Why Bush is a horrible president, And why the war is pointless Options

[XxNenAxX]

...Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

These are MY opinions on war. You DON'T have to agree.


point 1--Something that really bugs me is that every one is always like "I remeber 9/11" [(and I do and I feel great empathy)] when referring to the war in Iraq. Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL! Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO. Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy (i don't remember exactly. and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence.

point 2--- Another thing that I've had on my mind is why we Americans won't leave the Iraqi way of living alone. And how we are killing thousands of I raqi people. Thousands! And the reason they are fighting back is not because they "have to" or because they "have weapons of mass distruction" . They are fighting because we are killing there families. Did you know that only 2% of Iraqi people consider Americans lliberators.

point 3---Further more, I can't help but wonder why we [America] are not considered terrorist. Iraq are terrorist because they bomb us, yet we aren't terrorist when we bomb them?? That doesn't seem fair.

point 4--- Bush is killing a countless number of people. The last I heard it was about 900 soldiers that have died. And I can't help but wonder WHY? The war is POINTLESS. Do people not understand? We are fighting for a cause that is non-existent. I know that they did not live under peace and that the women are beat, and I agree that that is wrong. But, that is the way they live. It might seem "immoral" for us, but it is how they live. And we could have helped there government in a different way besides just going and bombing everything.

point 5--- Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing. Does he not understand that war means death? and before 9/11 he only spent about 45% (I don't remember the exact percent, it was around there) doing work. All he did was vacation. WHen he found out that the world was under a terrorist attach (when the second plane crashed) he was at a elementry school listening to the teacher read for 7 minutes before leaving to do anything about it. He was a cheerleader in high school (i just thought I had to add that)

Everyone should go see ferenhiet 9/11. It is very good.

[JlIaTMK]

oh oh.... i think this is gona turn to a debate....

I AGREE WITH EVERY WORD U SAID HOWEVER THANK U FOR EXPRESSING WHAT IM THINKING

[hybrid]

er, moved to debate

[pikimoo]

Heh.. Bush is such a dumb@$$. But Kerry isn't much better.

Someone else should run. Like maybe a woman? Or a history teacher... They seem to know more about the US than Bush does.

Oh, and that saying.. Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity or w/e.. That cracks me up

[ComradeRed]

Kerry has voted with Bush 80% of the time. The election of 2004 is like the death penalty in Nevada, where they give you a choice of how you want to be executed.

[pikimoo]

Kerry has voted with Bush 80% of the time. The election of 2004 is like the death penalty in Nevada, where they give you a choice of how you want to be executed.

They give you a choice in Nevada? Wow.. I didn't know that. And I live in Nevada.

[XxNenAxX]

i never said i liked Kerry. But I would rather have him then bush

[DisneyPrincessKa...]

I've posted this before. I got it off a friends Xanga.

----
Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.
FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 30 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.


Worst president in history? Come on!
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation.
We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
-----

Also, the al-Qaida was in charge of 9/11. Bin Laden wasn't the only one, we're going after all members of the al-Qaida. Saddam was a major funder of the al-Qaida. There are plenty of terrorists in Iraq. Since we've been over there have you seen another attack on the United States? No, that means that our troops are doing their job and I support them.

[shortie09]

well, since we're all sharing here, i'll share too. i got this from my dad. just a forward. i'm not pointing fingers or supporting anyone. just read or skip please.


"It is amazing how the facts are unimportant to so many, and how soon they forget!

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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!"


just a forward.

[lilpnoymaster]

He just want revenge for his dad..

[Spirited Away]

i never said i liked Kerry. But I would rather have him then bush

I never said I liked Bush, but I would rather have Bush than Kerry (and Edwards for that matter).

[inlonelinessidie]

...Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

LMAO . . . good point.

yet we aren't terrorist when we bomb them??

We waged war on them, so we kinda told them what we were going to do that's why it isn't considered terrorism,

The war is POINTLESS.

The war is pointless, yes.

Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing. Does he not understand that war means death? and before 9/11 he only spent about 45% (I don't remember the exact percent, it was around there) doing work. All he did was vacation. WHen he found out that the world was under a terrorist attach (when the second plane crashed) he was at a elementry school listening to the teacher read for 7 minutes before leaving to do anything about it. He was a cheerleader in high school (i just thought I had to add that)

Now that's just mean. Don't bash him, I don't agree with what he has done but he is still a person.

Everyone should go see [Fahrenheit] 9/11. It is very good.

Don't base your opinions on others. Be a leader and not a follower. But yes I must agree that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a very good film. VOTE NADER!

[x rOck mai sOcks...]

guys....bush may not be the best president in the world...but think about it...if you were stuck with a situation like 9:11...what would you do? his decisions may not be the best but they have certainly benifited the american people. I`m not sayin hes the next FDR and i`m not saying he may be the smartest person alive, but c`mon...cut him a little slack...we all did for clinton and monica at least =]

[Spirited Away]

guys....bush may not be the best president in the world...but think about it...if you were stuck with a situation like 9:11...what would you do? his decisions may not be the best but they have certainly benifited the american people. I`m not sayin hes the next FDR and i`m not saying he may be the smartest person alive, but c`mon...cut him a little slack...we all did for clinton and monica at least =]

Yea! It's not easy being President, and it's not easy having to go threw a national crisis.

[Dopo]

...Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

These are MY opinions on war. You DON'T have to agree.


point 1--Something that really bugs me is that every one is always like "I remeber 9/11" [(and I do and I feel great empathy)] when referring to the war in Iraq. Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL! Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO. Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy (i don't remember exactly. and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence.

point 2--- Another thing that I've had on my mind is why we Americans won't leave the Iraqi way of living alone. And how we are killing thousands of I raqi people. Thousands! And the reason they are fighting back is not because they "have to" or because they "have weapons of mass distruction" . They are fighting because we are killing there families. Did you know that only 2% of Iraqi people consider Americans lliberators.

point 3---Further more, I can't help but wonder why we [America] are not considered terrorist. Iraq are terrorist because they bomb us, yet we aren't terrorist when we bomb them?? That doesn't seem fair.

point 4--- Bush is killing a countless number of people. The last I heard it was about 900 soldiers that have died. And I can't help but wonder WHY? The war is POINTLESS. Do people not understand? We are fighting for a cause that is non-existent. I know that they did not live under peace and that the women are beat, and I agree that that is wrong. But, that is the way they live. It might seem "immoral" for us, but it is how they live. And we could have helped there government in a different way besides just going and bombing everything.

point 5--- Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing. Does he not understand that war means death? and before 9/11 he only spent about 45% (I don't remember the exact percent, it was around there) doing work. All he did was vacation. WHen he found out that the world was under a terrorist attach (when the second plane crashed) he was at a elementry school listening to the teacher read for 7 minutes before leaving to do anything about it. He was a cheerleader in high school (i just thought I had to add that)

Everyone should go see ferenhiet 9/11. It is very good.

Half of the things you thought up were...fake. We went to Iraq because Iraq was harboring terrorists. Saddam supported Bin Ladin, so we decided to get tactical and attack someone that helps Ladin.

We arn't being terrorist because: We don't act like pussies, and sneak into an airport and turn into suicide bombers. We told Iraq like big men. "I'm attacking you, so watch out."

How the change a government when a dictator is in the way? You can't. War is inevitable, and it must be charged with full power. Even the bible does not say war is wrong. The cause is there. We are trying to rid the world of dictatorship/communism. That's why we went to Vietnam, and Korea.

So? What if Bush was stupid? At least he knows that war is coming and is inevitable. If I'm correct, he was in the army, so obviously, he would know war means death. War is a sacrifice. If you think about it, war is art.

And who cares if he was a cheerleader? If I was at an elementary school, reading a book, and the plane crashed, I'd keep calm, finish the book, and leave. I wouldn't disrupt an entire school. He may not be smart, but he has common sense.

[x rOck mai sOcks...]

so true ^ ^

[ryfitaDF]

...Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

not really. if your opponent is dead their is no conflict.

We arn't being terrorist because: We don't act like pussies, and sneak into an airport and turn into suicide bombers. We told Iraq like big men. "I'm attacking you, so watch out."

we don't need to sneak onto planes. we have superior technolegy.
terrorism is using violence and fear to gain control over others. bombing iraq on a whim isn't scaring anyone!...

How the change a government when a dictator is in the way? You can't. War is inevitable, and it must be charged with full power. Even the bible does not say war is wrong. The cause is there. We are trying to rid the world of dictatorship/communism. That's why we went to Vietnam, and Korea.

that seems pretty imperialistic to me.

Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing.

i wish he'd have told us that in 2000.

If I'm correct, he was in the army, so obviously, he would know war means death.

from what i hear he WAS inlisted in the army but didnt serve anywhere.

[EmeraldKnight]

from what i hear he WAS inlisted in the army but didnt serve anywhere.

Yeah.. didnt he somehow escape it?

Meh.. I'm not going to bother to read the massive amounts of evidence since I'm rather lazy.. but I skimmed it over a bit and I totally agree

[*CrackedRearView*]

Oh wow -- that was probably one of the most skewed arguments I've ver heard.

For one, you provided no support for anything, and additionally, a lot of the points were flawed...

point 1--Something that really bugs me is that every one is always like "I remeber 9/11" [(and I do and I feel great empathy)] when referring to the war in Iraq. Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL! Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO. Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy (i don't remember exactly. and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence.

"Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL"

Oh really? So, in essence, you're claming that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have absolutely no connection with each other?

1.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/06/nirq06.xml

^ Tony Blair, prime minister of Great Britain claims "definite links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

2.)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html

Al Qaeda trained terrorist fighting on the side of the Iraqis.

3.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/378fmxyz.asp

Government memo detailing the connection.

4.)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNe...205_krekar.html

Radical Al Qaeda groups against Iraq...

5.)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Further proof...

"Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO."

Oh yeah? Did you know bin Laden hasn't been associated with Saudi Arabia since 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

"Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy"

Hmm...it couldn't have to do with the fact that bin Laden is wanted in most parts of Saudi Arabia. And I'm sure the fact that there's more oil under Gull Island, AK than all of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with our actions.

I mean, honestly, we're smart about our economic choices. You strain the other country's resources, use them up, and then tap into your own.

"and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence"

That's only half a fact. It'd be fact if you rephrased it to say "the bin Laden" family, because Bush's ties were limited to Osama's eldest brother Salem (once the head of the bin Laden fortune). Salem bin Laden and Bush were early business partners together starting up the Arbusto Oil Co.

Any connection Bush had with the bin Laden family abruptly ended in '88 when Salem bin Laden died in a freak plane accident.

Since, Osama has had zero tie to the president.

point 2--- Another thing that I've had on my mind is why we Americans won't leave the Iraqi way of living alone. And how we are killing thousands of I raqi people. Thousands! And the reason they are fighting back is not because they "have to" or because they "have weapons of mass distruction" . They are fighting because we are killing there families. Did you know that only 2% of Iraqi people consider Americans lliberators.

We're killing the ones that are radically resisting us. I'd say we've done a hell of a job, seeing how infrastructure like hospitals, schools, post offices, and banks aren't being blown up daily for political support anymore.

Saddam would destroy a hospital and blame it on the Kurds to gain the support of his people...

We've rid the country of him, and you say we're not liberating?

point 3---Further more, I can't help but wonder why we [America] are not considered terrorist. Iraq are terrorist because they bomb us, yet we aren't terrorist when we bomb them?? That doesn't seem fair.

Fact is, they knew what we were going to do prior to doing it. We didn't.

That's the fine line between war and terrorism.

point 4--- Bush is killing a countless number of people. The last I heard it was about 900 soldiers that have died. And I can't help but wonder WHY? The war is POINTLESS. Do people not understand? We are fighting for a cause that is non-existent. I know that they did not live under peace and that the women are beat, and I agree that that is wrong. But, that is the way they live. It might seem "immoral" for us, but it is how they live. And we could have helped there government in a different way besides just going and bombing everything.

Oh, is that "how they live"? Wrong. They've only "lived" like that since 1968 when Al-Bakr overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif and reestablished the Baath Party.

When the Arif's were in the presidency, there was even a cease-fire peace with the Kurds, which was basically unheard of.

And what's the different way you combat covert, underground violence?

point 5--- Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing. Does he not understand that war means death? and before 9/11 he only spent about 45% (I don't remember the exact percent, it was around there) doing work. All he did was vacation. WHen he found out that the world was under a terrorist attach (when the second plane crashed) he was at a elementry school listening to the teacher read for 7 minutes before leaving to do anything about it. He was a cheerleader in high school (i just thought I had to add that)

Actually, he has the lowest I.Q. of any president in the last 50 years, Theodore Roosevelt's IQ was 90. GW's is 91.

Do you not understand that war is the reason this country exists?

What kind of work did he only do 45% of, and where are you coming up with your numbers?

Oh, and when he was at that school -- what did you expect him to do? Panic, and send the entire class into an uproar? Put on his superman cape and fly to the scene?

I didn't stop my exam and run to the T.V...

Everyone should go see ferenhiet 9/11.

It's also completely biased, Michael Moore garbage.

I don't know how some people take him seriously...

[*kryogenix*]

...Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity...

These are MY opinions on war. You DON'T have to agree.


point 1--Something that really bugs me is that every one is always like "I remeber 9/11" [(and I do and I feel great empathy)] when referring to the war in Iraq. Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL! Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO. Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy (i don't remember exactly. and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence.

point 2--- Another thing that I've had on my mind is why we Americans won't leave the Iraqi way of living alone. And how we are killing thousands of I raqi people. Thousands! And the reason they are fighting back is not because they "have to" or because they "have weapons of mass distruction" . They are fighting because we are killing there families. Did you know that only 2% of Iraqi people consider Americans lliberators.

point 3---Further more, I can't help but wonder why we [America] are not considered terrorist. Iraq are terrorist because they bomb us, yet we aren't terrorist when we bomb them?? That doesn't seem fair.

point 4--- Bush is killing a countless number of people. The last I heard it was about 900 soldiers that have died. And I can't help but wonder WHY? The war is POINTLESS. Do people not understand? We are fighting for a cause that is non-existent. I know that they did not live under peace and that the women are beat, and I agree that that is wrong. But, that is the way they live. It might seem "immoral" for us, but it is how they live. And we could have helped there government in a different way besides just going and bombing everything.

point 5--- Bush is just plain stupid. He has the lowest IQ of all the presidents. And he himself said "I am a war prsident" like it was nothing. Does he not understand that war means death? and before 9/11 he only spent about 45% (I don't remember the exact percent, it was around there) doing work. All he did was vacation. WHen he found out that the world was under a terrorist attach (when the second plane crashed) he was at a elementry school listening to the teacher read for 7 minutes before leaving to do anything about it. He was a cheerleader in high school (i just thought I had to add that)

Everyone should go see ferenhiet 9/11. It is very good.

I see Michael Moore has brainwashed you. All of your arguments are twisted, just like how Michael Moore presented them in his film.


I pity you. You bash Bush's IQ and you spell several things incorrectly. Your grammar isn't very good either.

[angel-roh]

Heh.. Bush is such a dumb@$$. But Kerry isn't much better.

thats true... Bush is such a dumb@$$...but kerry is not even better. he sux too.. hehe since Bush messed this whole thing up.. i think he should be the president again to clean up this mes he went through. and ur right about 9/11 that saddam has nothing to do with that. then why bother saddam. yes, it's bush's fault. i think he commit a suicide... those ppls who got killed in iraq and those armies who got killed shud be bush's fault. since he started the whole war.... i know all u guys wana help and do the war, but... ur loved ones will cry and there might be a war in america lols... fighting and telling them to stop having war cause they hate seeing their loved ones die. i am too sick of ppls dying T_T makes my heart hurt. well it's wonderful for the soldiers to go on a war just to fight for their country and all, but still... it hurts us.. T_T;; i used to love president bush, but now i hate him. he brought a lot of deaths into these worlds...

but theres one thing in my mind that i wana know...who said that gay marriage should be illegal? was it kerry or bush? cause if it was bush... im glad he said that on his speech, cause i dont want gay/lesbian marriage to be legal

[Dopo]

thats true... Bush is such a dumb@$$...but kerry is not even better. he sux too.. hehe since Bush messed this whole thing up.. i think he should be the president again to clean up this mes he went through. and ur right about 9/11 that saddam has nothing to do with that. then why bother saddam. yes, it's bush's fault. i think he commit a suicide... those ppls who got killed in iraq and those armies who got killed shud be bush's fault. since he started the whole war.... i know all u guys wana help and do the war, but... ur loved ones will cry and there might be a war in america lols... fighting and telling them to stop having war cause they hate seeing their loved ones die. i am too sick of ppls dying T_T makes my heart hurt. well it's wonderful for the soldiers to go on a war just to fight for their country and all, but still... it hurts us.. T_T;; i used to love president bush, but now i hate him. he brought a lot of deaths into these worlds...

but theres one thing in my mind that i wana know...who said that gay marriage should be illegal? was it kerry or bush? cause if it was bush... im glad he said that on his speech, cause i dont want gay/lesbian marriage to be legal

Where's the love for gays and lesbians?

[onenonly101]

You say Bush is stupid, yet he is the smartest president with the most degrees we have ever had. I don't see people bashing our past president for not being bright. I mean come on the man has a learning disability, and obviously he has been able to compinsate(sp?) for it. I will agree though sometimes i do question his intelligence,but everyone's is questioned at one point and time.

Please don't just listen to what Micheal Moore said, if you would've watched his Today interview you would've known what he was speaking was pure crap.

Bush is the lesser of the two evils, and I swear people must keep ignoring what I say when I say it is Congress you should get mad at because THEY are the ones who voted for war, THEY are the ones who have run our economy into the gorund while they are make 150,000+++. Bush is a puppet, don't get mad at him, get mad at the people pulling the strings

[angel-roh]

dopo (is that u, podo?) i dont got no love for them... i bet the satan made them to do that... like how satan controlled adam and eve in the beginning... adam and eve was naked but then when they ate the apples when they're not supposed to... felt like they are naked... the satan can change from wat ppls are doing, so yeah... heh.. um so yeah uhhhh i dont got no love for the gay marriages. God didn't create us like that... he created as one guy, one girl. live like that

[inlonelinessidie]

dopo (is that u, podo?) i dont got no love for them... i bet the satan made them to do that... like how satan controlled adam and eve in the beginning... adam and eve was naked but then when they ate the apples when they're not supposed to... felt like they are naked... the satan can change from wat ppls are doing, so yeah... heh.. um so yeah uhhhh i dont got no love for the gay marriages. God didn't create us like that... he created as one guy, one girl. live like that

If you don't have love then you must have hate . . . isn't hatred a sin? Shame on you.

[vietspirit]

Al Gore should have won da election a long time ago. i kan't believe dat he gave up. Now Bush...

[Spirited Away]

Al Gore should have won da election a long time ago. i kan't believe dat he gave up. Now Bush...

What made you think that Gore could've done a better job if he had won???

[Dopo]

If you don't have love then you must have hate . . . isn't hatred a sin? Shame on you.

She's not hating on gays. In the bible, it clearly states homosexuality is wrong. She's a christian and she belives it's wrong.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Gore was so honest...seing how he "took the initiative in inventing the internet".

[Spirited Away]

Gore was so honest...seing how he "took the initiative in inventing the internet".

So... how would being honest make him a good President?

Name some good Presidents in history, then tell me if you think they were honest. Thanks.

[onenonly101]

^He was being sarcastic to the person who said Gore should've won

[Spirited Away]

^He was being sarcastic to the person who said Gore should've won

Ah, maybe I should've read the whole line... instead of getting off guard at "he was so honest". Thankies..

[ryfitaDF]

You say Bush is stupid, yet he is the smartest president with the most degrees we have ever had.

well people are gunna kiss your a$$ when you're the president's son!

ok... i got nuthin

[megumint]

yeah i agree with what you said and bush is an @$$, but i guess america just needs to do something to prove that we're all powerful. we're intimidating other countries so they won't want to come and attack us... wait, but iraq didn't attack... bin laden did, who's from saudi arabia.

aiee i'm confused.

i just blank out during the news and stuff, so sorry if i got facts wrong. i'm probably wrong when i say i don't really care, but i don't. as long as our country isn't harmed, i guess it's ok. but if they start coming to us and bombing and stuff, then i'll be really mad. i'll bring together all the cb people still alive (if i'm alive) and protest bush. yay! we'll have fun.. when that day comes.. which i hope it doesn't. let's just not vote for bush when voting comes.

yeah, most people say "give peace a chance." but then my friend's dad put a sign in his car saying "give war a chance" and he has all these bush bumper stickers. it's scary.. but everyone has different opinions. debates are just a chance for us to get mad at each other...

</blabbing>

[islandkiss]

he only started the war because "the u.s was in need of oil." he's lame.

[Dopo]

he only started the war because "the u.s was in need of oil." he's lame.

No, sorry, he went for terrorism, not oil.

[x rOck mai sOcks...]

Oh wow -- that was probably one of the most skewed arguments I've ver heard.

For one, you provided no support for anything, and additionally, a lot of the points were flawed...



"Iraq/ sadaam(sp?) has nothing to do with 9/11... AT ALL"

Oh really? So, in essence, you're claming that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have absolutely no connection with each other?

1.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...2/06/nirq06.xml

^ Tony Blair, prime minister of Great Britain claims "definite links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

2.)

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653833092.html

Al Qaeda trained terrorist fighting on the side of the Iraqis.

3.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...03/378fmxyz.asp

Government memo detailing the connection.

4.)

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNe...205_krekar.html

Radical Al Qaeda groups against Iraq...

5.)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Further proof...

"Did you know that Bin Laden was from Saudi Arabia? Yet did you hear about a war with Saudi? NO."

Oh yeah? Did you know bin Laden hasn't been associated with Saudi Arabia since 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan?

"Would you like to know why? Because Saudi Arabia own (or contibute, i can't find the word) about 7% of our economy"

Hmm...it couldn't have to do with the fact that bin Laden is wanted in most parts of Saudi Arabia. And I'm sure the fact that there's more oil under Gull Island, AK than all of Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with our actions.

I mean, honestly, we're smart about our economic choices. You strain the other country's resources, use them up, and then tap into your own.

"and did you know that Bush senior and th Bin Laden's are good friends (even after 9/11). I don't think that is a coincidence"

That's only half a fact. It'd be fact if you rephrased it to say "the bin Laden" family, because Bush's ties were limited to Osama's eldest brother Salem (once the head of the bin Laden fortune). Salem bin Laden and Bush were early business partners together starting up the Arbusto Oil Co.

Any connection Bush had with the bin Laden family abruptly ended in '88 when Salem bin Laden died in a freak plane accident.

Since, Osama has had zero tie to the president.



We're killing the ones that are radically resisting us. I'd say we've done a hell of a job, seeing how infrastructure like hospitals, schools, post offices, and banks aren't being blown up daily for political support anymore.

Saddam would destroy a hospital and blame it on the Kurds to gain the support of his people...

We've rid the country of him, and you say we're not liberating?



Fact is, they knew what we were going to do prior to doing it. We didn't.

That's the fine line between war and terrorism.



Oh, is that "how they live"? Wrong. They've only "lived" like that since 1968 when Al-Bakr overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif and reestablished the Baath Party.

When the Arif's were in the presidency, there was even a cease-fire peace with the Kurds, which was basically unheard of.

And what's the different way you combat covert, underground violence?



Actually, he has the lowest I.Q. of any president in the last 50 years, Theodore Roosevelt's IQ was 90. GW's is 91.

Do you not understand that war is the reason this country exists?

What kind of work did he only do 45% of, and where are you coming up with your numbers?

Oh, and when he was at that school -- what did you expect him to do? Panic, and send the entire class into an uproar? Put on his superman cape and fly to the scene?

I didn't stop my exam and run to the T.V...



It's also completely biased, Michael Moore garbage.

I don't know how some people take him seriously...

thank gosh...i`m glad somebody said it


and for those who wish GORE was voted president...wow...


you honestly think gore would have done a better job this election term?!?! omg...i think we would all be dead if he was president...

but gore does NOT need to be president...and probably didnt run this term because he knew that...

[EmeraldKnight]

No, sorry, he went for terrorism, not oil.

What proof have you that oil was not one of his motives? There are terrorists in other countries, why didnt we invade them?

you honestly think gore would have done a better job this election term?!?! omg...i think we would all be dead if he was president...

I didnt like either of them, but tell me.. why dont you like Gore?

[x rOck mai sOcks...]

gore doesnt knoe how to deal with big situations...i mean...did you see him ANYWHERE when the whole clinton/monica thingy happened...he had nothing to say...so..i mean...heck...i may be wrong...he may be a great guy


i just dont like him....hes democratic...and hes liberal...whats not to like?

[EmeraldKnight]

gore doesnt knoe how to deal with big situations...i mean...did you see him ANYWHERE when the whole clinton/monica thingy happened...he had nothing to say...so..i mean...heck...i may be wrong...he may be a great guy

He may not have wanted to get involved and have anything he did used against him in the coming election *shrug*

i just dont like him....hes democratic...and hes liberal...whats not to like?

So basically you're a Republican.. makes sense now..

[x rOck mai sOcks...]

yuhp! very much so...

republican and conservative...not democratic or liberal

[someflipguy]

haha...I love you bush haters...

[Mireh]

guys....bush may not be the best president in the world...but think about it...if you were stuck with a situation like 9:11...what would you do? his decisions may not be the best but they have certainly benifited the american people. I`m not sayin hes the next FDR and i`m not saying he may be the smartest person alive, but c`mon...cut him a little slack...we all did for clinton and monica at least =]

you took the words right outta my mouth.

btw, Bush is a republican. Of course he's gunna wage war.

[onenonly101]

I think we went to war yeah sure for the terrorist, but having control oil ain't bad seeing as we depend on other countries for it so why not take control of a country that is in trouble and has oil

[JasonAkAWolf]

haha bush is a funny guy and the bush haters are even funnier.

[onenonly101]

Bush is cute

[JlIaTMK]

Bush is cute

WHAT?!?! okay now im officially scared
Bush is the ugliest person made on this universe.... i mean come on.... hes the stupidest president we've had

[ComradeRed]

yuhp! very much so...

republican and conservative...not democratic or liberal

If you're a conservative, you should hate Bush. Bush is probably the least conservative Republican ever to occupy the White House.

Would a strong conservative want to invade Iraq? No.
Would a strong conservative want open immigration? No.
Would a strong conservative want to support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? No.
Would a strong conservative want to RAISE government spending ... more than any other President in US History? Hell no.

These are all things Bush has done.

www.amconmag.com
www.constitutionparty.org
www.constitution.org
www.lp.org

Most truly conservative organizations strongly dislike Bush.

[inlonelinessidie]

wait, but iraq didn't attack... bin laden did, who's from saudi arabia.

OMG people get the facts straight SAUDI ARABIA isn't one country. There are many countries in this location: Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. So yes we are technically waging war on them because we are fighting Iraq . . . or were.

[x rOck mai sOcks...]

If you're a conservative, you should hate Bush. Bush is probably the least conservative Republican ever to occupy the White House.

Would a strong conservative want to invade Iraq? No.
Would a strong conservative want open immigration? No.
Would a strong conservative want to support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? No.
Would a strong conservative want to RAISE government spending ... more than any other President in US History? Hell no.

These are all things Bush has done.

www.amconmag.com
www.constitutionparty.org
www.constitution.org
www.lp.org

Most truly conservative organizations strongly dislike Bush.

not really...he doesnt follow the constitution word for word...he interprets it into what he thinks it means...

Would a strong conservative want to invade Iraq? No.
OF COURSE HE DIDNT WANT TO!!! he knew it was inevitable...for cryin out loud...who the crap wants to start war

Would a strong conservative want to support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? No.
DOI! a conservative point of view implies that it was the persons fault that the accident happened...liberals blame the gun

Would a strong conservative want to RAISE government spending ... more than any other President in US History? Hell no.
AGAIN! he didn`t WANT too...its not like he had a choice...and a lot of it goes into ending terrorism...



so yea...he IS a conservative...more conservative than liberal...he may not be a strong one but he is one

[ComradeRed]

not really...he doesnt follow the constitution word for word...he interprets it into what he thinks it means...

The Constitution is the LAW. What if I don't follow the law word for word and instead interpret it into what I think it means? I'd get arrested and thrown in prison! We should do the same thing to Bush.

Would a strong conservative want to invade Iraq? No.
OF COURSE HE DIDNT WANT TO!!! he knew it was inevitable...for cryin out loud...who the crap wants to start war

REad some REAL conservative columns like American Conservative (www.amconmag.com)... not imperialist neocon trash. The War on Iraq was not inevitable at all.

Would a strong conservative want to support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? No.DOI! a conservative point of view implies that it was the persons fault that the accident happened...liberals blame the gun

So why does Bush support a ban on semiautomatic rifles? Bceause he's NOT conservative.

Would a strong conservative want to RAISE government spending ... more than any other President in US History? Hell no.
AGAIN! he didn`t WANT too...its not like he had a choice...and a lot of it goes into ending terrorism...

That's not true. He's raised social spending more than any mother president since FDR. His medicare plan, social security, etc. The defense budget is only a small chunk of the overall budget increases.

Bush is NOT a conservative. He isn't really a liberal either. I perfer Fascist.

[LaRevolucion]

his decisions may not be the best but they have certainly benifited the american people.

How have they benefited the american people?

[capsule]

bush is too conservative, kerry is too liberal...

u know, i honestly couldn't care bout whether bush or kerry becomes president, because:

1) both of em ain't good
2) im still 15...taxes n medicare aint a problem for me.
3) i can't even vote


Each of em have their own flaws. and don't go callin bush a horrible president, both sux.

[onenonly101]

How have they benefited the american people?

tax cuts, securing the country(please don't make any stupid comment on how bush knew about 9/11, when he had just got into office)

Also everyone who is so against Bush, ya'll need to send the 600 dollars back to him since he is such a horrible person.

[*CrackedRearView*]

So basically you're a Republican.. makes sense now..

EmeraldKnight, I've been debating on this forum with you for quite some time, and I never would have guessed that you're a stereotypically-oriented person.

To deny your negative connotations, not all Republicans are stupid, and uneducated.

I would consider myself an example.

The Constitution is the LAW. What if I don't follow the law word for word and instead interpret it into what I think it means? I'd get arrested and thrown in prison! We should do the same thing to Bush.

A more informed person should know that the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law has been an ongoing struggle for centuries (i.e. Les Miserables).

We don't follow the law word for word, ComradeRed, in many cases we throw the literal meaning out of the window, and stick to what we perceive it to mean. That's one of the beautiful things about this country; it's ability to reason, unlike 17th century England, etc.

The War on Iraq was not inevitable at all.

No, but thousands of preventable deaths were.

He's raised social spending more than any mother president since FDR.

And FDR was one of the most brilliant presidents to ever lead the country, in the opinion of many.

Bush is NOT a conservative. He isn't really a liberal either. I perfer Fascist.

Oh that explains it all. Bush must be Fascist...

Seeing how we're all so oppressed...

How have they benefited the american people?

They've made our country more secure from military attack than it has been in years, they've given you more money come New Year's (assuming you're a tax payer), and they've given us a strategic, economic-monopoly on the Middle East (oh yeah, it's so horrible and cruel, but it's business, and it's good for the economy, which seems to be the only thing my local liberal chums give a damn about).

Bush is the ugliest person made on this universe.... i mean come on.... hes the stupidest president we've had

Actually, I think Kerry's a lot uglier than Bush... (and Bush went to Yale, by the way, a far cry from "stupid").

I mean, look at this guy...JEEZ

Attached File(s)

 flexibility.jpg ( 37.64K ) Number of downloads: 3

 

[inlonelinessidie]

^^ lol

[ComradeRed]

A more informed person should know that the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law has been an ongoing struggle for centuries (i.e. Les Miserables).

We don't follow the law word for word, ComradeRed, in many cases we throw the literal meaning out of the window, and stick to what we perceive it to mean.  That's one of the beautiful things about this country; it's ability to reason, unlike 17th century England, etc.

The Spirit of the Law is meaningless when there is nothing to check the government, simply because the government can interpret it as whatever it wants. Every dictatorship follows the law in name, because they interpret it a certain way.

The only situation under which spirit of hte law is acceptable is when there is an external check on the government to prevent abuse, i.e. a large body of armed rebels capable of overthrowing said government.

The fact remains that in all but the most severe of cases, the letter of the law should be followed, because the "spirit" is meaningless when one agency becomes too powerful and is given the sole right of interpretation. Overinterpretation of the law is the primary cause of most transformations from free society to dictatorship.

No, but thousands of preventable deaths were

... And we caused thousands more deaths. Not to be cynical, but Hussein wasn't threatening us. We don't have an obligation to people in other countries.

And FDR was one of the most brilliant presidents to ever lead the country, in the opinion of many.

And Benito Mussolini made the trains run on time (especially those carrying Jews to concentration camps). In that sense, he was a pretty smart guy.

But like Roosevelt, he was evil.

Roosevelt invented the concept of Anti-Law which still holds today. Anti-law is essentially disregarding the letter of the law -- I.e. transforming a country into a state of martial law, in which case the Constitution is not merely bent but broken. http://www.constitution.org/mil/lawnanti.htm

Senate Report 93-549, written in 1973, said "Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency." It goes on to say:

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of National emergency. In the United States, actions taken by government in times of great crisis have ... in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National emergency."...

"These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal constitutional process.

"Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

Even if one argues that Roosevelt was well-intentioned, which I would say that he was not, the fact remains that he led the path open for future abuses, such as those of Dubya, that are a MUCH greater threat than terrorism. After all, you don't live with terrorists every day.

There have been many incidences where the US Government has acted with more brutality than anything we discovered about Hussein, and all this can be traced ultimately to FDR. Take, for example, the Gordon Kahl murder in 1983, where a NONVIOLENT tax protestor's house was stormed by Federal Agents. He was repeatedly beaten with rifles, his limbs were cut off, and objects were thrusted into his anus before he was shot in the head. His wife recieved death threats.

Was FDR a brilliant guy, as you claim? Certainly. But he was an evil genius.

"It is better to tear some holes in the Constitution and fix them later, than to lose it altogether."
--Abe Lincoln

FDR forgot the "fixing them later" part of that justification.

Oh that explains it all. Bush must be Fascist...

Seeing how we're all so oppressed...

Read above. Many examples of governmental atrocities show that the United States is far from a free nation. A good indication of freedom is the incarceration rate -- at 0.7%, the United STates has the highest percent of people in prison of any country ... and over 2/3 are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drugs.

This helps explain why the United Nations kicked us off the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE -- because, in fact, the Federal Government has become oppressive by the standards of 1776, and even the standards of today.

They've made our country more secure from military attack than it has been in years, they've given you more money come New Year's (assuming you're a tax payer), and they've given us a strategic, economic-monopoly on the Middle East (oh yeah, it's so horrible and cruel, but it's business, and it's good for the economy, which seems to be the only thing my local liberal chums give a damn about).

I agree with tax cuts, but if our monopoly is really so good for the economy, explain why Oil Prices are going up so fast?

Monopolies are NEVER good for an economy -- that's an agreed upon economic fact by Neoclassicists, Keynesians, Game Theoriests, just about every school of thought.

Actually, I think Kerry's a lot uglier than Bush...

I agree

(and Bush went to Yale, by the way, a far cry from "stupid").

For someone like Bush, it was much easier to get into Yale in 1970 than it is today. There are many stupid people at the Ivies -- Athletes, Legacies, Affirmative Action Admits, etc.

[inlonelinessidie]

But seriously who cares who is uglier than the other. This is not a beauty contest, it is a presidential election.

[*CrackedRearView*]

The Spirit of the Law is meaningless when there is nothing to check the government, simply because the government can interpret it as whatever it wants. Every dictatorship follows the law in name, because they interpret it a certain way.

The government intreprets the law however they want every single day.

The people that do so are called judges. Do you really mean to tell me the United States Supreme Court follows the strict, word for word letter of the law?

If we followed the word for word meaning of the law, abortion would be illegal, and I'd be one happy camper.

The only situation under which spirit of hte law is acceptable is when there is an external check on the government to prevent abuse, i.e. a large body of armed rebels capable of overthrowing said government.

When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.

The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.

The simple fact that we're humans with morals is the reason slavery is now abolished, not necessarily that the slaves and their supporters had the firepower to do it themselves.

The fact remains that in all but the most severe of cases, the letter of the law should be followed, because the "spirit" is meaningless when one agency becomes too powerful and is given the sole right of interpretation

One agency wasn't given the sole right of interpretation.

Maybe you've heard of the Congress? It's both conservative, and liberal, and because Bush was successful at showing that further diplomacy was useless and that an attack would not hinder the war on terrorism, Congress approved.

And it hasn't, we've literally crippled Al-Qaeda, and we've given one of their biggest supporters (Hussein) the shaft.

Overinterpretation of the law is the primary cause of most transformations from free society to dictatorship.

That's an extreme hyperybole, because I don't see the United States becoming a dictatorship for quite some time.

... And we caused thousands more deaths. Not to be cynical, but Hussein wasn't threatening us. We don't have an obligation to people in other countries.

?!?!

Not to pick nits about numbers, but the Islamic Republic News Agency reports:

"For over 20 years, under the leadership of Hussein (succ. Ahmad Hasan al Bakr),
appx. 1,200 citizens died per week as a direct cause of Hussein and the Baath party."

Excuse me, but I'm quite positive we've dealt out as much death waging war as this man did ruling a country from day to day.

Corresponding to this, Hussein threatened the entire world, not just his own people.

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

Any dictatorship with biological and chemical destructive capabilities threatens the entire world.

I'll do my reading up on FDR, because I really don't know much about him, except for the fact that he was considered one of the best presidents (2nd to Abraham Lincoln according to C-SPAN).

Also that his economic policies saved capitalism in the country.

Many examples of governmental atrocities show that the United States is far from a free nation. A good indication of freedom is the incarceration rate -- at 0.7%, the United STates has the highest percent of people in prison of any country ... and over 2/3 are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drugs.

Drugs create a deadly black market, and are illegal. We're not oppressive by sending violent drug offenders to prison, we're getting them off the streets and away from your child, cousin, nephew/niece, sibling, grandson, etc.

This helps explain why the United Nations kicked us off the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE -- because, in fact, the Federal Government has become oppressive by the standards of 1776, and even the standards of today.

Actually it's not because we send druglords to jail, it's because they whined about our refusal to accept the Kyoto Protocol, which wouldn't work anyway because it requires complete cooperation to gain the environmental effects it desires, and China, one of the biggest environment destroyers, wouldn't accept. Hence, the U.S. saw it as useless, and traditional enemies (France, Japan, etc.) played a big part in making us lose our seat.

The removal of the United States from the Commission is hardly cause for despair, anyway. The Commission is a hypocritical body that allows serious human rights abusers to participate and doesn't do anything beyond talk, and they really don't.

I don't think we need to be on a commission for "human rights" that offers countries such as Pakistan and the Sudan membership, anyway.

Monopolies are NEVER good for an economy

No, your logic has run eschew.

In global, international business, if one nation owns a monopoly on a certain business, it throws it to the forefront, which is good for it's national economy.

Of course, and I agree, in small business, and national capitalistic affairs, monopolies can be very damaging to small business.

For someone like Bush, it was much easier to get into Yale in 1970 than it is today. There are many stupid people at the Ivies -- Athletes, Legacies, Affirmative Action Admits, etc.

That's irrelevant if you successfully complete Ivy League English, Political Science, Philosophy, History, Sociology, and Foreign Language courses with flying colors, which George W. Bush did.

[ComradeRed]

The government intreprets the law however they want every single day.

The people that do so are called judges. Do you really mean to tell me the United States Supreme Court follows the strict, word for word letter of the law?

If we followed the word for word meaning of the law, abortion would be illegal, and I'd be one happy camper.

Nope, I'm saying that they SHOULD insofar as is possible... especially the Tenth Amendment.

When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.

The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.

The simple fact that we're humans with morals is the reason slavery is now abolished, not necessarily that the slaves and their supporters had the firepower to do it themselves.

I agree completely. And since everyone should be, as you say, treated the same under the rule of law, so must the government. In other words -- the government (an actor in society) MUST obey the law to the same extent that you and I must -- which means pretty strict adherence to the letter, if not exactly.

And slavery WAS abolished by firepower -- haven't you ever heard of the Civil War?

One agency wasn't given the sole right of interpretation.

Maybe you've heard of the Congress? It's both conservative, and liberal, and because Bush was successful at showing that further diplomacy was useless and that an attack would not hinder the war on terrorism, Congress approved.

And it hasn't, we've literally crippled Al-Qaeda, and we've given one of their biggest supporters (Hussein) the shaft.

You are aware that Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow Hussein right? Religiously fanatical Al-Qaeda and secular Hussein are strongly opposed to each other. Bin Laden's stated three goals in the late 90s were: 1) Destroying Israel, 2) Removing Western Troops from Saudi Arabia, and 3) Overthrowing Hussein. We've done two of those for him.

That's an extreme hyperybole, because I don't see the United States becoming a dictatorship for quite some time.

0.7% of our population in jail, the VAST majority for victimless crimes, proves that the United States, has, in fact, become an oppressive government.

?!?!

Not to pick nits about numbers, but the Islamic Republic News Agency reports:

"For over 20 years, under the leadership of Hussein (succ. Ahmad Hasan al Bakr),
appx. 1,200 citizens died per week as a direct cause of Hussein and the Baath party."

Excuse me, but I'm quite positive we've dealt out as much death waging war as this man did ruling a country from day to day.

Corresponding to this, Hussein threatened the entire world, not just his own people.

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

Hillary Clinton is a moron, firstly. Secondly, Hussein WAS a bad guy... I agree... but it wasn't our business going in. We don't represent the Iraqi people.

Any dictatorship with biological and chemical destructive capabilities threatens the entire world.

So why don't we invade North Korea? China? Vietnam? Israel? Carnegie Mellon University? etc.

A threat is not an action. A person walking down the street with a gun threatens the entire community, but it isn't proper to take action unless it becomes imminent or if he actually does something.

Biological and chemical destructive capabilities are not that destructive ... my high school biology lab could count as posessing these sort of weapons. Classifying weapons is really misleading -- especially when you consider that rifles do the ssame thing bio weaposn do.

I'll do my reading up on FDR, because I really don't know much about him, except for the fact that he was considered one of the best presidents (2nd to Abraham Lincoln according to C-SPAN).

Also that his economic policies saved capitalism in the country.

He did not save capitalism, he was a as a matter of fact a socialist. Look up the Tennessee Valley Authority, something that was blatantly Soviet.

Hitler would be ranked Germany's best leader if he won World War II.

Drugs create a deadly black market, and are illegal. We're not oppressive by sending violent drug offenders to prison, we're getting them off the streets and away from your child, cousin, nephew/niece, sibling, grandson, etc.

No, the WAR ON DRUGS creates a deadly black market. Is there a deadly black marekt surrounding tobacco? No. Alcohol? No.

I'm all for sending violent offenders to jail, but there is no reason to send nonviolent ones to jail because they never did anything wrong.

I don't think we need to be on a commission for "human rights" that offers countries such as Pakistan and the Sudan membership, anyway.

But the fact that we incarcerate 0.7% of our population, as opposed to 0.2% in most free nations, shall that our nation has become fairly oppressive.

No, your logic has run eschew.

In global, international business, if one nation owns a monopoly on a certain business, it throws it to the forefront, which is good for it's national economy.

Of course, and I agree, in small business, and national capitalistic affairs, monopolies can be very damaging to small business.

Incorrect. This was perhaps true to an extent in 1700, and this was the whole idea behind mercantilism and colonialism, but notice that mercantilism and colonialism failed -- all the major colonial powers were not able to retain their monopolies on foreign goods, precisely because they were harmful to their domestic economies.

[LaRevolucion]

tax cuts, securing the country(please don't make any stupid comment on how bush knew about 9/11, when he had just got into office)

Also everyone who is so against Bush, ya'll need to send the 600 dollars back to him since he is such a horrible person.

I didn't make a comment about Bush knowing about 9/11.....and I haven't got my 600 dollars so........


.......seriously, where is my 600 dollars??

[LaRevolucion]

For someone like Bush, it was much easier to get into Yale in 1970 than it is today. There are many stupid people at the Ivies -- Athletes, Legacies, Affirmative Action Admits, etc.

It was a lot easier for Bush to get into an Ivie due to the fact that his father was the president of America.....

Plus....Kerry is better looking than Bush...and Edwards....whoa nelly! He's hot! LOL!

[EmeraldKnight]

Dude.. stop double posting already! Sheesh..

It was a lot easier for Bush to get into an Ivie due to the fact that his father was the president of America.....

Plus....Kerry is better looking than Bush...and Edwards....whoa nelly! He's hot! LOL!

Celebrity status always helps... but erm.. his father wasnt President when Bush was in college

As for the second statement............................. no comment..

Nope, I'm saying that they SHOULD insofar as is possible... especially the Tenth Amendment.

Mr. Constitution.. please remind me what the 10th Amendment is..

You are aware that Bin Laden has been trying to overthrow Hussein right? Religiously fanatical Al-Qaeda and secular Hussein are strongly opposed to each other. Bin Laden's stated three goals in the late 90s were: 1) Destroying Israel, 2) Removing Western Troops from Saudi Arabia, and 3) Overthrowing Hussein. We've done two of those for him.

Minda.. you know too much

Hillary Clinton is a moron, firstly. Secondly, Hussein WAS a bad guy... I agree... but it wasn't our business going in. We don't represent the Iraqi people

Yup.. I totally agree..

But the fact that we incarcerate 0.7% of our population, as opposed to 0.2% in most free nations, shall that our nation has become fairly oppressive

Mr. Statistics strikes again..... Ok then Minda, what do you suggest we do with criminals? Let them roam on the streets?

So why don't we invade North Korea? China? Vietnam? Israel? Carnegie Mellon University? etc.

A threat is not an action. A person walking down the street with a gun threatens the entire community, but it isn't proper to take action unless it becomes imminent or if he actually does something.

Biological and chemical destructive capabilities are not that destructive ... my high school biology lab could count as posessing these sort of weapons. Classifying weapons is really misleading -- especially when you consider that rifles do the ssame thing bio weaposn do.

I agree 100%.. a lot of countries can be considered "threats" to the US.. so what should we do? Invade every damn country that has potential to do us harm?

[LaRevolucion]

Whoops...sorry for triple posting, but I thought this pic was funny!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,327123,00.jpg


LOL! Yeah, America!

[ComradeRed]

Mr. Constitution.. please remind me what the 10th Amendment is

It basically says that everything the Constitution doesn't mention, the federal government isn't alloowed to do, but is instead the perogative of hte States.

Mr. Statistics strikes again.....  Ok then Minda, what do you suggest we do with criminals? Let them roam on the streets?

No, we should put REAL criminals in jail... not people who decided to try out pot. In a free society, a criminal is someone who, with malice, harms other people. Over two-thirds of our prisoners are nonviolent and have never harmed another human being -- these people are only criminals because of legal fiat and oppressive government, and thus should be released.

[sadolakced acid]

bush isn't bad, but he isn't good either.

the war- it's his fault.

[*Kathleen*]

Okay, so I'm kind of jumping in here from nowhere and have briefly read the long posts from you guys...

No, we should put REAL criminals in jail... not people who decided to try out pot. In a free society, a criminal is someone who, with malice, harms other people. Over two-thirds of our prisoners are nonviolent and have never harmed another human being -- these people are only criminals because of legal fiat and oppressive government, and thus should be released.

Oh so you can't harm someone when you're smoking pot and driving? You know how harmful that is to people who are out on the road with that person?

Whoops...sorry for triple posting, but I thought this pic was funny!

Um...sorry, but that has no relevence to this topic, does it?

the war- it's his fault.

This is a debate. Can you please tell me how it's his fault? Are you saying he caused September eleventh?

[ComradeRed]

Oh so you can't harm someone when you're smoking pot and driving? You know how harmful that is to people who are out on the road with that person?

No, you can hurt someone with malice by actually hitting them. If you smoke pot and drive, and don't cause any accdients, no one is hurt.

You can't harm someone by shooting a gun. It's only harming them with malice when you shoot a gun AT them.

[*Kathleen*]

No, you can hurt someone with malice by actually hitting them. If you smoke pot and drive, and don't cause any accdients, no one is hurt.

Yes, but your vision and state of mind is impaired when you're stoned. You're more likely to cause an accident.

[Spirited Away]

No, you can hurt someone with malice by actually hitting them. If you smoke pot and drive, and don't cause any accdients, no one is hurt.

Are we talking about a physical hurt or an emotional hurt? Because it's possible to emotionally hurt people if their loved ones are destroying themselves by way of addiction.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, but your vision and state of mind is impaired when you're stoned. You're more likely to cause an accident.

Let's see. For argument sake, let's say you are two times more likely to cause an accdient by getting stoned than not.

You are INFINITELY times more likely to cause an accident by getting in a car than not. Should we therefore abolish driving?

[*Kathleen*]

Let's see. For argument sake, let's say you are two times more likely to cause an accdient by getting stoned than not.

You are INFINITELY times more likely to cause an accident by getting in a car than not. Should we therefore abolish driving?

Oh shush. You know I've won this one. What kind of question is that? Alcohol causes tons of accidents...and we did abolish that.

[Spirited Away]

You are INFINITELY times more likely to cause an accident by getting in a car than not. Should we therefore abolish driving?

possibility of accidents without influence of drugs/alcohol
+
possibility of accidents WITH the influence
= BIGGER possibility... doesn't it?

[ComradeRed]

Oh shush. You know I've won this one. What kind of question is that? Alcohol causes tons of accidents...and we did abolish that.

Nope. I just showed that increasing the chance of something bad doesn't make a thing bad in and of itself.

[*Kathleen*]

Car accidents alone aren't the only thing marijuana increases the chance of...

[ComradeRed]

Car accidents alone aren't the only thing marijuana increases the chance of...

But still, marijuana itself isn't bad ... it just increases the chances of a bad thing happening.

[inlonelinessidie]

When did this topic turn into a drug related one? Boy I haven't been here in a while.

[sadolakced acid]

iraqi war, that is.

saddam had no WMDs, there was no reason for us to be there. no wonder saddam couldn't give them over, they wern't there.

you can't deny that he tricked america into the iraqi war.

he's just looking for revenge.

[inlonelinessidie]

iraqi war, that is.

saddam had no WMDs, there was no reason for us to be there. no wonder saddam couldn't give them over, they wern't there.

you can't deny that he tricked america into the iraqi war.

he's just looking for revenge.

Revenge??? Because Saddam wanted to kill Bush Senior?

[LaRevolucion]

Um...sorry, but that has no relevence to this topic, does it?

I was just trying to prove Edwards' good looks! LOL! Sheesh....have a little sense of humor...I was just trying to lighten up the mood....rawr!

[inlonelinessidie]

*rawr*

[*Kathleen*]

saddam had no WMDs, there was no reason for us to be there. no wonder saddam couldn't give them over, they wern't there.

you can't deny that he tricked america into the iraqi war.

he's just looking for revenge.

We didn't find them because they had time to move them. We didn't instantly go to war with them. Besides, what were we supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and hope they weren't there until he used them? Revenge for what, exactly?

[ComradeRed]

We didn't find them because they had time to move them. We didn't instantly go to war with them. Besides, what were we supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and hope they weren't there until he used them? Revenge for what, exactly?

So... let me get this straight... You think that after we invaded Iraq, they moved their weapons... as opposed to use them?

If you were invaded, and you had a powerful weapon, wouldn't it be in your best interest to use it... especially if it was your only hope of standing a chance?

[Spirited Away]

If you were invaded, and you had a powerful weapon, wouldn't it be in your best interest to use it... especially if it was your only hope of standing a chance?

I think it depends, some people like to bide their time thinking that they would survive and then get revenge and Saddam could've been thinking that. Or perhaps the WMDs weren't his to utilize, but his job/contract was only to have them in storage for a big attack and when we went to war, the owners of the WMDs took them back?

[ComradeRed]

What "owners"? If Hussein had nuclear weapons, he would've been the one producing them. Furthermore, we crushed him in 1990. Since then, we've had ten years of technical progress and he's had ten years of technical decline. If he had WMDs, they would hvae been his only chance.

[Spirited Away]

What "owners"?

Perhaps there is an underground network of contract for moving/transporting WMD.

If Hussein had nuclear weapons, he would've been the one producing them. Furthermore, we crushed him in 1990. Since then, we've had ten years of technical progress and he's had ten years of technical decline. If he had WMDs, they would hvae been his only chance.

His only chance against the US military force? I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to risk provoking America even more so soon after 9/11. He would have given it to someone else (for safe keeping?) to take revenge at a time when we're vulnerable instead of when everyone's still angry, thinking that he would get out of this bruised, but alive.

Of course this is all theorectically speaking, and I have no proof of what I say.

[ComradeRed]

Perhaps there is an underground network of contract for moving/transporting WMD.



His only chance against the US military force? I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to risk provoking America even more so soon after 9/11. He would have given it to someone else (for safe keeping?) to take revenge at a time when we're vulnerable instead of when everyone's still angry, thinking that he would get out of this bruised, but alive.

Of course this is all theorectically speaking, and I have no proof of what I say.

How is he going to get revenge when, chances are, he will be executed?

And he definitely knew that he was going to be, because that is what he would do himself.

[Spirited Away]

How is he going to get revenge when, chances are, he will be executed?

And he definitely knew that he was going to be, because that is what he would do himself.

So, you really think that he'll be executed? Well, I've never thought of it that way. Who knows? I want him to be excuted, but what if he just get imprisoned? It happens.

But even if he knew he was going to die, he could've just send the WMD away to be used for some diabolical plot he cooked up with other terrorist leaders. But... I think I might be thinking too much/too little into it...

[bibliomania]

President Bush is horrible because he uses religion and patriotism to get what he wants, such as Iraq War.

[*Kathleen*]

President Bush is horrible because he uses religion and patriotism to get what he wants, such as Iraq War.

Um...can you explain that to me?

[sadolakced acid]

bush plays upon american's emotions, using the patriotism from the 9/11 attacks to fuel the iraqi war, even thou they were not connected.

and if bush is the best president, ridding dictators with WMDs, then why hasn't he attacked north korea?!?

it's because, saddam tried to kill daddy bush.

and sadam never had WMDs. they found no facilities. do you know everything you need to make a nueclear bomb? it takes thousands of people.

chemical weapons, albeit, are easier to produce. but you still need masses of manpower to make them. again, not evident.

We didn't find them because they had time to move them. We didn't instantly go to war with them. Besides, what were we supposed to do? Twiddle our thumbs and hope they weren't there until he used them? Revenge for what, exactly?

yes. he didn't have any. he wasn't using any. he wasn't bothering anyone with any WMDs. he didn't have any since the first gulf war.

"it is the old men who decide if we go to war, and it is the young ones who have to fight it."
- loose quotation of a separate peace

[ryfitaDF]

"it is the old men who decide if we go to war, and it is the young ones who have to fight it."

he lied, they died, keep the pesants terrified. ~otep

bush calls iraq and n. korea the "axis of evil". evil. like the Devil. like in religion. if you're not against iraq you're against god and going to hell.

it's like the F**king salem witch trials. if you don't blindly wave your flag you're some kinds of terrorist or anarchist and you're "evil".

[sadolakced acid]

bush is a coward. he knew iraq didn't have WMDs, so it's safe to attack iraq. whereas, N korea, the biggest threat now, has WMDs, so naturally, he's afraid of them and won't attack.

it's the Nueclear power club. if you're in it, the US doesn't dare attack you.

[Spirited Away]

So who do you have in mind to be the next president? Do you think he'll do a better job of it than Bush?

[sadolakced acid]

bush.

he got us into this mess, he should get us out.

[Spirited Away]

bush.

he got us into this mess, he should get us out.

That's what many Americans believe, but I think Kerry supporters say they want Kerry to have a go at this whole thing... which I don't think is a very good idea.

[bibliomania]

bush.

he got us into this mess, he should get us out.

Do you think he'll be able to get us out of this mess?

[LaRevolucion]

Yeah, do u really think he'll be able to get us out?

[*Kathleen*]

Well, it sure looks like he's trying. I mean, honestly, what would Kerry do better than Bush? He voted for the war, and he said he was going to continue with it if he's elected...so I don't really see why people would vote for him...

[sadolakced acid]

honestly, i think bush will do a better job of getting us out of this mess, since he knows exactly what happened to get us in there, and plus, it's his war.

but it's because he got us into this mess, that i don't like him. i abided by him in the begining, untill he attacked iraq.

this country is going to suffer because of this war, regardless of who leads us through it. bush might have caused it- but i think he is the best one to get us out.