn your ways the world would be a better place, downright scary mind you.

          How dare someone possibly accet a view or statement other than that of GWB, one day I’ll learn, well probably not but there’s always Max to remind us of how far below him we all are.

        • #2701144

          Furthermore

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Amusing

          my response asked 8 questions, your reply answered none of them, yet you still found it neccessary to repost and again attempt to degrade my statements and 8 questions without answering a single one or responding to any of the comments, BUT, you managed to get one last chracter stab in for good luck.

          Very professional, very mature and vey educated Maxwell, one day when I get old I want to be just like you.

        • #2701086

          So like

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Amusing

          Why are we justifying Bush’s actions/decisions/leadership to you? LOL.

          Awww, he made his business your business eh? How did he do that? Could ya elaborate (sp)?

        • #2699341

          How does Bush’s actions effect me?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Amusing

          You MUST be kidding, right?

          America’s actions will hae no efect whatsoever on any other part of the world, this is just a small isolated incident that America is takig care of by themselves and it shouldn’t raise any eyebrows.

          Based on your analogy, you could also say, what has Saddam done to you? He is just doing his own thing on the other half of the planet and it has no bearig on you.

          Before you reply, Saddam is NOT responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Saddam was NOT in a position to launch an attck on the USA.

          So given the theory that your preemtive strike is justified, then so is my dislike toward america’s president welcoming and bringing on even more hatred towards North America, not just the USA as you seem to feel. What you do has immediate effects on allied countries. BinLaden was against America and anyoe who sides with America, not just the USA.

          When you start bashing a stick into a beehive, all is fine and well (have at er) if nobody else is beside you. If you do it in a public park, you must expect people to start coming after you for it if they are running the risk of gettig stung too.

          Be an idiot in your own damn backyard, not the global stage, THEN it becomes EVERYONE’S business.

          So, what has GWB done to ME? Well, he has brought more hatred and need for terrorist revenge upon north America, where I live too. Just as anyone POSSIBLY harming your country must be stopped, why is it that anyone outside America is not allowed to voice thier dislike for bringing them into it because of your irrational actions?

        • #2699278

          You can voice your dislike anytime you want

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Amusing

          Your ridiculousnes and truth spinning posts show noone is disallowing your rants against Bush. LOL. Where did you come up with this one??

          The fact that certain people here don’t care about what your opinion is (since its the same anyway), thats the issue.

          These terrorists wanted to attack and have attacked America since the 1970s lol. America is just starting to fight back. If you feel unsafe, oh well too bad. Now you know how Americans feel since 9/11.

          I love the fact you rant that Bush is causing terrorism LOL. When are you going to give the terrorists any credit?? I mean they will be disappointed.

        • #2699239

          You clown

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Amusing

          You ask a question and when I offer an honest answer you come back with nobody cares. Well if you don’t care, shut up and stop asking stupid questions.

          You have started to take on a holier than thou attitude, which mat be excusable for some of the peers here but most definitely not someone such as yourself. You dictate and condescend, you lauch at others comments, you have adopted the character bashig resolution to anything you don’t like, instead of simply providing your opinion. You have proven before, not too long ago, that you are simply here to raise sh*t. You have NO interest in helping anyone in the IT community (which is what TR is all about) you have NO interest in hearing ANY alternatve view to your own. It is really tirig for eeryone, it is really immature ad it is not what I not anyone else comes here to read. You waste my time as well as everyone elses.

          Like I said before, when you are able to show that you hae particiated in theis community OUTSIDE the ability to simply rant about Bush and say how stupid the rest of the world is, you MAY start to gain some credibility and hold a worthwhile conversation. As you hae proved in this discussion several times, this is far beyond your capabilities at this time.

          So now you can post your little LOL post and start off on your guffaws abot how stupid I am and what nonsense I speak (you really hae to start coming up with your own material instead of just following your mentors)and I will not reply. This way you will hae the last word and can feel like your comments made you look like the better man.

          You are the epitomy of what people dislike about America and Americans, full of sh*t but you think you’re clever, when will people like youself ever wake up? You just haven’t seen or heard enough to know better I suppose.

        • #2699007

          Yaawwwnnnn

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Amusing

          Yeah, um..right whatever little man. One of these days I am sure you will get your point across (whatever that maybe).

          One of these days I am hoping you might make sense instead of ranting against Bush’s “terrorism” and actually giving America some credit. Its because of people like YOU, Americans feel the world is being ungrateful and selfish.

        • #2701126

          Fair Enough

          by thechas ·

          In reply to Reason and Real Facts Mean Nothing

          Sorry Max,

          It is true that GWB did not steal the 2000 election.

          However, I remain convinced that Republican sympathizers pulled off enough behind the scenes tricks to provide the winning margin in at least Florida.

          A combination of:

          Biased election worker training;

          The disenfranchisement of a large number of black “inner city” voters;

          and the last minute moving of polling stations;

          were more than enough to shift the outcome.

          So, the 2000 election was stolen in GWBs behalf, not by GWB himself.

          Chas

        • #2701049

          No comment – except. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Fair Enough

          .
          …..shaking my head in disbelief.

      • #2701910

        It could be what’s needed

        by hereinoz ·

        In reply to I wonder what the Bush bashers

        Hi Garion,

        GWB being re-elected may be the best thing that happened to the US. It has taken four years for a large slice of the US people to realise the type of person they scored as President, and given another four years of him, perhaps the vast majority of the rest will work it out.

        At least then, the majority of the US population will hopefully take steps to ensure that it never happens again.

        Cheers,

        Alan

        • #2699193

          yeah, right (or maybe left..)

          by claudiamesna ·

          In reply to It could be what’s needed

          Hello – I am new here. Didn’t anyone notice that Mr. Bush wasn’t ELECTED first time? Thank you. One who was not elected cannot be “re”elected. I know, simplistic, but not apologetic. I’m enjoying learning about you guys..though surprised at the number and ferocity of the ad hominum attacks.

        • #2698773

          Attacks

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to yeah, right (or maybe left..)

          We don’t actually attack each other except when in political debates.

          Many of us here have a rather sordid past on TR for ‘flaming each other’ in political forums, I’ve seen it from you as a newbie to (sorry buy you said you were a new here).

          Do not let this be a place to learn about anyone though, the opinions shared here are definitely not a reflection of most of the people here, it’s just a way to blast off some steam. I am sure many of the folk who I would hut down and kill for thier political stand would be just fine to have a beer or ten with one day and we’d probably find we have more in common than we first thought.

          It is simply impossible to get a god read on somebody over the interet, that’s why there are so many abductions and kidnappings from people met in chat rooms. Words can be VERY deceiving and especially the tone of voice used by the person who says the words, which cannot be heard online of course.

          I am still somwhat confused to your own political stand though, in one post you are agreeing with Maxwell’s points, in another you are sayig you believe GWB didn’t actually get elected, which leaves me confused as to who you support but from the general feeling of your posts I’d say you were somewhere in the middle.

          As a Canadian, it makes no difference to me, your left wing is our right wing, so for one, we can’t compare political views across our borders. Secondly, Canadians don’t really gie a cra about politics or politicians as long as they leave us out of the picture and let us get on with our lives.

          My personal distaste toward Bush is his mannerisms indicate he lies, his body languiage SCREAMS liar, even based on the FBI’s own profiling techniques. Even then, he’s not a liar in MY country nor do his political mistakes effect me. BUT when he lied to America to prematurely ivade Iraq, it became my business and remains so. The part I simply don’t understand, nor have from the beginning is that Americans are VERY politically savvy (toward US politics) they hold the highest level of trust in thier president (Canadians wouldn’t trust a politician as far as we could launch him with a truck, they ae jusr liars with jobs and have no immediate efect on ou lives)but even when blatantly mislead, not just an evasive mistake but blatant deception, it is all ignored because America is at war. Clinton was IMPEACHED for getting a bit on the side, BUSH is responsible for the deaths of many US citizens and yet he is completely defended by SOME anyway.

          This just boggles the mind how no matter what is said or done, if they truly believe it is for thier own safety, people comlpetely ignore decption from the ONE person they place all faith in.

          Some are waking up and starting to realize he must be held accountable, others are just blindly defending him to the death. The I hear, “You just don’t understand” I suppose in that case, they are right, I certainly don’t understand this irregardless allegiance.

        • #2698710

          Clinton wasn’t impeached

          by hereinoz ·

          In reply to Attacks

          Oz, they simply tried to do it, but he avoided it rather deftly. They didn’t call him the Teflon Kid for nothing!!

          I do agree with you about the almost myopic way that some (not all) US citizens trust their Prez. As a politically cynical Australian, I find it a bit wierd.

        • #2698678

          Yet he was, but…

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Clinton wasn’t impeached

          Even though he was not directly impeached, he got the next best thing, which was just as bad, maybe worse. Everyone from inside the country and abroad questions him over and over again. I can’t even imagine how embarrassing that would be. Also, this seems to be on of the major reasons why Bush was elected instead of Gore. To me, it wasn?t a vote for Bush, but a vote against Clinton. Although I do admit he made a mistake, it makes up by far for how much he made the country develop and proper, and that mistake is nothing compared to all the Bush mistakes that are degrading the country in every aspect by the minute.

        • #2712982

          Yes – Clinton did get impeached

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Clinton wasn’t impeached

          .
          Being impeached is often misunderstood. Being impeached does not equal being removed from office.

          The U.S. House of Representatives votes on the articles of impeachment, and if it passes with a simple majority, there is indeed an impeachment. An impeachment is, perhaps, similar to a Grand Jury decision, who decides whether or not the evidence is sufficient to warrant a trial. If there is, the matter is then sent on to the Senate, where they will decide the merits of the case, and decide whether or not the person will indeed be removed from office. So in the case of Bill Clinton, he was indeed impeached by the House of Representatives (by a narrow margin), but the Senate decided not to remove him from office.

          The House of Representatives impeached Bill Clinton on two charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. The Senate held a trial, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court overseeing, and found Bill Clinton not guilty of perjury by a vote of 55-45, and they were split on the obstruction charge 50-50.

          What’s interesting about this, however, is that the American Bar Association revoked his license to practice law in both Washington D.C. and in Arkansas because a judge in Arkansas found him guilty of perjury. Go figure.

          Bill Clinton was the second U.S. president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. Andrew Johnson, the 17th president, was charged with serious misconduct (or something like that), but he held onto the presidency by virtue of a single vote in the Senate. John Tyler, our 10th president, faced an impeachment hearing on charges of corruption, but the measure failed to pass in the House and was never sent to the Senate for trial.

          Richard Nixon surely would have been impeached by the House, probably on the single charge of obstruction of justice, but he resigned before the House vote. And to put the matter to rest, suggesting that Nixon’s resignation was punishment enough, President Ford granted a full pardon to Nixon. (The right thing to do, in my opinion, but it probably cost Gerald Ford the election in 1976.)

    • #2701678

      I wonder what would happen if

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      there was another terrorist attack on American soil? Like a dirty nuke going off, which is certainly a possibility.

      • #2701640

        by whom?

        by cactus pete ·

        In reply to I wonder what would happen if

        A terrorist attack by whom? Isn’t that what matters?

        What line are you trying to follow? Who would we attack if… Who would we blame for doing it if… Who would we blame for allowing it to happen if… How would you vote if… Would you vote if…

        • #2701266

          Yes, feed us more info…

          by tomsal ·

          In reply to by whom?

          I with dpetrak, feed us more info on what kind of response you are expecting.

          What would happen if a dirty nuke went off in the US?

          Millions would die.

          Hopefully among those millions would NOT be my family/friends/loved ones.

          But considering I live smack dab in middle of two PRIME targets….DC is 3 hours from me, NYC is 2 1/2 hours from me….I think I’m a goner in such a case.

          One of the pains of living in the North East USA — you are in the “bullseye zone” should nuclear weapons be targeted at the US.

          CIA Headquarters
          FBI Headquarters
          The Whitehouse
          NYC (our largest city/major financial district)
          Norfolk, VA (Navy)

          etc. etc.

        • #2701237

          Then there’s the NorthWest

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yes, feed us more info…

          Being in BC we are VERY close to the actual financial center of the USA, STARBUCKS!

      • #2701239

        I wouldn’t put it past you

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to I wonder what would happen if

        YOu have enough problems with friendly fire, to the point that armies refuse to fight near Americans. I saw a report ove the weekend whee Kurdish tanks were lined up JUST outside of firig range of KNOWN Iraqi insurgents. The US was firing upon the Iraqi’s and asked for suport from the other direction, the Kurds would not enter into the field as they were scared of being mistaken for Iraqi’s and fired upon by US troops.

        Now what are the chances of someone launching a nuclear attack on the USA? EXTREMELY SLIM, knowing that thier country would be obliterated if they did.

        What are the chances of America launching an ‘aacidental’nuclear attack upon itself? Too high to be amusing.

      • #2701109

        Bush Landslide

        by thechas ·

        In reply to I wonder what would happen if

        Garion,

        Any major terrorist attack against the US or US interests especially in September or October will result in a landslide for GWB.

        It won’t be because the people trust GWB though.

        It will be because they are scared and won’t want to accept the risk of changing Presidents in a time of crisis.

        It has been reported that GWB is considered to be Osama Bin’Ladens best ally.
        The continued foreign policy mis-steps by the Bush administration are Osama’s best propaganda and recruiting tools.

        Chas

        • #2701044

          On foreign policy missteps

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Bush Landslide

          .
          Why is it that GWB has made, as you suggest, foreign policy missteps, but the other party involved has not?

          It’s interesting that when there are disagreements or negotiation breakdowns, it’s never the other guy who’s at fault. Why is it that Saddam Hussein isn’t just as roundly criticized for his “foreign policy missteps”? I suppose he wasn’t at fault. I guess GWB made them, but Saddam Hussein didn’t, Kofi Annan didn’t, and Jacques Chirac didn’t. It’s sad that some people apparently see it that way.

        • #2701006

          Is tit for tat a valid argument?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to On foreign policy missteps

          Basically you have justified America’s [i]’foreign policy missteps'[/i]as justification for the USA’s actions.
          This I am sure you will agree is 100% insanity.

          Shall we now fly a few US planes into Middle Eastern buildings so we can make our point that we do not like thier dictatorship and disbelief in God?

          Should we start unleashing chemical attacks on one another?

          Hey why not, Saddam was forgiven for it all these years, why not Bush? Why would everyone comndemn Bush if he started to slaughter citizens if Saddam got away with it?

          I know you consider this post complete onsense, as do I. The scary part is that this is [b]your[/b] justification for the US foreign policy missteps.

        • #2701003

          Can’t even post ‘t*t for tat?

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Is tit for tat a valid argument?

          WOW guess boobies for boobies may work?
          or breast for breast? 😛

        • #2700986

          Look at this guys’s thinking

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to Is tit for tat a valid argument?

          Its amazing how he pushes the focus away from a dictator and pushes it onto Bush. LOL. Its scary that he justifies Saddam’s existence by bashing Bush.

          I guess you are still waiting for some sort of justification from US or GWB for invading Iraq?? I don’t think its a misstep, Bush did the best he could under the intel he received. After your country is attacked, pre emptiveness became our foreign policy. Does that scare you or something?? Is that why you rant and rave everyday??

          Actually Saddam wasn’t forgiven for it all these years, 10 years of stupidity on his part lead to his ousting.

          As far as planes flying into middle eastern countries and your wishful nonsense, I said this before and I am going to say it again, IF Bush really really wanted to destroy the middle east, don’t you think he would have?? a few nukes in a few major cities pretty much would have done the trick.

          LOL, you really think Bush wanted to deal with this crap? You really think America wants to deal with terrorism? I and many Americans would rather see the billions of dollars invested somewhere else, but this problem hit us (literally) on 9/11. After that, we don’t need to justify NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING. Get it through your stupid thick skull and repeat after me, AMERICA DOESN’T NEED TO JUSTIFY NOTHING WHEN IT COMES TO OUR SAFETY AND SECURITY. If our government feels you are out to blow America up, we will do our BEST to take you out. You don’t like it, don’t pi/s/s on us then!, like Saddam tried to do. UNDERSTOOD??

        • #2699574

          double negative

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Look at this guys’s thinking

          actually..if you say “doesn’t have to justify nothing” what you are saying is something must be justified.

        • #2699566

          Been taking lessons eh?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to double negative

          Ok thanks for the tip. I am sure I might care one of these days.

        • #2699498

          no, I haven’t been taking lessons..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to double negative

          It’s just what most high school graduates already know..

        • #2699445

          ????????

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to double negative

          .
          I don’t think that you don’t simply want to make fun of someone who doesn’t think the same way that you don’t, don’t you think?

        • #2699424

          Well Max, it’s like this..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to double negative

          While I COULD be the bigger person and not say anything at all, I’ve been slammed a number of times and just don’t want to let the opportunity pass. As I’m sure you understand as I’ve seen you take a shot or two from time to time 🙂

        • #2699387

          You’re just plain scary

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Look at this guys’s thinking

          Your nonexistant and self ventered thought process (or lack thereof) is a damn scary thing and I am certainly glad as hell that YOU don’t run America.

          Every country on earth is under SOME threat of attack from another person or country, it always has been this way and always will.

          Your analogy states that if you THINK you COULD POSSIBLY be attacked by anyone, you have full rights to go and invade them?! THis is pure idiocy and something that would destroy America as a nation in an instant. Garion would be the end of your great nation, with no doubt whatsoever.

          Anyho0w, if you were part of the conversation and had followed it and were the person I replied to, you would understand that the xact same statement was made by your mentor Maxwell. I just pointed out the lunacy behind justifying BUSH’s actions by implying ‘Saddam did it, why can’t we?’.

          Now I’ve said before, you are a complete waste of my time and energy because you have never understood a single post in this forum and take everything on some wierd tangent, no matter WHO made the comments.

          So politely step out of my conversation with Maxwell and find someone else’s time to waste with your moronic nonsense.

        • #2713853

          What is is with America and Nukes??

          by bloodyusername!! ·

          In reply to Look at this guys’s thinking

          Why is is that every time some pecker-necked right wing nut-job gets his panties in a twist, the first piece of verbal diarrhea that dribbles over his chin is “We’ll NUKE ‘EM!! We’ll do it ’cause we can. Nuke ’em!!” etc, etc. I’ll do you a deal, whack-job; You can drop three (3) nukes anywhere you like. I personally will be laughing my ass off watching most of the rest of the world lining up in a mass wave, wading through the ruins of a once great land, screaming for the blood of the last living American. Don’t think it could happen?? Exactly how many of the 220 million “Known” residents of America were actually born there…
          AND THE NUMBER GETS LESS EVERY SINGLE F*$KING DAY!!

        • #2714597

          Point of accuracy

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to What is is with America and Nukes??

          .
          You asked, What is it with America and nukes”?

          Actually, “America” doesn’t do what you suggest. Its leaders don’t and its policy doesn’t. Don’t confuse what “America” may or may not think or do with what a few isolated individuals might say.

          I, too, wish such rhetoric could be seen for what it is by the person saying as much. It’s detrimental to the “cause” a person is trying to advance.

        • #2699585

          Yes – complete nonsense

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Is tit for tat a valid argument?

          .
          I said what I said – no more, no less.

          Where you came up with such, as you put it, nonsense, I have no idea.

        • #2699377

          Implication

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Yes – complete nonsense

          “Why is it that Saddam Hussein isn’t just as roundly criticized for his “foreign policy missteps”?

          This implies the expectations of equal treatment between Saddam and GWB. This also implies that everyone is on Bush’s case for his forewign policies yet noone is holdng Saddam accountable, which is pure crap.

          The entire wold holds Saddam accountable for his horrible repression of the people and actions as a dictator, the whole world would like to see him removed.

          THis in no way justifies the US invasion though as you were ASKED to wait for evidence to be confirmed (hindsight, ooops, maybe you should have?). Americans seem to think that nobody wanted to invade Iraq and thought saddam was just fine, wrong.

          Americans seem to also think that it is thier DUTY to ignore allies and invade anyway, wrong.

          If your country was under an imminent threat, YES, we should ALL go to war. BUT, your country was not under imminent threats from Saddam, yet yu RUSHED to stop the madman.

          How can you then try and turn this anything else but a sorry mistake by the US administration?
          It isn’t only rude, it’s wrong. GWB should be charged with a war crime for God’s sake, this was not a justified or immediately neccessary invasion.

          A&E did a biography on Bin Laden last night, they show just how Clinton and GWB’s failure to capture him has made him a hero, Osama is the number one name for baby boys in Afghanistan, you are being laughed at, scofed at and they are planig the next attack. Bin Laden is an IMMINENT threat. Why did you turn tail and run to invade Iraq instead of taking out your IMMINENT threat?

        • #2699360

          It implies nothing

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Implication

          .
          You can read into what I said whatever your warped little mind can conjure up. But I said what I said, and that’s all that I said.

          Some people read too much into what others say. But in your case, you take it a step further and read into what other people didn’t say.

          Geesh. No wonder it’s not possible to carry on an intelligent conversation with you.

        • #2699350

          It implies a lot Maxwell

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Implication

          What you hear in your head and what people see on paper needs to be carefully worded, which you often do but in this case you have spurted all kinds of comments out, noting that you have been losing it over the last day or so and simply getting frustrated, perhaps time for a break.

          I am not the only one who saw this, I only posted because an email had pointed it out to me, upon reading it I also got the same impression. “Why BUSH if not Saddam?”

          Because we expect Saddam to act in a radical and irrational manner, not the ‘leader of the free world’.

          The other thing I have noticed is you sinmply cannot post a single comment, suggestion or thought without takin gSOME form of a pot shot at whoever is posting, not just myself but almost ALL your replies. Even when you agree with people, you can’t do it without saying how you will ‘accept thier views even though you disagree’ as if people are begging for your acceptance. Buy a dog or something instead, he’ll look up to you, praise you, wallow at your feet, follow you faithfully and leave little presents all over our yard to clean up.

          Now you may see this as my own little pot shot at yourself, well I suppose it is in a way, what I am sayign is get a life and realize other people also have one too. They don’t need for you to validate thier arguments, tell them whata is right or wrong, sane or insane, you have no right to judge anyone or thier comments.

          Offer your own views but learn to accept that some people will never accept yours, no matter what you call them, some people will ALWAYS see your views, no matter what others call them.

          You are NOT right, you are NOT wrong, you simply have your own beliefs and opinions just as others do, stop tryig to moderate ad correct everyone, it’s SOOOOOO tiring and expected.

        • #2701015

          While I’m not sure about the mis-steps part

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Bush Landslide

          The rest is unfortunately quite correct.

          It is the actions of the COW and mainly America in these matters which are playing directly into Bin Ladens and his ilks hands.

          Talk about being between a Rock and a Hard Place.

          You’re Dammed if you do and Dammed if you don’t. It’s a now in situation whatever happens.

          Col

    • #2701087

      I wonder what would happen if

      by garion11 ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      OZ becomes President. LOL.

      • #2701065

        That would be interesting!

        by thechas ·

        In reply to I wonder what would happen if

        Oz as US President would be at least as interesting as “Iron” Mike Ditka as a US Senator!!

        I’m not sure if Oz was born in the US or Canada though.

        It is possible that the “Arnold” amendment would need to be in place for Oz to have the opportunity to even run for President.

        Now, no offense Oz;

        Despite the fact that Oz and I may appear to be close to each other on the political spectrum, if there were to be an election contest between Oz and Max my vote would more than likely go to Max.

        In this case it is not that I do not trust Oz, it’s that I believe that Max would make a better statesmen.

        As a side note, I was truly impressed and inspired by Bill Clinton’s address at the Democratic Convention Monday.

        Whether you like him, despise him, or hate him, you have to admit that WJC is a powerful and gifted speaker.

        Chas

        • #2701042

          I agree and I agree

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That would be interesting!

          .
          I agree, I would be a much better president than Oz. (Thanks for the vote, Chas.) But I could never get elected (to anything). I wouldn’t promise the moon. Hell, I wouldn’t even promise a slice of the moon’s green cheese.

          I agree, Bill Clinton is a very good speaker.

          However, did you notice how he was touting his new-found wealth, and he used it as an example of how “the rich” (whoever they are) didn’t need a tax cut? Gee, why doesn’t he just write a check and send it to the government? Or why doesn’t he just give it all away? I guess he wasn’t against it that much. He reinforces the old saying about a liberal who’s willing to give the shirt off someone else’s back.

        • #2699300

          wait just a minute

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to I agree and I agree

          You’re saying that there’s no way a rich person can be a democrat, unless they’re just about to give it all away? And if a democrat becomes wealthy, they have to immediately become poor again?

          Where’s your cutoff, anyway?

          Personally [admittedly, I’m not a dem, but most people push me into that category when speaking on social issues and only allowing for red or blue] I feel that I won’t pay the government anything I don’t have to. However, I vote for higher taxes when I think the money will be put towards a good cause. That’s part of living in a society. I am proud to be an American who pays his fair share. But I prefer it to be a fair share, not an unfair share.

          Come on, Max. Do you really think that Clinton has to give the money back or swallow his words?

        • #2699252

          Define FAIR – And where’s YOUR cutoff?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to wait just a minute

          .
          My comments about Bill Clinton giving away all his money was to make a point, although I do believe that a true liberal today is indeed willing to give the shirt off someone else’s back – including Bill Clinton and company. How about the loud-mouth Hollywood Limousine Liberals, the ones making tens of millions of dollars every year, while the “little guys” who build the sets and so on (probably 90% of “Hollywood”) are working for low wages? Let those hypocrites share some of their wealth instead of hoarding it all themselves, while at the same time lobbying government to force you and me to share ours – which is significantly lower, by the way.

          You and I have had quite a few discussions on the transfer of wealth programs forced upon the American people. Usually, however, your arguments seem to be based on the premise that there aren’t any, or at least not enough, and that there are still needy people out there. With all due respect, that’s total B.S. We transfer 1 trillion dollars – in fact, more than 1 trillion dollars – each and every year in the name of funding various social programs, and in the name of compassion. If we transferred zero dollars, you and people like Bill Clinton might have a legitimate point. In fact, being the compassionate person that I am, I might even agree. But I must ask you. When is enough, enough?

          I don’t think you understand how much money is forcefully transferred each and every year. Have some fun and do some calculations with one trillion dollars divided by the 300 million total population, or the 100 million total households – or better yet, divided by the “needy” population (whoever they really are). How much more do these people want? To them, enough is never enough. In my opinion, however, these “tax and give-away” liberals don’t do it to be compassionate. They do it to gain power over those they want to convince are “needy”. They want dependency on government so they can maintain their power over those they govern. And consider this, the US government, as it is now, is obligated to give away 46 TRILLION DOLLARS based on the programs currently in place. And of course, you and I both know that the government usually underestimates such things.

          If you tax something (productivity), you get less of it. If you subsidize something (give-away programs), you get more of it. How long will it be before we have less of the former and more of the latter? I think we need to convince people that they need to live their lives relying on themselves instead of relying on the government. The level of wealth transfer simply cannot be sustained. Since the end of World War II, federal spending has remained at about 20 percent (give or take a few) of the GDP. However, the growth in the cost of all the various transfer of wealth programs has outpaced the growth in the GDP, and where it once accounted for only about 4 percent of the federal budget, it now consumes well over 50 percent of all federal dollars spent. If left unchecked, it will soon collapse under its own weight. The growth is simply not sustainable.

          And look at it in a couple of other ways.

          First of all, a “socialized” government is not what the founders envisioned. To the contrary, the common thought was that a government that governed least, governed best. The big argument of that day was a stronger federal government versus stronger states’ governments. But the every-day care of the individual was not even part of the equation. Working from that beginning, the USA became the economic power of the world in a little more than 100 years – leap froging over the long established nations of the world such as Great Britain, Italy, Spain and France. It wasn’t done with a socialistic system, but rather one of individual responsibility. It was the socialistic countries that grew weaker, while we grew stronger. When people can vote themselves other people’s money, and politicians give it to them so they can get votes, this will lead to the degeneration of the general welfare of our nation. The doom of democracy, as we know it, is inevitable if we remain on the same path.

          In addition, I think the politics of class-envy is harmful to the hopes and dreams of the common guy. And the Democrats play the “class-envy” game to the hilt. Why not reverse the trend of being a nation of enablers, to becoming a nation of encouragers? Why not reverse the trend of creating dependency on government, to becoming independent from from government? And yes, I think a person is entitled to enjoy the rewards of his efforts without being demonized in the process.

          I think the dialogue has to change. I think that the time has come to say enough is enough. Or do you think ONE TRILLION DOLLARS each and every year is not enough? And how long can we guarantee individual liberty if we continue to pander to those who vote only to raid the public treasury – or especially to the politicians who promise it?

          Give them your money, but leave mine alone. I have a family to look out for.

        • #2699071

          Where was the answer?

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Define FAIR – And where’s YOUR cutoff?

          I don’t see your definition of fair, unless it’s “You can’t have ANY of my money” and I don’t see your cutoff listed anywhere. So you can continue to spew forth your rhetoric as much as you want. But I’ll remind you that you didn’t address the point of my post.

          You’ve made a few assumptions, none of which are proven.

          “If you tax something (productivity), you get less of it. If you subsidize something (give-away programs), you get more of it.” This is not necessarily true, and certainly not true at all in your over generaglization.

          “How about the loud-mouth Hollywood Limousine Liberals, the ones making tens of millions of dollars every year, while the “little guys” who build the sets and so on (probably 90% of “Hollywood”) are working for low wages?”

          First of all, your name calling, labeling – whatever you want to call it – is beneath you, and I’ve been seeing more of it from you lately. That’s just a shame. But you really think that the people building those sets make low wages? Were you pulling that out of some dark cavity, or were you, um, embellishing a little?

          You’ve thrown around the trillion dollars a lot lately, and I’ve pretty much just believed you on it. But now I recall that there are figures, and you can bend them to appear how you want. So I’ll ask you [since you’ve already done the legwork, obviously] instead of looking it up myself: Is that trillion what was taxed, appropriated, or actually delivered? I’ll remind everyone that with half a trillion deficit for one year, some wealth transfers are in fact not taking place.

          Now I agree, there must be some great reform of te social services. I voted for a governor of Michigan some years ago who ran largely on htat platform. And he did it. I was pleased with that outcome. When he moved his focus away from that, he lost my support.

          Now, please see if you can’t answer the question.

        • #2698990

          No – you certainly don’t have to take my word for it. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Where was the answer?

          .
          …..So why don’t you decide your life for yourself, and respect another’s right to decide his live for himself?

          Fair is relative. What’s fair to me may seem unfair to you, and vice-versa. Therefore, it’s a flawed concept for some other third party (individual or politician) to decide what’s fair or not fair. Moreover, our Constitution guarantees freedom and individual liberty, and forcing a person to give money to another person is a gross infringement on those rights. (Okay, the “general welfare” argument is what’s usually cited as a rebuttal to this. See the words of Jefferson and Madison below.)

          Name calling????? Please, spare me. “Loud-Mouth Hollywood Limousine Liberal” is not exactly name-calling. Even if it is, it pales in comparison to the stuff they spew.

          And what questions did I not answer? (They actually seemed like rhetorical questions, anyway, and I thought I generally answered them. But if you insist, here ya’ go. (I looked for all your question marks. I hope I didn’t miss any.)

          You asked, “You’re saying that there’s no way a rich person can be a Democrat, unless they’re just about to give it all away?”

          Answer: No, I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying, however, is that if they determine a need, they should give away their money to satisfy that need before they attempt to have government take money from another.

          You asked, “And if a Democrat becomes wealthy, they have to immediately become poor again?”

          Answer: No, I’m not saying that. See my previous answer.

          You asked, “Where’s your cutoff, anyway?”

          Answer: My cutoff is less than the levels – much less than the levels – that are forced upon us today. But if you want to hold me to an exact number, I can’t provide one. I will say this, however; it’s a lot closer to zero than it is to one trillion.

          You asked, “Do you really think that Clinton has to give the money back or swallow his words?”

          Answer: This is, I assume, a redundant question. I believe I answered it above. I will say this, however. What Bill Clinton swallows is his business. What he makes others swallow is – and has been – harmful to the country. (Not to mention a young and impressionable White House intern.)

          You asked, “But you really think that the people building those sets make low wages? Were you pulling that out of some dark cavity, or were you, um, embellishing a little?”

          Answer: Yes, I was embellishing a little. It was to make a point. Actually, I have no idea what those folks make.

          ——————–

          You accurately quoted me as saying, “If you tax something (productivity), you get less of it. If you subsidize something (give-away programs), you get more of it.”

          You went on to suggest that, “This is not necessarily true, and certainly not true at all in your over generalization”.

          Well, you and I will apparently have to agree to disagree. However, this isn’t something I just made-up because it sounds good. It has a basis in sound economic principle.

          “When you tax something, you get less of it.”

          Isn’t that the very argument the government uses to discourage the use, and reduce the consumption of tobacco and alcohol?

          But don’t take my word for it – or the government’s. How about an economist?

          “When you tax something you get less of it, when you subsidize something you get more of it. If you tax income, producers, consumers, workers work less, produce less taxable income and the tax base has a tendency to decline. That’s true of any form of taxation, if you get less consumption and more savings, more investment more growth.”
          – Dr. J.R. Clark, Probasco Chair of Free Enterprise and Professor of Economics at UT-Chattanooga

          “The idea is simple: when you tax something, you increase its cost and you get less of it. But what do we mostly tax? We tax “goods” — things like income, investment, labour and property improvements. As a result, we get fewer jobs, less innovation and less investment in property.”
          – Donna Morton,executive director of the Canadian Centre for Integral Economics

          ———- ONE TRILLION DOLLARS ———-

          You don’t think we spend ONE TRILLION DOLLARS on money-transfer social programs?

          (Note: The following sources are from two different fiscal years, thus the difference in the TWO TRILLION plus numbers)

          Our current fiscal year spending is $2,156,536,000,000. That’s two trillion, one hundred fifty six billion, five hundred thirty six million dollars.

          http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1710.cfm

          Last year the federal government spent $2.3 Trillion, or about $7,835 for each man, woman and child in America.. The chart displays this $2.3 Trillion as a pie chart, with each major spending component (slice of the pie) shown as a percent of the total.

          1. The BIGGIE is that HUGE RED CLOUD in the chart called SOCIAL PROGRAM Spending, which consumes 59% of the budget. (To place this in perspective, in 1948 social spending was but 10% of the federal budget – – prior to the New Deal it was near zero).

          2. Foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget, and therefore will not be discussed. (this consumed 10% of 1948 spending).

          SOCIAL PROGRAM Spending, which consumes 59% of the budget
          SOCIAL PROGRAM Spending, which consumes 59% of the budget
          SOCIAL PROGRAM Spending, which consumes 59% of the budget
          SOCIAL PROGRAM Spending, which consumes 59% of the budget

          http://mwhodges.home.att.net/fed_budget-a.htm

          (That makes it more than one trillion, doesn’t it?)

          Where it all goes – a breakdown (happy reading)

          http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-23.pdf

          http://www.federalbudget.com/

          ———- More from some very wise people ———-

          “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
          — Benjamin Franklin

          “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
          — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

          “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated.”
          — Thomas Jefferson

          “With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the “Articles of Confederation,” and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.”
          — James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson

          “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
          — James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton January 21, 1792

          “The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
          — James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

          “If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?”
          — South Carolina Senator William Draden 1828

          “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
          –Benjamin Franklin,

          “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
          — John Adams

          ” I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
          — Benjamin Franklin

          “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
          — Professor Alexander Tytler

          “The State is great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”
          — Frederic Bastiat

          “If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that, if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that too.”
          — William Somerset Maughan, 1941

          “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
          — Alexis de Tocqueville

          “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
          — Thomas Sowell

          “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. ”
          — Winston Churchill

          “When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.”
          — The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax

          “Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”
          — C.S. Lewis

          “Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one’s own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person’s pocket to assist one’s fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.”
          — Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University
          “Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities, and artists. Both agree on taking one American’s earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.”

          — Walter E. Williams, Professor of Economics at George Mason University

          “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. ”
          — Mark Twain

          ——————–
          .
          .
          .

          You may not agree with me, but I am certainly in good company with my principles.

          .
          .
          .

          ——————–

          For some comparison:

          “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good”
          – Hillary Clinton

          Kinda’ puts things in perspective.
          .
          .
          .
          By the way, did I miss any of your questions?

        • #2698881

          OK, Max

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Where was the answer?

          In order, as much as possible…

          “…..So why don’t you decide your life for yourself, and respect another’s right to decide his live for himself?” Don’t quite get what you’re implying, given the context. But here’s a stab at it: We live in a country made up of many people – at some point, decisions must be made for the group as a whole. There will be differences of opinion, but what’s best for society will, hopefully, be the end result. This means that someone at some time must drop the “me first” attitude that appears to be so prevalent these days. That cuts both ways – you have to pay some taxes you don’t like, and you have to do some of the work your damn self, rather than relying on the collected taxes of others.

          “Fair is relative. What’s fair to me may seem unfair to you, and vice-versa. Therefore, it’s a flawed concept for some other third party (individual or politician) to decide what’s fair or not fair.” Same as above – the good of the country come sbefore the good of a particular person – in some cases. This is the built-in problem with our country, actually. People have every right they can muster – so long as it does not harm anyone else. But many people will fight wars to be sure that the right exists in the first place. The argument can sometimes be where that line rests, the one you cross to harm others. You know, the shouting FIRE in a crowded theater…

          “Name calling????? Please, spare me.” As I said, that, labeling, whatever you want to call it. It isn’t an educated means to support your side of the debate. It’s hostile, demeaning, and not the only time you’ve done it. That just happens to be the time I brought it up. I believe I’ve tried to show even the more fundamentalist people on your side of things some respect, particularly when it’s a matter of opinions.

          “Answer: No, I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying, however, is that if they determine a need, they should give away their money to satisfy that need before they attempt to have government take money from another.” Again, it’s a social benefit for the good of the whole country, but you expect just the few who have the means and aptitude to shoulder the responsibility. That’s the “me first” mentality to which I was referring. It’s like saying, “I don’t like them, I didn’t personally cause them to suffer, someone else has more money and is the one complaining, let them pay for it all.” If a wealthy man says, “I’ll pay my portion if you pay yours” everyone benefits.

          Without quoting your cutsie little play on words about Clinton’s “disgrace in office”, let me just say that it was another unwarranted, unnecessary slam to people who don’t think just like you. Yes, yes, it was cute, I hope you get the expected giggles… But it distracts from the topic, don’t you think?

          “Isn’t that the very argument the government uses to discourage the use, and reduce the consumption of tobacco and alcohol?” Why yes it is. But the premise doesn’t always mesh with reality, does it? if you tax the hell out of an addictive substance, which is perfectly legal, and it is a social fashion [a fad, whatever], then you’ll just rake in lots of money. That particular good is not necessarily lessened. You see, it has to do with the supply/demand chart. If demand is represented by a verticle line [referring to the common econ 101 chart] it won’t matter. In fact, it’s usually a curve, not a line, and the curve can even bend back on itself, allowing for more than one price at the same quantity. In economics, we [I have a degree in it] use differential equations [calculus] because those little lines get so complex. And still, we’re working from assumption, because it’s not a “hard” science.

          So, all of those quotes you have, while generally and in a simple context, are correct, they are hardly correct in all situations, which is what I said. In fact, my quote, with emphasis added, was “This is not necessarily true…”

          And all of the people you quoted, and even you, would agree that some level of taxation is necessary, and can provide for good for the society at large. So, instead of arguing a black and white world, let’s all admit it’s rather gray, and go about finding a better place for where the line should fall. Instead of arguing with malice, how about reasoning with civility?

        • #2698791

          Okay, dpetrak

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Where was the answer?

          .
          Of course we live in a land of many people, and there is indeed a point where we must consider the group as a whole. But it’s your “what’s best for society as a whole” sentiment that’s open to interpretation – and the divide is as wide and as deep as the Grand Canyon. Now, I might come across as having a “me first” attitude (when in actuality I am quite generous with both my time and my money), but mine is a “me first” sentiment with MY PROPERTY. It’s the “me first” sentiment that takes other peoples’ property that’s driving us down the road to ruin, and it’s dead-wrong in both principle and implementation. (Yes, I know, the “dead-wrong” is my opinion.) I suppose this might also answer your previous question about where my “cutoff” level would be, but my cut-off would be just above the level of life-and death, unacceptable suffering, and literally nowhere else to turn. As just one example, no, I don’t think you and I should pay for, with our tax dollars, the millions of knee-replacements performed on eighty year olds. But if an old lady is left destitute with no place to go, then absolutely we should care for her in a dignified manner.

          And actually, my “me first” sentiment isn’t really accurate at all. I’m not taking this position to be selfish. I’m taking it because I want to ensure the continued success of America – as it was intended to be. I think we’re on a slippery slope to absolute ruin, and it’s our grandkids who will be the most harmed because of it. I believe it’s the “me first” people, the ones who are “me first” with other people’s money, who are looking for the instant gratification, not considering the long-term consequences of their actions.

          In your second paragraph, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, because I agree that a person’s individual freedom and liberty stop at the threshold of infringing on the freedom and liberty of another. In that regard, we’re in total agreement. But I’m not crossing any line at all – but others are, by demanding that the property of others be transferred to them. And whether you admit it or not, we do indeed have equality of opportunity in this country; and contrary to what the “power mongers” want you to believe, people do indeed rise from the depths of despair to take advantage of those opportunities. Sure, some people have more advantages than others to get started, but the opportunity is there nonetheless. Again, we have a big divide in defining where a person’s equality of opportunity turns into a desire to create an equality of outcome. It’s not the role of government to create a level playing field, so to speak, just so everyone starts from and ends at the same place.

          And besides, before all these social programs were implemented, people were getting along just fine. We Americans are a kind and charitable bunch, and I’m sure those who needed care would get it. You’re coming across as though people would be dying in the streets without some government program. Moreover, I apparently have more faith in the human resolve than you do. Left to their own devices, most people could get along just fine – and it’s a disgrace that there are those in government who want to convince them otherwise.

          On the quotes, especially from Jefferson and Madison, I must suggest that you are not very well versed in their philosophy. To see where we’ve gone, both must be turning in their graves. Mr. Jefferson, did you know that 200 years after your efforts………

          “You mean a person MUST report his income to the government”, Jefferson would probably proclaim?

          “You mean the government forces you to be charitable?, Jefferson asks?

          “No, no, no. This is not at all what I had in mind”, I suspect Jefferson would say.

          No, I think Thomas Jefferson, if alive today, would be the first in line to fight the next revolution against a most oppressive government. He would recall his other sentiments:

          “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”
          — Thomas Jefferson

          “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
          — Thomas Jefferson

          “The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
          — Thomas Jefferson,

          But my bottom line is that these money-transfer programs are contrary to the intended role of the United States government. It’s not what our government is supposed to do; and I’m sure Thomas Jefferson would be closer to agreeing with me than agreeing with those who believe otherwise.

          On your last comment, I’m certainly not arguing with malice – with passion, perhaps, but not with malice. But I must say, considering all the conversations you and I have had, both public and private, it appears to me that you are the one who is forgetting your civility, not me.

          But let’s just let it go, and simply agree to disagree. (I know, I didn’t address all of your items, but what’s the point?)

          By the way, why aren’t you as vocal against the slams on President Bush as you appear to be on my ” cutsie little play on words ” concerning Bill Clinton? Just an interesting observation.

        • #2712905

          Disagreeing with Max

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Where was the answer?

          Fine, we’ll drop it, then. Although I must say two things – I don’t see where I was being less than civil, and to answer your last question… Because I read your posts. [I have stopped reading many of the others’, from both sides, unless the topic and title appear to be less argumentative.]

          I’ve stopped reading many of yours, too, as they are largely responses to others I don’t read. But I usually scan for your alias.

        • #2712895

          dpetrak – On losing civility

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Where was the answer?

          .
          I read the following message as though you lost your civility towards me, and I considered it a rather surprising and unwarranted blind-side.

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=155787&messageID=1630695

          (Spewing my rhetoric????)

          Sure, you replied to a message where I insulted the Hollywood types and Bill Clinton, but you replied with insults aimed at me.

          But as far as addressing you, I did so in a very respectful manner, and with a lengthy and well-thought out reply.

          I must admit, I just don’t get where you’re coming from.

        • #2714170

          Where’s my trillion Dollars?

          by hjmoore420 ·

          In reply to Define FAIR – And where’s YOUR cutoff?

          I was just wondering. I know some of it went to a subsidy to the airlines, cooperate welfare as it was…which is ok to Republicans because business is more valuable than people to them, but after the Clinton terms we have a surplus of 500+ billion dollars, and now we are down 400+ billion dollars. Where did this money go?

          In the 80’s the deficits were blamed on the tax and spend congress, a bunch of liberal spend it alls for the “Good” of the poor. What’s the republican response now?

          The entire congress is Republican last I looked. What about the senate, not only are the republicans in control but the Dems are down 2 votes since Kerry and Edwards can’t show up to vote, so where did this money go??

          Or are we too concerned with how Kerry received medals and if Busch showed up to fly planes to ask this question. I would like to think with 1 trillion dollars are country could do some great things, but from where I am sitting we are about the same now as we were after Clinton left, minus some personal freedoms.

          So could someone please answer me where this money went?

          Thanks

        • #2714161

          Actually. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Where’s my trillion Dollars?

          .
          I frown on ALL money transfer programs, whether it’s going into the hands of an individual who didn’t earn it or a business that didn’t earn it.

          In my opinion, if a business can’t survive within the free-market parameters of supply and demand, there’s something fundamentally flawed with that particular business, and it should either restructure or close its doors. However, I don’t necessarily oppose all government help to restructure an extremely LARGE company, such as an airline, or as was the case with Chrysler in the 80s; nor do I oppose help in the form of loans, such as in the case of “small business” loans. Keeping Chrysler solvent was in everyone’s best interest – the company’s, the thousands of people who worked for the company, and the nation as a whole so as to remain competitive in the world market-place. But in such a case, I would expect the company to pay back the “loan”, again, as was the case with Chrysler. Chrysler needed many billions of dollars to “restructure”, and they paid it back – early and with interest, if I remember correctly.

          But simply allowing a company to keep more of the money it earns, as in the form of a lower tax rate, is not “corporate welfare”. I would define “welfare”, whether it’s individual or corporate, as the transfer of dollars from the person who earned it to the person (or entity) that didn’t earn it. And since corporations “earn” the dollars that a tax cut allows them to keep, a tax rate reduction is not, by my definition, “corporate welfare”.

          Please define what you mean by “corporate welfare”, and please give a specific example of it happening.

          By the way, what “personal freedoms” have YOU lost. Please be specific, and please report ONLY first hand information.

        • #2700988

          Sigh agree on Bill Clinton

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to That would be interesting!

          As much as I loathe the Democrats, I do have to admit that Clinton still has the gift of Charisma. He knows how to charm crowds with his speeches. After watching that 60 mins interview, on a personal level I can see him and I getting trashed and chasing women LOL. He reminded me of a cool dude to party with, a liar, but a partier nonetheless.

        • #2699552

          One of the guys

          by nd_it ·

          In reply to That would be interesting!

          I think Bill Clinton comes off when he speaks as “one of the guys” and that is what makes people so hypnotic to listen too, because I think he was one of the greatest “speaking”
          presidents we have had, even though I don’t agree with all the policies, he sure did have a way to get people’s attention.

        • #2699188

          whether or not…

          by claudiamesna ·

          In reply to That would be interesting!

          Thank you, that seems like a very fair assessment. Every “dog” has his day……….
          Thank you, your comments are always interesting, not to mention easily read in plain english which is wonderful. back to IT, oh dear….

        • #2698875

          Did Jimmy Carter suggest voting Third Party at the Democratic Convention?

          by admin ·

          In reply to That would be interesting!

          I heard about the Democratic convention.

          I didn’t watch it, but some friends did and we had a heated debate on a front porch recently where I was informed that Jimmy Carter in his address sugggested people vote third party this year. Is this true?

        • #2698777

          Nope – Not True

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Did Jimmy Carter suggest voting Third Party at the Democratic Convention?

          .
          The following is a transcript of a speech by the Honorable Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention on Monday, July 26, 2004

          My name is Jimmy Carter, and I’m not running for president. But here’s what I will be doing: everything I can to put John Kerry in the White House with John Edwards right there beside him……

          http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/misc/JimmyCarter.html

        • #2698775

          I should not have said “Not True”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Did Jimmy Carter suggest voting Third Party at the Democratic Convention?

          .
          In some people’s estimation, this would simply be “a difference of opinion”.

          How thoughtless of me to say that it wasn’t true.

          (I always confuse “truth” and “opinion”.)

        • #2698760

          Well, that was pretty clear.

          by admin ·

          In reply to I should not have said “Not True”

          Actually, when I was told this erroneous fact, I was somewhat surprised, yet in a hopeful way. I still like Jimmy Carter, but will be passing on his advice to vote Kerry\Edwards in this case.

          hehe- I i would of said it’s not true.

          I’ll say it now- it’s not true 🙂

        • #2698757

          Be very careful with “truth” versus “opinion”

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Well, that was pretty clear.

          .
          Truth and opinion are easily confused around here. Especially when someone is faced with undeniable facts, it suddenly becomes a “difference of opinion”.

          Will you never learn??????

        • #2698750

          Will you never learn??????

          by admin ·

          In reply to Be very careful with “truth” versus “opinion”

          hehe I hope not. I want to keep my principles. 🙂

        • #2698742

          Me too, admin, me too.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Be very careful with “truth” versus “opinion”

          .

      • #2699190

        OZ as Prez??

        by claudiamesna ·

        In reply to I wonder what would happen if

        would it be a brain he is looking for? Sorry, I have nerve after c/o ad hominems…

    • #2699459

      To address your initial message

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      .
      You asked, Why did the USA go to war against Iraq?

      Was it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? The answer is yes.

      Was it to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein? The answer is yes.

      Was it because Iraq had links to terrorism? The answer is yes.

      Or was it because the Bush administration simply wanted some means to go to war, regardless of its cost both economic and human? The answer is, of course not; that’s simply absurd.

      The first three questions are legitimate, and the answers can be, to varying degrees, substantiated. That last question, however, is more than absurd. If anyone really believes that, I must question their ability to think rationally.

      You said, “So far no WMDs have been found”. Well that’s simply not true. Some have indeed been found, although not the “stockpiles” that the world thought would be. Read the rest of my messages for some of the details, but the bigger question is this. Did Saddam dupe the whole world into thinking he did have such stockpiles, or are they yet to be found. If it’s the former, we should be working on improving the accuracy of western intelligence procedures. If it’s the latter, we all have reason to be extremely concerned.

      You suggested that finding Saddam Hussein was probably the most expensive manhunt in history. Well, perhaps it was. Therefore what?

      Could we have captured Osama bin Laden if we had “done this differently” (translation: not gone into Iraq)? Well, who knows? Maybe yes, maybe no. Neither you or I are privy to the intelligence information concerning Osama’s whereabouts, so it’s pure speculation. If he’s known to be in Pakistan, for example, which he very well may be, that’s a political and logistical hot-potato that could ignite a regional disaster. But by asking such a question, if I read you correctly, you’re suggesting that we should have focused on only Osama bin Laden until either he was confirmed dead or captured. To that I would suggest that you consider a scenario where you have two (or more) bullies terrorizing your neighborhood – all of whom are very sly and evasive, not to mention, well armed and dangerous. Do you try to deal with only one at a time, or do you try to deal with the multiple bullies on more than one front simultaneously? The USA certainly has the wherewithal to focus on more than one bully at a time. We did, after all, fight World War II in both the Pacific and the European theaters at the same time; and to do otherwise would have been a disaster. The same may be the case in this instance as well.

      You suggested that the 9-11 commission reported that there were no connections between Iraq and terrorism. Well that’s just a false assertion; no, they didn’t report that. They were investigating 9-11 only, and their conclusion was that Iraq was not directly involved in the 9-11 attacks. But President Bush never made such a suggestion either. Iraq was, however, a supporter and sponsor of world-wide terrorism. To believe otherwise is just foolish. And to think the “war on terrorism” is one with blinders, seeking justice for only 9-11, is equally foolish.

      You further asked, “does that mean that we should invade every single country in the world with suspected links to terrorism”? To that I would say, absolutely yes, at least eventually – unless, of course, you or anyone else has a better idea of how to stop the madness known as world-wide terrorism. The United Nations (and other individual nations – including the USA) have failed miserably in that regard over the past forty years. How many more innocent people should die before we do something? How many more 9-11s should we endure before we do something? If we don’t go to them and stop them – wherever they may be – what’s the alternative? I don’t think they’ll listen if we simply ask them politely to stop, do you?

      Could 9-11 have been prevented, you ask? Absolutely – but only with the benefit of hind-sight. Consider this. The current “war on terrorism” (including Iraq), and the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security is intended to help stop the next 9-11. I’m amazed at how the same people criticize those efforts on one hand, but on the other hand, expect the next 9-11 to be prevented. Which way do they want it? What would have happened, for example, if President Bush, in February 2001, stated to the world that terrorists were holed-up in Afghanistan, and they were planning a terrorist attack on the United States and other nations. He further stated that he wanted the United Nations to support a coalition to invade Afghanistan to apprehend them. Sure, everybody would have gone along with that, right? Yea, right. Well that’s what we’re doing today. We’re trying to prevent the next 9-11, and we can’t wait until the threat is imminent.

      Do I think we would be safer if we spent more on intelligence than on the military, you ask? Well, we need to spend more on both; that should be obvious. However, I think the rest of the world, specifically Canada, France and Germany, are not carrying their share of the burden. And what do I think is the rest of the world?s impression of the US so far, you ask? Well, I suppose I don’t really care. The goal here is to stop world-wide terrorism before another 9-11 happens, not to make nicey-nicey with those (countries I mentioned) who don’t want to get involved. Just like an individual has to act in a way that he believes is right and just, and just let the chips fall where they may, so must the USA as a nation. It’s the function of the US government to protect its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic – regardless of what the French may think about it. To do otherwise is not acceptable. And if Canada, France and Germany don’t like it, that’s just too bad. In my opinion, it’s them shirking their responsibilities to the free-world, not us (U.S.). If I were a Canadian, I’d be ashamed of my government for not doing anything.
      What do I think is the Muslim world?s impression of the US so far, you ask? Well, most of them are tolerant people who want to live in peace. Others, however, the fanatics, hate us and want to see us all dead. Personally speaking, that would put a real damper on my day. I don’t want that to happen, and am willing to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening.

      There ya’ go. Each and every question answered – and hopefully, in a well thought-out and rational manner.

      But I have a question for you (or anyone else). Can you (or anyone else) discuss this in a reasonable and rational manner, without relying of mistruths and political rhetoric? Or are you content in believing “conspiracy” type fabrications which are unfounded and politically motivated? If it’s the former, come back with a reply. It it’s the latter, you should really try to get a grip on reality.

      • #2699398

        Gripping reality

        by sullyman ·

        In reply to To address your initial message

        Max,

        I am responding to the question that you posted. Of course people can discuss these matters in a reasonable and rational matter. But, as you so eloquently put it without relying on mistruths and political rhetoric. That probably won’t happen, and if I can I will try and explain why.

        There are numerous posters on both sides of this hot-bed issue, both relying on what they view as the truth. Who is to say that your beliefs are not the ones based on mistruths and political rhetoric? We can go back and forth until we are all red in the face, discrediting each others sources. Liberal, Democratic, Republican, Pro-US, and Anti-US media exists everywhere. Just because I do not believe in (not all.. just some) the current US foreign policies and quote sources that do not always take a Pro-US stance, does not mean I do not have a grip on reality. I choose to evaluate the information, view it as I will and draw my conclusions based on my feelings. The same goes for you, if you read an article in the POST that says ” WMD have not been found yet in Iraq” your interpretation could be that it is only a matter of time. Where mine is that they might not have any. It’s the glass is half full – or half empty decision…it’s all in how you look at it!!

        • #2699362

          Sullyman – Very well said. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Gripping reality

          .
          ….and I can’t really disagree with any of it.

          However my “grip on reality” comments were really directed at sentiments similar to the one the original poster had made when he asked, “……Or was it because the Bush administration simply wanted some means to go to war, regardless of its cost both economic and human?”

          Now that is not even close to gripping reality, and all too often, that’s what people believe.

      • #2699361

        OF course not

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to To address your initial message

        Nobody can explain anything in a rational manner unless it mirrors your own thoughts.
        You are dead set that you are correct and anything else is siomply a mistruth or an outright lie.

        Whereas some others think that they are completely corect and YOUR sources (GWB included) are the ones with the deceptive untruths that people are buying into, and therefore see yourself as not havig a grip on reality.

        There’s are two sides, not one and each is just as valid as the other. Except that you feel our beliefs and studies have turned up the truth and everyone else is wrong, ca’t you see how simple it really is?

        People aren’t insane for not believing you, they simply choose to see a diferent side, as you know there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.

        • #2698862

          Truth and Logic

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to OF course not

          Here we are again and again I must disagree. Truth is truth. It does not change from one persons experience to another. It is true to say that water is wet. It is wet to me and it is wet to you. It is true to say that fire burns. It will burn each of us equally.

          It is not logical to say that there are two sides to every story or that truth is in the mind. There is right and wrong. Right can not be by definition both right and wrong. Light can not be by it very definition both light and darkness. Here we are speaking about absolutes and not gradations.

          Gradations are applied to truisms so it is correct to say that brightness is a gradation of light and darkness. One could also say that fire burns but it is not as hot as say the sun. However, these gradations do not fundamentally change the very nature of the truths that they apply to.

          So although we may disgree the end result is that logically we both can not be right.

          Welfare, tax reform, re-distribution of wealth, social issues such as gay rights and abortion are examples of issues that I am sure we disagree on. Who is right or wrong will be determined ultimately by time and the affects that the decisions we make today have on our progeny.

        • #2698754

          “Truth” versus “opinion” repeated

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Truth and Logic

          .
          Truth and opinion are easily confused around here. Especially when someone is faced with undeniable facts – or “truth” that is contrary to their desired outcome – it suddenly becomes a “difference of opinion”.

          (Don’t try to fight it. Resistance is futile.)

        • #2712926

          There IS grey area though

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Truth and Logic

          It’s not black ad white and only some see the white.

          You make statements and quote what YOU feel are facts from YOUR trusted sources.

          I may also make statements ad quote what I feel are facts from sources I trust.

          The fact that you DON’T believe in my sources and DO believe in your own, does not make you OR your sources correct and vica versa.

          As for us BOTH not being right, well this is SOMWHAT true, we can be right in how ad why we formed our opinion but as always the truth eventually comes out and oe side ro the other is proven wrong, AGAIN THOUGH, based on the theories and conclusions of sources YOU may believe.

          It’s like the whole war garbage, SOME say Bush lied, Others say he was deceptive and stil others say who cares, we hae done some good.

          Nobody is really wrong, we really do not know yet. All you have is your own beliefs and opinions that are reflected by the sources YOU choose to believe in.

          Even 50 years after the war we probably still won’t know the real reasons Bush decided to jump the gun, he just did ad we are all left arguing about it. It is for this specific reason, nobody knows, that I do not like Bush. This is pure deception, on both sides, and nobody may ever really know the truth. We will reach conclusions, we will be told a few different things but we will never know, just speculate based on the sources WE believe in as individuals. In the end, neither may be right and we will never know it.

      • #2699187

        three cheers

        by claudiamesna ·

        In reply to To address your initial message

        Right or wrong, well put! Kudoes. And, thanks.

      • #2698683

        Another Bush administration brain wash victim

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to To address your initial message

        Rather than your own personal opinions, it seems to be based more on what the Bush administration wants us all to think. I?m not the kind of people that just assumes things are going the way they are reported by politicians. I like to analyze their actions, try to determine the legibility of their actions, and get as many points of view as possible. When 9/11 happened I didn?t how the administration would react. First I thought he would get together with the international community to hunt down Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. After all, the world was sympathetic with us at that time.

        So Bush?s first move was to attack Afghanistan; not exactly the best move, but acceptable. It didn?t get Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, but it stopped the Taliban. Then his next move is to attack Iraq. What! What does Iraq have to do with anything? I asked myself. Eventually, the reason was because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Well why didn?t they let the UN inspector finish their job first? Another was that Saddam Hussein had links with Al Qaeda. Where is the proof of that? That Hussein is a brutal dictator. Well we got lots to choose from. How about if we start we Fidel Castro? He is just across the gulf, so it would be a lot more inexpensive.

        To be quite honest, I find this war to be useless and extremely expensive. If Bush?s purpose is to truly fight terrorism then by all means he made the wrong move. What is the point of launching a war on a country such as Iraq? I mean think about. What is the worst thing that can happen to you in a war? Loose your life. Well these guys aren?t afraid of death. And what would of happen if we attack Iraq before 9/11? It would have been just one more of a reason to attack us. Look, the only way you can stop them is by convincing them their efforts simply don?t work. Well our actions so far show them that their efforts do work.

        So if we really want to stop them then we must implement major intelligence reforms ASAP. Next we to gain back the trust from the world and get them to join us. Lets face it. These guys are all over the place and it is unrealistic to think we can handle it stubbornly by ourselves. Remember that terrorism is not Desert Storm. It is organized crime to the next level, and the only way to fight that is with big time intelligence from the US and around the globe. Eventually, if we follow the right path, not only will we show them we don?t fear them, but they won?t dare to attempt to do anything because they will know we will hunt them and get them before they even realize it.

    • #2698985

      It was the right thing to do

      by protiusx ·

      In reply to Why did we go to war?

      It never ceases to amaze me how we Americans can be so short sited and ignorant of the world at large. We think in terms of dollars and “how does this affect me?”.

      The fact of the matter is this: Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons (it’s a fact and no amount of whining by conspiracy whacko’s will change that) and at one time had a functional nuclear power plant that he used to enrich weapons grade uranium for a nuclear device. Perhaps if you look at recent history you will find that it was actually the Israeli’s who flew F-16 fighter/bombers more than 1600 miles during the Iran-Iraq war to annihilate the reactor. Look it up.

      So why do my fellow Americans insist on the innocence of this poor defenseless Iraqi leader? Are you so immersed in the Jerry Springer culture that you think the President of the United States will use the most powerful military in the world and spend billions of dollars because he had an “axe to grind”? Why do my fellow Americans insist on defending a mass murderer who thought Stalin and Hitler were pretty swell guys? You all disgust me! He murdered women and children en mass. He was solely responsible for the murders of hundreds if not thousands of people and you sit there and so nonchalantly become angry when we as a nation finally stand up for what is right and decent. I am glad you weren’t around during WWII or the world would be a much different place.

      • #2698962

        You ask, “Why do my fellow Americans . . . . .”

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to It was the right thing to do

        .
        The answer is because they put politics above principle; and they will do anything, and they say anything just to get their “Democrat of the Day” elected.

        I can think of only ONE elected Democrat who’s putting principle above politics. His name is Zell Miller.

        • #2698856

          I think Jimmy Carter put principle above politics.

          by admin ·

          In reply to You ask, “Why do my fellow Americans . . . . .”

          I am curious to have heard that he may have done this again by suggesting people vote third party at the Democratic convention.

          I can’t help but admire a principled person who maintains their values even in a challenging or hostile situation, including politically. I always thought as a Republican, Abe Lincoln acted on principle to a large degree as well. Following ones principles too much can make for difficulties in a presidency, however, I do still admire this and you have at least shown me that Bush Jr. may in fact as a person be acting on principles he truly believes in. I may disagree with one of the directions he has led us into, but I can respect him for holding his principles.

          To some extent at least on some issues I believe most or all of our presidents have displayed this value. To me, even Nixon’s presidency had some good points especially globally, and although there were things I greatly disliked about the Reagan presidency, he will always be admired by me for succesfully concluding the Cold War. He had an amazing understanding of that situation and an amazing ability to time great decisions flawlessly. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall will always have special meaning to me.

          Personally, I do not like the current Demorcratic presidential choices, but I hardly believe all Democrats “will do anything, and they say anything just to get their “Democrat of the Day” elected”. There are some great principled Democrats and some great principled Republicans. I will of course be voting for Michael Badnerick, the Libertarian, but that is because I most agree with that party in principle, not because of lack (or wealth) of principle in the other candidates.

          In my opinion, humans should be sized up according to their principles, Politicians should be judged according to how well they will perform their political responsibilities. On the whole, these should blend together, but you can have an immensily principled person really screw stuff up out of, for one, naivete. We experienced this on a state level here IMO a few years ago. Great guy- but an incompetant politician. I also don’t particularly admire and even dislike many things about Thomas Jeffersons personal life, and yet greatly admire what he did for the US politically.

          In an ideal world, there would always be the Philosopher-King in the Platonic state that merged a highly principled personal life with a highly successful political career, but I believe it is never black and white in real life, but blended in each individual according to their gifts, talents, integrity, opportunities and work ethic. Oh, and some luck in what happens during their 4 (or 8) years! 🙂

        • #2698759

          Admin – Profiles In Courage

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think Jimmy Carter put principle above politics.

          .
          You missed this discussion, as it was active before your return.

          I nominated President Bush for an entry into John Kennedy’s “Profiles In Courage”, for that very reason – putting his political life on the line to do what he believed to be the right thing, even in the face of fierce political opposition

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=151268&start=0&tag=search

          (Some people just didn’t get it. Go figure.)

      • #2698924

        I don’t think they do

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to It was the right thing to do

        I really haven’t seen nor heard of anyone who has supported Sadam, or felt as if he was a poor defenseless Iraqi.

        People aren’t pissed off that the USA has removed saddam from power, people aren’t pissed off that you have paid Haliburton $1.50 gallon to ship gas to Iraq to be sold for 5 cents gallon and your own prices are ot of control. Peple aren’t sayig Saddam NEVER had WMD and yes the operative wod is as you say “DID” have WMD.
        He was told to stop, he SAID he did, nobody believed him and after many unsuccessful attempts, the UN was finally allowed to conduct full inspections and they found nothing of any valus, other than old unused warheads.

        There was little or no prior knowledge of the mass graves, although with the Kudish war, there MUST have been some form of mass burial, just like there would be now if that number of Iraqi’s were killed by the USA. We can’t just leave bodies laying in the street, when they have no way of returning the dead and injusred to families for proper ‘Christian burials’ there is no other choice.

        So while all of your points are somewhat valid, they were also unknown by the general public who supported the premature invasion to begin with.

        You cannot for one second deny that you went to war based on false premises.

        So the question “Why did we go to war” cannot be answered with, mass graves, existing WMD, terror inside Iraq etc.

        You went to war, and we STILL see people saying it today, to save your babies as any threatened and attacked nation would and should. Except you were neither threatened nor attacked.

        • #2698898

          Wrongo!

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to I don’t think they do

          Unfortunately either you have swallowed the party line or you haven’t researched your facts. Human rights violations and out right slaughter was known about prior to the second Iraqi war.

          Look at: http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/0000iraq/iraq.htm#protecting

          This is but one example. We can not as a nation say that we “didn’t know about it” because we did. I think what was deplorable is the fact that we waited so long before doing something about it. This is where I differ from some of my “republican” brethren in that I believe that as humans it is our duty to protect those who can not help themselves, feed those who are starving and help those who are in need.

          For the United States to turn it’s back on a downtrodden people or those who ask for our help is tantamount to approval. I have heard it said that we can not help the whole world but if we can’t who can?

        • #2698850

          We better go to the Sudan right away then.

          by admin ·

          In reply to Wrongo!

          “For the United States to turn it’s back on a downtrodden people or those who ask for our help is tantamount to approval. I have heard it said that we can not help the whole world but if we can’t who can? ”

          Why do you think we are not in Sudan right now then? Shouldn’t we be?

        • #2698848

          Why? Whats the point?

          by garion11 ·

          In reply to We better go to the Sudan right away then.

          so people can rant and rave like they did with Iraq??. Let the UN deal with NK and Sudan. Go ahead, let the mighty UN deal with it.

        • #2698836

          See above post for the premise.

          by admin ·

          In reply to Why? Whats the point?

          ProtiusX posited the premise: “For the United States to turn it’s back on a downtrodden people or those who ask for our help is tantamount to approval. I have heard it said that we can not help the whole world but if we can’t who can? ”

          to which the logical outcome when accepting this premise having awareness of the situation in Sudan would be to help them as this is not a situation we could conscionably approve of.

        • #2698817

          The Children are the Point

          by protiusx ·

          In reply to See above post for the premise.

          I