US election poll

[Cantousent]

I'm voting for Bush.

[steelfiredragon]

I put R. Nader only becuase, I dont trust Bush, and Kerry is the devil himself

[Dakoth]

You crack me up Vol.

 

First of all to put things to rest I don't care that ge boinked an intern that has little to do with what I am talking about. The President in the end must answer to congress for any wrong doings. He was asked if he acted inappropriately in the oval office he flat out said no.

 

Exuses, exuses as well as technicality. Bottom line is the WH is his home and office and as president he is the Lord of Both Manor and Work Place.

 

No excuse just fact and no he is not the lord of both, he does not reign supreme as a king or dictator would he has to answer to congress it is one of the checks put into place. Why do you think it is congress that declares war instead of the comander in chief of the military? This is not a home office like you or I would have, it is an office that employs hundreds of other people on a daily basis.

 

The question should have never been asked in the first place. Period. And, yes, it was thew affair that bothered the Republicans. Don't lie. In fact, they were just trying to find some lame way to bring Clinton down.

 

I said it before and will say it again it happened in the work place the Oval office, airforce one, those are there so he can execute his job not to live out his sexual fantasies. He was not held to any higher standard than any normal person, as I said why don't you let yourself get caught having sex with a coworker at work and see what happens.

 

Inappropraite, maybe. Illegal, NOT. I doubt there'd be such an outcry if it was found out he had sex with Hillary in the Oval Office. Next.

 

Once again we do not dissagree here, the illegal portion of the incident happened while he was under oath. Yes I also think congress had every right to ask the quesion they did because he was dumb enough to use the oval office (A public area of the White House) instead of his private living quarters.

 

When, the law is abused in such a manner as it was, the law can be showned to be imperfect and overuled. Clinton should have *never* been put in a position to lie under oath about the affair. That is the Republicans' fault.

 

Quite funny you defend one wrong while condeming another. You are right Clinton should have never been in the position he was, but whose fault was it really? If he could have kept it in his pants he also would have never been in that position. Ah but thats right no one believes in personal responsibility any more.

 

Abuse of power, scandalously and illegally slandering someone's reputation, reporting a crime when there was none, wastefully spending millions of taxpayers' money on a non issue, and if I did research I'm sure there's a heck of a lot more.

 

You are absolutely wrong on all counts. There was no slander of his name because he did the things he was accused of, there also was a crime because he lied under oath something most normal americans would get jail time for. Now I wont dissagree it really was a waste of money but so goes the US government.

 

Why would I worry what the Dems say? I'm not a Democrat. Or Republican. Or Liberal. I'm just not a hypocrite like others are.

 

I supported Saddam Hussei's removal under any President.

 

I wanted Gore to win over Bush.

 

I want Bush to win over Kerry.

 

Any more dumbness you wanna speil?

 

You lose. Have a nice day. 

 

I never claimed you were any of those things just that you are good at regurgitating what they say. Fact is he broke the law, now I can't say what I would do in a situation like that because quite frankly I feel I am smarter than that, but I would hope I have the character to stand up and tell the truth. Especially when so many negative things and trials came out before were it was basically my word against others, and it is my job to uphold the laws of the land.

 

So drop the sex portion of the arguemant as that has little to do with why I think he was a bad president, and is nothing more than a smoke screen for the issue.

[Ellester]

As i said earlier, it's not in the public's interest to know if the president committs adultery. A couple's relationship-problems should be dealt by themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. The Hollywood gossip that our country loves blew this into a huge affair. And, I agree what a waste of taxpayers

[Volourn]

Dakoth: R00fles!

[Rhomal]

> i was specifically referring to the fact that the intel clinton had, coincidentally the intel the entire world had, was that saddam had WMD.

 

And before you pulled out the tired, and inaccurate, counter that bill did nothing against terrorists which always comes up sooner or later I wanted to clearify that up front.

 

> two years ago, EVERYBODY thought saddam had WMDs, hence the resolutions to prove he had destroyed them... remember?

 

Thats what weapon inspections, UN people seaching and destroying and cutting up his country with the no-fly zones were all about. He was contained and what they THOUGH he might have had posed no real threat to us. He did NOT have the technology to launch a missle with WMD at the US even with the worst possible situation from the reports I read about.

 

Point being, he was a non-threat to us if we kept his country in check and let the UN do its job. But bush decided to go clean up daddys 'unfinished business' rather then have some patience. Then again, if he did that they couldnt pay these fat contracts to their buddies and have BILLIONS gone missing and unaccounted for.

 

> perhaps wrong, but still not a lie. try again.

 

Ok, when I work for your company and I cherry pick that finicials to report to you so I look good and get my bonus, I'll make sure to remind you I didnt lie when the company goes under.

 

> perhaps again,

 

Translation: I dont have the testicular fortitude to just say its wrong

 

> but no matter how you spin it,

 

No spin, just fact.

 

> bush has committed no crime.

 

In your opinion. Thats for a congressional inquiry to determin.

 

> clinton lied under oath, a clear felony.

 

Over sex. And again, who died because of it? What in your life was effected or what families were effected by him getting some in the white house?

 

I do not claim he was right. We was most certainly in the wrong. But in the big picture its is a far less a issue then going to war by conning the congress.

 

> clinton was summarily impeached by the house, and then acquitted by the senate. the latter occuring because the senate fully believed the impeachment was "punishment" enough, btw...

 

And considering the offense, in essence, was he got caught with his pants down, the punishment was fitting.

 

> opinion regarding the bush slam most certainly. either way, clinton is a liberal and the rest of the world likes our liberals.

 

Perhaps liberals get the job done and lead rather then bully the world. If the schoolyard nice kid was transfered out and replaced by a bully I think id miss the nice kid too.

 

Since were on the topic what has, seriously, consertivative presidents done in the past 50 yrs? what have they accomplished? I know liberals got us through a world war, got us to the moon, gave us the new deal, got us a record suplus to name just a few.

 

> can't the same thing be said about bush? why didn't you respond with that when weiser_cain tried to give credit to clinton in the first place? it works both ways buddy...

 

Never said otherwise, I critize bush on what he HAS control over. Not over the entire economy or control of it. And I do the same for clinton. I give him props for doing all he could and what aspects he does have control over, and what he did on that level worked far better then bush.

 

Bush being the 1st president in 70 yrs or so to have a net loss of jobs.

[Product of the Cosmos]

gee, 2/3 of the board population are non-US... d'ya think they might be a bit on the liberal side?

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually outside the US, the term "liberal" means that you're a fan of Reagan's economic policies => right-wing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

lmao!.. I would vote for Al Sharpton gladly.

 

[xanas3712]

And before you pulled out the tired, and inaccurate, counter that bill did nothing against terrorists which always comes up sooner or later I wanted to clearify that up front.

He didn't do nothing. He did very little. A difference, but a minor one.

 

Thats what weapon inspections, UN people seaching and destroying and cutting up his country with the no-fly zones were all about. He was contained and what they THOUGH he might have had posed no real threat to us. He did NOT have the technology to launch a missle with WMD at the US even with the worst possible situation from the reports I read about.

No one said he had the technology to launch a missle. What has always been postulated is that if he had the weapons he'd hand them off to others to do the job. The only people he could attack in the regoin would be the Israeli's, Kuwait, or his own people.

 

Point being, he was a non-threat to us if we kept his country in check and let the UN do its job. But bush decided to go clean up daddys 'unfinished business' rather then have some patience. Then again, if he did that they couldnt pay these fat contracts to their buddies and have BILLIONS gone missing and unaccounted for.

The UN was doing it's job so well wasn't it. Do you know how many Billions of dollars (since you love talking about that on Bush's buddies) that were stolen by Hussein and sent in bribes to the officials in the UN? We had at least France and Russia violating the provisions of the sanctions, the Russians having sold a few missles to them, etc. You my choose not to believe it, but there was even an Iraqi intelligence agent who wrote that French officials had assured him that they would vote against us. Now, what would have occurred had the inspectors wen't back in and found nothing. Nothing. That's right. Nothing. We would not have gone to war, Saddam would still be in power, and the inspection process would probably have been shut down. Countries would start saying.. why do we need sanctions? They were already being broken and programs were being stolen from. The programs would have restarted, Saddam kept the documents and the ability to do so. He was biding his time. Sanctions would not have lasted forever.

 

Second, I'd contest that sanctions are better than war. Considering how screwed up oil for food was, and how many people there died from it I contest that it's better for the Iraqi people in the long run (or even the short run for that matter) to stick with that. Even going with IBCs bloated body count figures for civilians there are more who died because of Saddam by far especially when you include those who just weren't taken care of by that wonderful "oil for food" program. Don't get me wrong, we made mistakes. Our mistake was to agree not to finish the job the first time around, and allowing the Iraqi people to revolt on their own without our help. How many died under Saddam while he was "contained." And lets not forget that containment didn't prevent Iraq from shooting at our planes now and then just for fun. Hardly on good terms.

 

In your opinion. Thats for a congressional inquiry to determin.

Not sure what you are referring to here? I didn't read this other post. So assuming you are referring to Iraq the congressional inquiry has already determined that the intelligence agencies were largely at fault for that. You can pass that off to Bush as you like.

 

Since were on the topic what has, seriously, consertivative presidents done in the past 50 yrs? what have they accomplished? I know liberals got us through a world war, got us to the moon, gave us the new deal, got us a record suplus to name just a few.

Surpluses are not good, they are sign of overtaxation. But the balanced budget itself was done because of the Republican congress. Clinton didn't stand in the way, however, but he deserves no credit for creating that agenda. He did not.

 

Modern liberals can hardly be easily compared to some of those you reference. Yes they created welfare programs but they certainly were not all against traditional values, etc. Reagan was a great president in his own right, but sadly even at this point still too controversial I doubt you'd admit any of his successes yourself. Closer to the time period there were those who did not like Roosevelt and Kennedy over many things. Lets not forget that Kennedy is to blame for escalating the Vietnam war to some extent as well, and the whole bay of pigs situation. All presidents have their successes and failures.

 

Never said otherwise, I critize bush on what he HAS control over. Not over the entire economy or control of it. And I do the same for clinton. I give him props for doing all he could and what aspects he does have control over, and what he did on that level worked far better then bush. 

 

Bush being the 1st president in 70 yrs or so to have a net loss of jobs.

What aspects of the economy does a president have control over? You say you don't count everything against Bush and then you use that liberal talking point about lost jobs.

 

I credit no president with losses or increases in jobs, unless they entired in a time when the economy was clearly trending in the opposite direction and it can be shown specific things they did to encourage growth. If someone can't explain what they did to increase jobs, and they increased, it is just the economy doing what it does. I don't think Presidents are gods, regardless of how they might like to think of themselves. Ultimately very little that occurs has much to do with them at all.

[Judge Hades]

I simply go by am I better off than I was before the bugger took office. If Yes then I will vote for the bugger, if not I vote for the new guy. That is the bottom line.

[Pyronius]

AHEM:

 

You know... a lot of people go to the "Iraq had WMD" or "Iraq didn't have WMD" as reasons to go or not go in. I do not think that is the big issue here.

 

I am not going to blame Bush, he was just the pres...and I'm not being fecitious, I'm serious. But it looks to me that someone hijacked the blind patriotism of America in the period after 9-11.

 

1) Towers fall

2) Chase BinLaden/attack Afghanistan

These things are fine. It just makes sense to say "hey we aren't gonna take this stuff on our asses" . What is NOT fine happened afterwards:

 

3) Preemptive strike on Iraq

They had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Honestly they haven't ever posed a decent threat to the US. You know that the documents that were used to prove they had WMD included the ones where the US GAVE WMD to Iraq... I mean, yeah they had WMD at some time because we gave 'em the things.

Consider WHEN this happened:

All this comes before we even finish with Bin Laden. This comes so close after the towers fell that people didn't question it. Anyway, it was at the wrong time.

 

Side Facts:

1) A "War on Terror" can never be won. Whenever stomp out the baddies, you end up with more militant people that survive and you piss off a lot of innocent bystanders that have great potential to become the next terrorists.

2) Preemptive strikes are wrong.

 

questions:

1) What if the world decided to come attack the US because WE have WMD(as we do)?

 

2) What would the US do if another country(say, N Korea) attacked another country (say, S Korea) in a preemptive strike because one thought the other had WMD? We would fire up the United Nations and do something to stop them.

 

The only reason the UN doesn't come and stop our preemptive strikes is the fear of World War.

 

About lieing under oath: I think its better to lie about an affair than to, say, go start a war under false pretense. If the lie was about having someone killed or about stealing taxes for personal use etc, thats different.

 

/end rant.

 

To be sure: I think Bush is trying his best and isn't much worse than any other political leader as far as ulterior motives. All leaders have em. Who knows, Kerry could have worse ones.

[Ecthelion15]

Politics can be so polarizing, sometimes.

 

First of all, this whole thing about the socialist Hilary Clinton running in 2008 has merit; if Bush wins this election, there will be no democratic incumbent to already be in H. Clinton's place to run for reelection. If Kerry wins, she will be too old to run in 2012. All that stands in her way to presidency is a Kerry victory... and, if we make an amendment for it, then Schwartznegger will be there to contest her if she does run for pres (yes!).

 

Concerning the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, which is being heavily covered up by the liberal media, no wonder basically all of western Europe (with the exception of England) wanted to keep Saddam in power: they had lucrative interests vested in Iraq, which Bush would destroy if he invaded (aka liberated). How many thousands of civilians and Kurds died because the U.N. told the U.S.A. to cease the war prematurely in '91 and not help the civilians rise up against their oppressor, whom the U.N. seemed so eager to keep in power? How many died because of the illegal oil for food program, of which France was the biggest participant? You don't see Jacque Chirac being impeached, like he's calling for Bush to be.

Its so ironic how hypocritical the "progressive" U.N. is, even when genocide and ethnic cleansing is going on at the U.N. leader's backdoor, in Sudan. Kofi Annan turns a blind eye to the genocide in Sudan every day, even when Libya (his country) is right next door. And how stupid it is that Libya is the head of the human rights commision! Gah, makes me sick just thinking about them!

 

As for Clinton, well, he lied under oath about his little tyrst with Lewinsky; Bush acted on faulty intelligence he thought was accurate while not under oath. Case closed.

BTW, while Bill was on Air Force One in '98, an agent told him that they had Osama bin Laden pinpointed and were ready to launch a missile that would end his terrorist career. Clinton's response? "What 'till I'm off the phone". A half-hour later, the oppurtunity was gone, and Osama once again disappeared into the Middle-east.*

I don't blame Clinton for the economy, nor do I accredit him with creating the millions of jobs that were created during his term; the same goes for Bush, and the jobs made during his term. If you want to read more about the escapades of our little Clinton, then I would suggest Dereliction of Duty.

 

Thats all for now; I could write pages more about the shortcomings of the U.N, Hilary and Bill, and how Kerry would not properly handle the war on terror and how Bush could, but it seems that other objective writers have already taken care of that .

 

*source: Dereliction of Duty

[Pyronius]

One more fact for the road:

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

[Ecthelion15]

One more fact for the road:

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean Schwartznegger?

[xanas3712]

1) Towers fall

2) Chase BinLaden/attack Afghanistan

These things are fine.  It just makes sense to say "hey we aren't gonna take this stuff on our asses" .  What is NOT fine happened afterwards:

 

3) Preemptive strike on Iraq

They had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.  Honestly they haven't ever posed a decent threat to the US.  You know that the documents that were used to prove they had WMD included the ones where the US GAVE WMD to Iraq... I mean, yeah they had WMD at some time because we gave 'em the things. 

Consider WHEN this happened:

All this comes before we even finish with Bin Laden.  This comes so close after the towers fell that people didn't question it.  Anyway, it was at the wrong time. 

Ok what was the right time? Lets agree that there was no WMD, since you said that doesn't matter. When was the right time without that consideration? The major connection with the war on terror here was WMD and the possibility of them being passed off to terrorists. As we know there are other regimes that could do this as well, that we could have dealt with. It's fairly easy for me to list off the differences between them and Iraq however, notwithstanding that we possessed an agreement with Iraq that we did not with the other nations. But anyway, if we grant that there was still a time to go in, and I think we should have done it earlier if anything (for humanitarian reasons). There are certainly other countries I think we should help as well, but this one was convenient for the time. I wish that we were more proactive in helping the Iranians with their transistion, but we have to be careful because of past screwups there obviously.

 

Side Facts:

1) A "War on Terror" can never be won.  Whenever stomp out the baddies, you end up with more militant people that survive and you piss off a lot of innocent bystanders  that have great potential to become the next terrorists.

2) Preemptive strikes are wrong. 

Ok, first of all, it cannot be won insofar as you can never get rid of everyone who might blow themselves up. We have murderers, problems in free societies no doubt. But we don't breed terrorism. So I do think insofar as there are countries and societies that do contribute to this, we can defeat (severely limiit) the practice of terrorism by dealing with it's root causes. Unlike others, I do not believe that the root causes are anything that the US has done ultimately, but the way we are scapegoated (along with Israel) as the problem of the region. The truth is their governments are the problem. I believe Democratic arab states will have a better future. Now, we have allies that aren't perfect (The Saudis) but I do believe are getting better. Everything now is a question of time, but I think we are going in the right direction. It is a long run strategy, and much in the same way that the Soviet Union did not fall in a day this will take awhile.

 

I don't think that pre-emptive strikes are absolutely wrong. If we had known a couple days before that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor should we have done nothing? I don't think so. If there is a threat, you should pursue it. Regardless, the situation in Iraq was hardly pre-emption whether you believe in it or not. For one thing, there was no immediate threat to the United States from the country directly. Even if there was WMD that was unlikely, and there was certainly no evidence of impending attack. (No one said this, and when words were used that might make it appear to be so, the time period was always given in multiple years, not days or hours). Iraq was different in that we were attacking a country that had violated a myriad of resolutions, as well as violated a cease fire agreement from a previous conflict that the United States was the involved in. It was contingent upon the Inspectors being allowed complete rights, and the Iraqis to be forthcoming with ALL evidence that they were dismantling their programs, etc. On the contrary this did not occur. Furthermore, the sanctions were weakening, and the money stolen from the programs that were intended for the people were going for the purpose of bribes/military expenditures. This was hardly a good situation. And if we are going to go to consistency, insofar as the logistics work, I think the same considerations are valid in Iran/North Korea as well.

 

questions:

1) What if the world decided to come attack the US because WE have WMD(as we do)?

 

2) What would the US do if another country(say, N Korea) attacked another country (say, S Korea) in a preemptive strike because one thought the other had WMD?  We would fire up the United Nations and do something to stop them.

Ok, there is an inconsistency here but I think for good reason. North Korea is considered a rogue nation. I didn't hear many complaints when India developed nuclear weapons from us. We never sought to prevent them from doing so, but it's a different situation entirely. So while we are inconsistent in what we expect other nations to do, it's based on knowledge of what the leaders/government is like.

 

And, honestly, I don't see France giving up their WMDs, or any other nations whose citizens like to mention that we also have them. There are some we can trust with things and some we cannot.

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

I usually think of myself as somewhat pessimistic, but this statement trumps me

[Child of Flame]

One more fact for the road:

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is why I think an elected monarchy would be an awesome thing. You pick several people who have a brilliant mind, but DOESN'T want that kind of power, and does nothing to actively pursue it. The people elect one of them, they rule until they die, or are taken down by a voter's majority. After all, if an administration ain't broke, why fix it?

 

 

One more fact for the road:

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean Schwartznegger?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Arnie is more of a straight shooter than most politicians I know of, and I'd trust him in office more'n about anyone else; but the same thing stands, just about anyone who wants that kind of power, isn't the kind of person you want in office.

[Morgoth]

Very appropriate to the forthcoming US election, I found this movie. [5MB]

You really must watch it, it's just hilarious!

[Oerwinde]

One more fact for the road:

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

This is why I think an elected monarchy would be an awesome thing. You pick several people who have a brilliant mind, but DOESN'T want that kind of power, and does nothing to actively pursue it. The people elect one of them, they rule until they die, or are taken down by a voter's majority. After all, if an administration ain't broke, why fix it?

 

 

One more fact for the road:

 

Anyone that can get into the presidential election is the type of person that you don't want as president.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean Schwartznegger?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Arnie is more of a straight shooter than most politicians I know of, and I'd trust him in office more'n about anyone else; but the same thing stands, just about anyone who wants that kind of power, isn't the kind of person you want in office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Arnie can't be president. If he does everything will turn out like Demolition man, and Sex will be outlawed!

[Pyronius]

Ok what was the right time?  Lets agree that there was no WMD, since you said that doesn't matter.  When was the right time without that consideration?

There is no right time to go in and destroy Saddam's regime. Frankly, i think they should have simply lifted all those sanctions on Iraq... it would go a long way to mendin the US-Iraq relations. I mean, really, why WOULD saddam go along with all the inspections if they were sanctioning their trades?

 

BTW these kinds of sanctions do not ever hurt the leaders, it only hurts/kills civillians the leaders and rich are the last to be hurt. IMO the sanctions are designed to make people 1)hate the US. 2) Try to revolt against their gov't in the chance that the US will stop the sanctions.

 

Anyway, that is all totally irrelevant. The fact is that the US went in totally on the skirts of 9-11. The only way they could. The scary part is now, ALL military actions seem to be justified by this "war on terror" that was only made possible by 9-11. What BS.

 

Ok, first of all, it cannot be won insofar as you can never get rid of everyone who might blow themselves up. 

Exactly. So stop the war on terror crap.

 

I don't think that pre-emptive strikes are absolutely wrong.  If we had known a couple days before that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor should we have done nothing?  I don't think so. 

No, you contact Japs and tell them you want to talk. Or you gather forces and intercept. Or both. You don't sit there and you don't go drop the A-Bomb on innocents.

 

And what if we THOUGHT or were lead to believe China was going to attack tomorrow? We attack them? I think not. This kind of "strike first before we are attacked" mentality leads to paranoia and war. If the war comes, so be it. Don't start it.

 

Iraq was different in that we were attacking a country that had violated a myriad of resolutions, as well as violated a cease fire agreement from a previous conflict that the United States was the involved in.  It was contingent upon the Inspectors being allowed complete rights, and the Iraqis to be forthcoming with ALL evidence that they were dismantling their programs, etc.  On the contrary this did not occur.

Furthermore, the sanctions were weakening, and the money stolen from the programs that were intended for the people were going for the purpose of bribes/military expenditures.  This was hardly a good situation.  And if we are going to go to consistency, insofar as the logistics work, I think the same considerations are valid in Iran/North Korea as well. 

The violations are UN violations dealt with by UN. WE went against those that made the rules and enforce them. Notice--THE US acted AGAINST the UN in more and greater ways than did Iraq. There is no way you justify the invasion on UN resolutions when we went against the UN to go in.

 

Like I said, the sanctions only hurt the people of Iraq, not Saddam. sanctions weakening?? Great.

 

 

Ok, there is an inconsistency here but I think for good reason.  North Korea is considered a rogue nation.  I didn't hear many complaints when India developed nuclear weapons from us.  We never sought to prevent them from doing so, but it's a different situation entirely.  So while we are inconsistent in what we expect other nations to do, it's based on knowledge of what the leaders/government is like.

I should have left out the examples... the country names were not hand picked or meaningful. Still, like I said, why can WE go and be world police but not allow the same policing by other nations? Its stupid and makes lots of countries mad. Mad people means danger. THus, limit the danger by stopping the double standards.

[Judge Hades]

The US simply needs to mind its own store and not get in the face of other nations' business nor give aid. Americans for Americans first.

 

SUch as we were right to bomb and wipe out the Taliban. We need to focus on AQ and kill Bin Ladin and no country should stand in our way. However Saddam had no AQ ties. Had no WMDs and even if he did have WMDs there was no way he can use them against the US on US soil.

 

If Saddam wanted to kill millions of people in his own country, let him. I rather see American tax dollars building and supporting schools here in the US than in Iraq, which will be bombed out anyway within a week.

[Product of the Cosmos]

"The US simply needs to mind its own store and not get in the face of other nations' business nor give aid. Americans for Americans first."

 

lol. Thats a bit late. We have ****ed over enough nations for 100 years of rightful retribution

 

America the machine was barely ever about Americans. Least for the last hundreds or so years IMO.

[Ecthelion15]

The US simply needs to mind its own store and not get in the face of other nations' business nor give aid.  Americans for Americans first.

 

SUch as we were right to bomb and wipe out the Taliban.  We need to focus on AQ and kill Bin Ladin and no country should stand in our way.  However Saddam had no AQ ties.  Had no WMDs and even if he did have WMDs there was no way he can use them against the US on US soil.

 

If Saddam wanted to kill millions of people in his own country, let him.  I rather see American tax dollars building and supporting schools here in the US than in Iraq, which will be bombed out anyway within a week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me put this in a way you just might understand it: suppose you're a weaker kid in the schoolyard, and there are bullies and whatnot, and they sometimes pick on you. Wouldn't you want the bigger, stronger, more benevolent, boys to help you out when that happens? Because you might stand on your own verbally, but when push comes to shove, you're done. Get the message yet?

Its the same with the U.S. and people around the globe. I'm not saying its a moral obligation, per se, just that its always a good idea to thwart "the bad guys" before they make their way to you.

 

And concerning what someone else said, yes, Saddam DID have WMDs. Since you think he didn't, then why are there irradiated mass graves in Northern Iraq, filled with the bodies of Kurdish prisoners and civilians, their bodies reeking of chemical weapons? Or the fact that in 2003, a platoon discovered several mobile trailers the size of a standard Kenmore Big-Rig, with bioweaponry labs and sterile rooms inside? Or the fact that during Clinton's reign, nearly all the world agreed that Hussein had WMDS, yet when Bush actually does something about it (those 12 U.N. sanctions were completely useless) the world turns its back on the guy doing right? Typical. Thats all these radical liberals and their beloved U.N. seem to be good at: they can talk the talk, yet they never want to walk the walk.

 

BTW, consider this: A standard Bioweapon is the size of briefcase. How easy would it be hide about two or so in a country bigger than California? You could set a 100,000 people looking for it and they would NEVER find it. Yet that doesn't mean its not there.

[Pyronius]

The US simply needs to mind its own store and not get in the face of other nations' business nor give aid.  Americans for Americans first.

 

SUch as we were right to bomb and wipe out the Taliban.  We need to focus on AQ and kill Bin Ladin and no country should stand in our way.  However Saddam had no AQ ties.  Had no WMDs and even if he did have WMDs there was no way he can use them against the US on US soil.

 

If Saddam wanted to kill millions of people in his own country, let him.  I rather see American tax dollars building and supporting schools here in the US than in Iraq, which will be bombed out anyway within a week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me put this in a way you just might understand it: suppose you're a weaker kid in the schoolyard, and there are bullies and whatnot, and they sometimes pick on you. Wouldn't you want the bigger, stronger, more benevolent, boys to help you out when that happens? Because you might stand on your own verbally, but when push comes to shove, you're done. Get the message yet?

Its the same with the U.S. and people around the globe. I'm not saying its a moral obligation, per se, just that its always a good idea to thwart "the bad guys" before they make their way to you.

 

And concerning what someone else said, yes, Saddam DID have WMDs. Since you think he didn't, then why are there irradiated mass graves in Northern Iraq, filled with the bodies of Kurdish prisoners and civilians, their bodies reeking of chemical weapons? Or the fact that in 2003, a platoon discovered several mobile trailers the size of a standard Kenmore Big-Rig, with bioweaponry labs and sterile rooms inside? Or the fact that during Clinton's reign, nearly all the world agreed that Hussein had WMDS, yet when Bush actually does something about it (those 12 U.N. sanctions were completely useless) the world turns its back on the guy doing right? Typical. Thats all these radical liberals and their beloved U.N. seem to be good at: they can talk the talk, yet they never want to walk the walk.

 

BTW, consider this: A standard Bioweapon is the size of briefcase. How easy would it be hide about two or so in a country bigger than California? You could set a 100,000 people looking for it and they would NEVER find it. Yet that doesn't mean its not there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Eh, that country was so scrutinized as far as import export, I doubt many "chemical agents" were developed by them. They may have has some, but it most they had was likely the large amounts of I think it was mustard gas and other chemical weapons that the US gave Iraq back in the day(80s, right?). It hardly is proof of a WMD program even if they actually found some eventually. It is concieveable that some of that load of weapons still exists. Besides, the longer US occupies Iraq, the more chance US has to plant WMD to magically find. It is a testiment to the US's character that they actually haven't found any yet. I hope they wouldn't plant the stuff now, and really dont think they would...but its still very possible.

 

And BTW, you have NO IDEA what Iraq had and did not have. Don't give definitive "they had" when you really have no idea(and neither do I for that matter).

[xanas3712]

Eh, that country was so scrutinized as far as import export, I doubt many "chemical agents" were developed by them. They may have has some, but it most they had was likely the large amounts of I think it was mustard gas and other chemical weapons that the US gave Iraq back in the day(80s, right?). 

This is a completely false. The US never ever armed Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. Even at the most severe the most you could ever say we did as concerns this was provide Iraq with intelligence that allowed them to use the weapons they had developed on their own, and personally, I know that this intelligence was given more for the purposes of general conflict and not said to use specific weapons. In fact, if you look at the infamous "Rumsfeld photo" where hs shakes Saddams hand that was one of the visits he went on partially to say not to use such weapons.

 

Secondarily, a lot of the weapons were produced using dual use chemicals. It really shouldn't be surprising that these weapons use much of the same chemicals as are required for pest control, and things like that. They are not some mysterious thing to develop. Now, they take a lot of refining to get the proper concentrations and they are expensive, but they are certainly nothing magical. They use chemicals that are obtained from sources that can be quite legitimate. The US also, through the CDC had given Iraq samples of Anthrax. Now, if you know anything at all about the weaponization process for Anthrax you know that it's also expensive, and not the easiest thing to accomplish in a fashion that works well. Also, Anthrax is given to many nations for research purposes, and Iraq being an ally at the time and a country that was one of the more developed scientifically in the region had legitimate purposes for that. The fact it could have been used other ways is bad, and we should have kept better track but hardly anything devious.

 

So, we never had any part in arming Saddam with WMD. That is simply and totally untrue. As far as his conventional arsenal goes, any soldier over there now will teill you that the majority of their military technology is French and Russian. I'll have to go search for them, but there is documented evidence to show what different countries had sold, and the US was very insignificant. We didn't even provide weapons but a few police-style helicopters and such. That, intel, and connections was our main involvement. Now, I don't think that's a good thing btw. We supported Saddam far too long, especially once he gassed the Kurds in like 88 sanctions should have been declared. It didn't get through congress, and that is a shame.

 

 

It hardly is proof of a WMD program even if they actually found some eventually. It is concieveable that some of that load of weapons still exists.  Besides, the longer US occupies Iraq, the more chance US has to plant WMD to magically find.  It is a testiment to the US's character that they actually haven't found any yet.  I hope they wouldn't plant the stuff now, and really dont think they would...but its still very possible.

And how will you know if the US does? The problem with this, is if we do find WMD this is what you are going to think. You have a pre-conclusion about the evidence we would find. You know, before the war started a lot of websites were saying that the US would plant WMD to show that it was there. They were wrong of course, but how can this still reasonably be a fear? What could possibly be gained now that couldn't have been better served earlier? This is the same as that really great Bin Laden conspiracy that Bush is going to pull him out right before the election. There is no reason to even bring it up unless there is proof that it occured, because beyond that I think people should start wearing tin foil hats and I don't take them very seriously once this is the first thing they think.

 

And BTW, you have NO IDEA what Iraq had and did not have.  Don't give definitive "they had" when you really have no idea(and neither do I for that matter).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, it depends entirely on what "they had" meant. FIrst of all, we know that Iraq had WMDS at one time. And I KNOW that for a fact because he used them. He had them as late as the gulf war, and after. We know this because the inspection process had a part in destroying much of them early on, as well as the 91 gulf war. Now, that being said, we do know that many of the stocks he had that we were aware of in the 80s/90s were unaccounted for, and we were relatively sure that they weren't destroyed. There were also several occasions were the regime was told by the inspectors to dispose of their weapons with inspectors on site during the disposal, and they did not comply. They "disposed" of them without anyone there to verify the quantity, and though the inspectors could come through and verify that something had been done, they had no way of knowing how much. Now sure, maybe they got rid of everything, but why would they be hiding the diposal operations? Why did they not even attempt to show where they had disposed of many of these weapons when they sent the documents to the UN for reviewal of their weapons program. They just left them out with no explanation. Were inspections working? Well sure, to some extent they were, but they never dealt with the inspections process as they had agreed to. It was up to them to give up everything, not to force us to search for what they may have done. And it's only logical to assume that someone who is hiding something actually HAS something to hide. Now, some have rightly said maybe they were pretending to hide so that they could keep us from attacking them. All I can say is, that would be pretty stupid if true, but I think Saddam is a nut so maybe.

 

Regardless, it's also possible that the weapons just haven't been found because of the fact they wouldn't be that difficult to hide. And it's possible that they were moved to Syria, etc. This is hardly vindication for what we have said would be there, but given the actions of the regime it was reasonable to assume, since all major intelligence agencies were confirming it, that there were still some WMD in Iraq. There were certainly still programs that were being held back for a time till the sanctions were pulled back a bit. I really don't think that would have gone forever. Of those who say they wanted "more time" I only ask this. If more time had been taken, it's no trouble for me to note that the inspectors would have found nothing. Then the world would have said.. why attack Iraq? It would have been even more difficult for the US to gather support, because the same reasons for denial would be there. Inevitably, since some countries were already violating the sanctions, it would be wondered why they were still there at all. With the inspection process ended and sanctions removed the weapons would have started to develop again. I have absolutely no doubt of this. The amount of time it would have taken to develop chemical weapons from that point would only have been about 6 months (according to the estimates I've heard). All of this is hypothetical, but reasonable IMO. And that coupled with the fact that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of so many, along with Saddam in my mind was all the reason to get rid of him. I just wish we had done it in 92.

[Rhomal]

> He didn't do nothing. He did very little. A difference, but a minor one.

 

Blowing up terrorist training camps and stopping a terrorist attack in CA during the new year 2000 celebartions is 'very little'? I guess the only way in your eyes to be 'strong' on terrorism is to start invading countries that cant possibly defend themsevles.

 

As far as bush jr is concerned... something from the news wire today..

 

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that a top level CIA report showing the Bush administration blind to the threat of Al Qaeda before 9/11 has been suppressed by the Bush administration

 

The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago. 'It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,' an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward.

 

 

Hes not saving grace from terrorism either apparently.

 

> No one said he had the technology to launch a missle. What has always been postulated is that if he had the weapons he'd hand them off to others to do the job. The only people he could attack in the regoin would be the Israeli's, Kuwait, or his own people.

 

So? Isnt that the regions job to deal with him? If he was such a real thread dont you think the more moderate middle east countries would have been seriously concerned? When central america was bady destabilized in the 80's did italy start invading countries? No the world let the people in the region deal with it. (the us, canada and mexico). Same should have been here. He was not a threat, period and we stuck out nose too deeply in something we had no business to

 

> The UN was doing it's job so well wasn't it. Do you know how many Billions of dollars (since you love talking about that on Bush's buddies) that were stolen by Hussein and sent in bribes to the officials in the UN? *snip*

 

Again, so? You can try to squirm you way and spin it all you want. The bottom line is: a. he was not a threat to us and b. he could not harm america. End of story.

 

> Not sure what you are referring to here?

 

If bush should be inpeached for lying/deceiving congress.

 

> Surpluses are not good, they are sign of overtaxation.

 

You need to go beyond your 101 econ course. Its a much more complex issue then 'overtaxation'. Thats just a repub talking point to downplay a good economy. I suppose in your opinion driving us into the larget deficit in history is good policy too.

 

> But the balanced budget itself was done because of the Republican congress. Clinton didn't stand in the way, however, but he deserves no credit for creating that agenda. He did not.

 

What short term memory you have. He was on his soap box talking about reducing the deficit during the primaries and his run agaisnt bush sr. back in 91/92. Congress had little choice but to follow along with it as if they didnt it would have been political suicide for the newly controled congress to show inaction on a faultering economy.

 

> Modern liberals can hardly be easily compared to some of those you reference. Yes they created welfare programs but they certainly were not all against traditional values, etc.

 

Who is agaisnt 'traditional values'? And liberal democrats are the ones who pushed/got done everything I mentioned.

 

> Reagan was a great president in his own right, but sadly even at this point still too controversial I doubt you'd admit any of his successes yourself.

 

His presidency had mixed results. I do give him credit for driving the USSR to the ground by outspending them. OTOH that policy left deficts for bush sr and clinton to fix. Then theres the iran/contra affair.

 

> Lets not forget that Kennedy is to blame for escalating the Vietnam war to some extent as well, and the whole bay of pigs situation.

 

I think if anyones to blame for it its LBJ more then JFK.

 

> All presidents have their successes and failures.

 

I dont disgaree. But unlike the repubs I look at both sides rather then one. (ie I have not heard you say one good thing about clinton, rather just repub talking points) Tho I have a difficult time finding something good about bush jr honestly. Perhaps you can list what he has done on the level of JFK, FDR, Clinton?

 

> What aspects of the economy does a president have control over? You say you don't count everything against Bush and then you use that liberal talking point about lost jobs.

 

His budgets, taxes and various policies/initiatives can all effect the economy for good or ill. Compleate control? No. But they can and do certainly have a noticable effect.

 

Its not a talking point, its a fact.. you know.. those little things you repubs like to look away from?

[Pyronius]

I would certainly NOT automatically assume any WMD's were planted. However, It is certainly a possibility. Like i said, I doubt the US would ever do that, but it is a possibility.

 

I apologise about the "we armed Iraq" thing. I don't know that as a fact. As of today I cannot find records of it from reliable sources. The best I have now is a scotland newspaper. I am not ure about their integrity, even though they don't look like crazy conspiracy ppl. I don't find conspiracy theorist sites reliable, despite my views(no I am not a conspiracy theorist).

 

In any case, US sanctions have indeed hurt and killed Iraqi citizens. Also, its pretty safe to say that the US has killed many times the number of civillians killed in 9-11 during its attacks on military targets. in Iraq especially, but also in Afghanistan.

 

It is never worth it to kill civilians to get at the 'bad guys'. I mean, if that was done in the US borders, people would not accept it. Its not worth it. Do not come back at that... If you think that many Iraqi/Afghani civilian lives were worth killing a terrorists, then I'd rather not know. Sad day.