people hate Bush, no one even gives him a chance Options

[jo3]

Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

[grapplefan]

*high fives you , for your view and your opinions*

I personaly do not like bush, but i would give him credit when he deserves it, im not one of them blind haters that wants to hate or dislike just to do so, i just dont like the way bush does politics thats all, but you are right, with the average bush disliker, there is nothing he can do right I agree, well put.

[ComradeRed]

What are you talking about? We've given Bush a chance over the last three years ... he's had absolute power enjoyed by no other President since possibly FDR ... He has done a few good things, but in general, I believe he has no respect for American ideals and the Constitution at all.

[jo3]

What are you talking about? We've given Bush a chance over the last three years ... he's had absolute power enjoyed by no other President since possibly FDR ... He has done a few good things, but in general, I believe he has no respect for American ideals and the Constitution at all.

if this was the case then Bush would be impeached by now. but i guess congress doesn't believe that he has absolute power, nor do they believe that he lacks respect for American ideals and the Constitution

[strice]

some may argue that he should be impeached, it's just suppressed, because obviously in the war against terror, "You're either with us or with them."

[ComradeRed]

if this was the case then Bush would be impeached by now.  but i guess congress doesn't believe that he has absolute power, nor do they believe that he lacks respect for American ideals and the Constitution

Or maybe because Congress is in cohoots with him? He has absolute power precisely because neo-cons control the Congress as well. Which makes Congress just as guilty ... I have yet to hear a single congressman, other than Ron Paul (a Texas Republican, by the way, yet totally different from Bush), consistently defend the Constitution when he argues points. Some of the stuff FDR did was clearly unconstitutional (such as packing the Supreme Court), but he wasn't impeached. Why? Because he had the Congress in cohoots with him.

Bush has taken more heat from 'fellow' conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul than from the democrats... why? Because the democrats, or at least the smart ones, know that Bush is doing exactly what they wanted to do all along -- expand the scope of the government until the Constitution and all of our individual rights are dead. Bush has raised overall spending more than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, and if you don't count defense, Bush has still raised social spending more than any other President excluding FDR.

In many ways, Bush is acting simply as a new version of Lyndon B Johnson for the Democrats -- which is why the Democrats in Congress (especially the fascist democrats, such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry -- both of whom have voted with Bush over 3/4 of the time) almost always cooperate with him, in a way that didn't happen with Ronald Reagan, who was nothing like Bush Jr, by the way.

It's ludicrous to say that Bush hasn't been given a chance.

[jo3]

Or maybe because Congress is in cohoots with him? He has absolute power precisely because neo-cons control the Congress as well. Which makes Congress just as guilty ... I have yet to hear a single congressman, other than Ron Paul (a Texas Republican, by the way, yet totally different from Bush), consistently defend the Constitution when he argues points. Some of the stuff FDR did was clearly unconstitutional (such as packing the Supreme Court), but he wasn't impeached. Why? Because he had the Congress in cohoots with him.

Bush has taken more heat from 'fellow' conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul than from the democrats... why? Because the democrats, or at least the smart ones, know that Bush is doing exactly what they wanted to do all along -- expand the scope of the government until the Constitution and all of our individual rights are dead. Bush has raised overall spending more than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY, and if you don't count defense, Bush has still raised social spending more than any other President excluding FDR.

In many ways, Bush is acting simply as a new version of Lyndon B Johnson for the Democrats -- which is why the Democrats in Congress (especially the fascist democrats, such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry -- both of whom have voted with Bush over 3/4 of the time) almost always cooperate with him, in a way that didn't happen with Ronald Reagan, who was nothing like Bush Jr, by the way.

It's ludicrous to say that Bush hasn't been given a chance.

ok...you can't blame Congress and the President, because:

1) the people vote for members of Congress
2) the people vote for the President

which means that it was the people's decision to put them all into office...which would make the people just as guilty (based on ur argument)


Bush isn't that dumb...he would never try to expand the power of the government to kill the Constitution and individual rights, especially in his first term, because he would lose voters. and i highly doubt Bush is even trying to get rid of our individual rights. why would he want to? and getting rid of the Constitution? its hard enough to make 1 amendment...how can he get rid of the entire thing??

and by the way, Lyndon B. Johnson was a pretty good president

[bibliomania]

ok...you can't blame Congress and the President, because:

1) the people vote for members of Congress
2) the people vote for the President

which means that it was the people's decision to put them all into office...which would make the people just as guilty (based on ur argument)


Bush isn't that dumb...he would never try to expand the power of the government to kill the Constitution and individual rights, especially in his first term, because he would lose voters. and i highly doubt Bush is even trying to get rid of our individual rights. why would he want to? and getting rid of the Constitution? its hard enough to make 1 amendment...how can he get rid of the entire thing??

and by the way, Lyndon B. Johnson was a pretty good president

I can blame Congress and the President... just because we voted for them to do their job, doesn't mean they're actually doing their job. So I guess it's part of people's fault that some people are congressmen, but not entirely.

Bush isn't that dumb. I don't know how he just started a war without actual reasons that I'd qualify as reasonable.

[ComradeRed]

which means that it was the people's decision to put them all into office...which would make the people just as guilty (based on ur argument)

Sure. I can blame the special interest groups that causep eople to vote based on hteir special interest as well.

Bush isn't that dumb...he would never try to expand the power of the government to kill the Constitution and individual rights, especially in his first term, because he would lose voters.  and i highly doubt Bush is even trying to get rid of our individual rights.  why would he want to?  and getting rid of the Constitution?  its hard enough to make 1 amendment...how can he get rid of the entire thing??

People today don't care about individual rights. We started the American Revolution over a 1.5% sales tax. Today, we have a 45% income tax. If the ideals of the Founding Fathers were still alive, Dubya would be hanging from a tree.

and by the way, Lyndon B. Johnson was a pretty good president

All he did was cause gang warfare in inner cities, end what little hope blacks had of achieving truly equal rights, and sending 60,000 Americans to die in an Asian civil war -- most of whom were drafted against their will.

Being the fascist you are, I can see why you like him so much.

[*Kathleen*]

People today don't care about individual rights. We started the American Revolution over a 1.5% sales tax. Today, we have a 45% income tax. If the ideals of the Founding Fathers were still alive, Dubya would be hanging from a tree.

Times change, though. There's also something called inflation...

[ComradeRed]

Times change, though. There's also something called inflation...

Percentages don't inflate.

$1000 today is worth less than $1000 in 1900. But 10% today is worth the same as 10% in 1900.

[jo3]

People today don't care about individual rights. We started the American Revolution over a 1.5% sales tax. Today, we have a 45% income tax. If the ideals of the Founding Fathers were still alive, Dubya would be hanging from a tree.

go read some history books...ur history's all wrong. there had been previous taxes and tariffs before the stamp act (which was considered the one that started all the problems), but the colonists didn't care (enough to start a war). what got them was that the Parliament was making laws, and the colonists had no say in it. they called it "taxation without representation." Britain claimed that the Parliament represented all of Britian's colonies through virtual representation, but the colonists didn't see it that way. so that's when the colonists started to rebel. not because of the little tax.

and by the way, income tax is a progressive tax. that means it varies. those who make a lot of money pay a higher percentage than those who have a lower income. so no, the income tax percentage isn't at 45%.

and if the ideals of the Founding Fathers were still alive, only white landowning men could vote. but guess what? times have changed.

All he did was cause gang warfare in inner cities, end what little hope blacks had of achieving truly equal rights, and sending 60,000 Americans to die in an Asian civil war -- most of whom were drafted against their will.

look at the good things johnson did. without medicare and social security, a LOT of ppl today would be screwed (especially the elderly)

you do realize that many people wanted the war...until people realized that too many soldiers were dying, and we were getting no where. that's when Americans decided to go on marches and demand the government to withdraw their troops.

the US wanted to stop the spread of communism, so they tried to stop the north from taking over the south. this was all during the cold war, which was after WWII and after the Korean War, 2 other times where the US tried to stop communism from spreading.

Being the fascist you are, I can see why you like him so much.

do you even know what fascism is? obviously you don't

www.merriamwebster.com

fascism - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

ok...i believe in a centralized government over strong state governments and a weak centralized government. but Bush isn't a dictator. our economy's actually doing better than it used to (post 9/11), and the government doesn't kill people for speaking out against them (Amendment #1 - freedom of speech, freedom of the press). don't even try to say that our government is like that of Mussolini's, or Hitler's, or Stalin's. they're NOTHING alike.

and good job. people resort to name calling because their arguments are weak, so they have nothing left to say except, "you're ______". that's VERY mature of you......

maybe if you were 10 years old, then i'd understand, but since you're 16, and you're still taking the name-calling route, i'm speechless.......

[ComradeRed]

[quote]go read some history books...ur history's all wrong.  there had been previous taxes and tariffs before the stamp act (which was considered the one that started all the problems), but the colonists didn't care (enough to start a war).  what got them was that the Parliament was making laws, and the colonists had no say in it.  they called it "taxation without representation."  Britain claimed that the Parliament represented all of Britian's colonies through virtual representation, but the colonists didn't see it that way.  so that's when the colonists started to rebel.  not because of the little tax.[/quote]

Hmm... I have a 5 on the AP US History test, and I wrote my DBQ essay on how it was, in fact, the tax. Guess what region of the country was affected most by the tax? New England. Guess what region rebelled first? New England. It was due to a tax. Taxation without representation was just a pretext ... even if hte Colonies WERE given representation in parliament, THEY WOULD BE OUT VOTED EVERY TIME. So the colonists did not desire taxation with representation, they desired taxation with CONSENT, which is a different thing entirely. The declaration of independence accuses George III of "Taxing us without our consent"... not "taxing us without giving us representation."

[quote]and by the way, income tax is a progressive tax.  that means it varies.  those who make a lot of money pay a higher percentage than those who have a lower income.   so no, the income tax percentage isn't at 45%.[/quote]

The House of Representatives estimates that the total federal taxes for the AVERAGE AMERICAN is 47%.

[quote]look at the good things johnson did.  without medicare and social security, a LOT of ppl today would be screwed (especially the elderly)[/quote]

Precent of Americans with health insurance before Medicare: 85%
Percent of Americans with health insurance AFTER medicare: 65%

Average yearly return on social security payments: -0.2%
Average yearly return on throwing your money in a bank: 2.5%

Social security and medicare screw the poor. Without social security, the poor could actually take what little hard earned money they got and use it to make themselves richer, instead of paying fat bureaucrats in Washington.

If you think we should keep social securitry, let me ask you this: Would YOU buy an annuity from a company run like social security if it were voluntary? If your answer is yes, you are crazy or suicidal. End of story.

[quote]you do realize that many people wanted the war...until people realized that too many soldiers were dying, and we were getting no where.  that's when Americans decided to go on marches and demand the government to withdraw their troops.[/quote]

... And government troops backed by Johnson killed many of them. It doesn't matter if "many people wanted the war" -- just because many people wanted it doesn't make it right. Many people wanted slavery -- was that right?

Johnson only increased the number of troops there.

[quote]the US wanted to stop the spread of communism, so they tried to stop the north from taking over the south.  this was all during the cold war, which was after WWII and after the Korean War, 2 other times where the US tried to stop communism from spreading.[/quote]

If Johnson really wanted to stop Communism, he should've picked up a rifle and went to Vietnam. The fact that he drafted HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT shows that he was (a) no better than slave-owners of the early 19th century, and (b) a total coward more worried about his political butt than integrity and honor. Johnson has teh deaths of 60,000 Americans on his hands.

[quote]ok...i believe in a centralized government over strong state governments and a weak centralized government.  but Bush isn't a dictator.[/quote]

A dictator is someone with absolute power. As I have shown unrefuted earlier, Bush has absolute power (or pretty damn close to it) in the United States.

[quote]our economy's actually doing better than it used to (post 9/11),[/quote]

You know, there's a saying: Mussolini may have been a dictator, but at least he made teh trains run on time (some of these trains include the concentration camp trains).

[quote]  and the government doesn't kill people for speaking out against them (Amendment #1 - freedom of speech, freedom of the press).[/quote]

No, we just lock them in Guantanamo Bay.

And yes, our government DOES kill people for speaking out against it. I suggest you look up the Gordon Kahl Murder, when FBI Agents stormed the house of a nonviolent tax protestor from Arkansas, beat him with their rifles, cut his limbs off, and shot him in the head. www.constitution.org/abus/gkahl/kahl.htm

The First Amendment isn't followed at all. The FCC is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Back when the COnstitution was written, the First Amendment was taken to mean that Congress had NO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY LAWS ABOUT COMMUNICATION. Hence, when the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed, which made it unlawful to publish false information about the government, VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY THREATENED TO SECEDE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

It's a shame state governments don't have as much integrity today.

[quote]don't even try to say that our government is like that of Mussolini's, or Hitler's, or Stalin's.  they're NOTHING alike.[/quote]

Maybe it's not that bad, but we have an incarceration rate of 0.7% ... this incarceration rate reflects over two-thirds nonviolent offenders.

According to the NSD, one of the best indications of the oppressiveness of the government is the amount of nonviolent offenders in jail. Non-violent offenders are people who have NEVER HARMED ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, and yet are in jail due to oppressive laws.

Guess what? This rate is higher in America THAN IN ANY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY. This rate has caused the UN to kick us off the Human Rights Committee. We might not be Nazi Germany, but King George's England is not a major strecth, and is, in fact, a conservative estimate of oppression.

FOOTNOTE: Analyzing the definition of fascism

[quote=American Heritage Dictionary]A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,[/quote]

Under King George 43rd and also King Kongress.

The fact is today, the US has very centralized authority. Issues such as labor, education, etc. -- all formerly left to the States -- are now the perogative of B.B.

[quote] stringent socioeconomic controls,[/quote]

Certainly. The President has the legal fiat to set prices, seize commodities, organize and control the means of production, and declare martial law. American business regulation costs over one-quarter of the GDP annually. Our government regulates what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home, something that is a trademark of oppressive governments, such as fascism.

[quote]suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship,[/quote]

Under the PATRIOT Act, you can be arrested for taking certain books out of a library. The McCain-Feingold Act prevents you from displaying political ads at certain times. FCC rules further hinder political discourse. Murders of radicals such as Gordon Kahl and his sons, brought up above, as well as the brutal suppression of dissent in the 70s, the last time we were faced with a crisis, certainly constitute 'terror and censorship'. The fact that the government now says that it has the right to PUT YOU IN JAIL INDEFINITELY WITHOUT ANY SORT OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW should be just as terrifying as if Bin Laden were your nextdoor neighboor and had a stockpile of AK-47s in his house.

[quote]and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism[/quote]

Well, maybe not racism, but notice how Bush has invoked American patriotism and "waving teh bloody shirt" to delude Americans into thinking the War on Iraq will actually help stop terrorism?

There's nothing wrong with being a Patriot, or even a Nationalist. I sympathize with many very pro-American groups such as American Conservative (www.amconmag.org), but being a Belligerent Nationalist is bad.

[jo3]

ok...i agree w/ some of the stuff u mentioned (like the patriot act..thats bullshit, and it was something bush wanted to do to 1) have more power, or 2) make the people feel like he wasn't gonna give any more mercy to potential terrorists)

and you're right about ss. if it was an option, i wouldn't do it cuz i'd much rather just make my own little ss account that i can just hide away rather than give it to the government

The fact that he drafted HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS IN BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT shows that he was (a) no better than slave-owners of the early 19th century, and (b) a total coward more worried about his political butt than integrity and honor.

true...but he was trying to stop the spread of communism. sure, he could have picked up a rifle, but he would still need soldiers behind his back. and about ur 2nd point...i'm pretty sure most successful politians are more worried about their political butts than integrity and honor, because if they were more concerned about integrity and honor, then they wouldn't be that successful (even though they should be more successful and more respected...but people wanna hear what they wanna here, and politicians will do that they gotta do to get votes)

A dictator is someone with absolute power. As I have shown unrefuted earlier, Bush has absolute power (or pretty damn close to it) in the United States.

we're having another election in 4 months? that alone shows that Bush doesn't have absolute power (unless Kerry is assassinated all of a sudden, but i highly highly highly doubt Bush would do something like that)

Maybe it's not that bad, but we have an incarceration rate of 0.7% ... this incarceration rate reflects over two-thirds nonviolent offenders.

not many ppl have the balls to go out a kill someone. but its pretty easy to try to steal something, or maybe drink and drive, or sell illegal drugs

There's nothing wrong with being a Patriot, or even a Nationalist. I sympathize with many very pro-American groups such as American Conservative (www.amconmag.org), but being a Belligerent Nationalist is bad.

i agree, but sometimes being belligerent is the only option (going into war constantly is definately a bad thing, but war will always occur)


ok...u've made ur points...i've made mine. i don't care if people have opinions about the President because it's their own opinion. i just hate it when people say "bush is an idiot" or "bush sucks", and they don't have anything to back it up.

Nov. 2004 is where it all happens. may the best man win

[Devastation]

As well as the Bush administration being as ruthless and ignorative as it is, the bush campaigne as well as the corporations arent as good as we thought they were to be at the beginning of the election day of his victorious day. If we would have known this would of come to be of the "bush presidency" we would have never chosen bush as our president, in the area of the war and democracy it would have to go to gore, being strong on the side of both.

[capsule]

Nov. 2004 is where it all happens. may the best man win

Go Nader!!

[jo3]

i'm not too sure how gore would have handled 9/11....but thats off topic

i don't feel like writing anything else, so i'll finish up with this:

respect bush while he's in office. campaign for kerry all you want, but give Bush his respect. i bet you'd give him respect if you saw him. if kerry's elected, then give him all your support. even though i like bush, i'll still give kerry 100% of my support. if a 3rd party candidate wins, i'll support him too

[ComradeRed]

i'm pretty sure most successful politians are more worried about their political butts than integrity and honor, because if they were more concerned about integrity and honor, then they wouldn't be that successful (even though they should be more successful and more respected...but people wanna hear what they wanna here, and politicians will do that they gotta do to get votes)

Successful, yes. But good people? People I would want running the country? No.

They sure created a lot of success for themselves, but not for the country at large.

I accdientally deleted your first point, but basically the draft is slavery. He can fight with a volunteer army all he wants, that's fine, but as soon as he starts using conscript soldiers, he becomes a tyrant worthy of overthrowing.

I did not oppose the Iraq War quite so strongly for that very reason.

we're having another election in 4 months?  that alone shows that Bush doesn't have absolute power (unless Kerry is assassinated all of a sudden, but i highly highly highly doubt Bush would do something like that)

No, but Bush had absolute power for four years -- which is my point, he had his chance.

not many ppl have the balls to go out a kill someone.  but its pretty easy to try to steal something, or maybe drink and drive, or sell illegal drugs

Those are still considered "violent" crimes ... nonviolent crimes are things like USING drugs in your own house, or having sex with someone of your same sex in your own house, etc... things that only hurt yourself.

i agree, but sometimes being belligerent is the only option (going into war constantly is definately a bad thing, but war will always occur)

Murder will always occur... doesn't mean we should keep doing it.

Nov. 2004 is where it all happens.  may the best man win

I don't like Kerry, but he will win, for three main reasons:

- He is taller. 90% of the time, the guy who is taller wins. In fact, in every election since 1976, the taller candidate has defeated the shorter candidate.
- He has better hair. Most of the time, the guy with better hair wins. He even brought this up in his ad.
- Fiscal conservatives in New Hampshire and workers in Ohio/WVa. Might cost Bush those three states.

[Devastation]

Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.

If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

osama bin laden wont affect the campaigns and the influence of a presidency election.

[jo3]

i bet if Bush captured bin Ladin, then more ppl would vote for Bush than if he didn't capture bin Ladin

[Spirited Away]

Well, maybe not racism, but notice how Bush has invoked American patriotism and "waving teh bloody shirt" to delude Americans into thinking the War on Iraq will actually help stop terrorism?

Oh, on that I have a question:

Which group(s) of people have been beheading citizens of different countries, asking that they remove their troops from Iraq?

[ComradeRed]

Iraqi partisans ... Of course they are going to do things like that ... they don't have the guns to just shoot the invading soldiers. We invaded their country ... do you expect them not to fight back with everything they've got? Whenever a big country invades a small country, the small country always fights back using unconventional tactics ... when the Nazis took over France, the French Resistance used tactics that we would label as "terrorist", and the Finnish Army fought the Soviets with every bit as much ferocity as the Iraqis are fighting us now.

[Spirited Away]

Iraqi partisans ... Of course they are going to do things like that ... they don't have the guns to just shoot the invading soldiers. We invaded their country ... do you expect them not to fight back with everything they've got? Whenever a big country invades a small country, the small country always fights back using unconventional tactics ... when the Nazis took over France, the French Resistance used tactics that we would label as "terrorist", and the Finnish Army fought the Soviets with every bit as much ferocity as the Iraqis are fighting us now.

Hey Hey, that was only a question because I didn't know the answer. But how can we be sure that there're only Iraqi partisans involved?

[ComradeRed]

Who else would be involved?

[Spirited Away]

Terrorists who claim to be Iraqi partisans? I don't know, that's why I'm asking you!