Bush Is A Good President

[Farnan 0]

Just remember somebody may know something that you don't.

Source, please? And it cannot be links to newsmax.com or foxnews.com.

[cemo76 0]

THis is For BALLON GUY or SHOULD I SAY BALLON BELLY. First and Foremost, Don't Involve Turkey in this Debate. We did not condone nor take part in any military action against Iraq. We also refuzed to allow use of our borders to enter Iraq. Turkey is Like Canada, we are with USA against Terrorism but against the Iraqi Occupation. Secondly you must be a PEA BRAIN, to say that Soccer is a joke. You are the Joke my Friend. Soccer is the most Beautiful game on earth. It takes Brains, Stamina, Strength, Skill, Cordination, Balance, Speed and Agility. Something YOUR fat *** hitting the golf ball would Know nothing ABOUT!

[Balloon guy 158]

THis is For BALLON GUY or SHOULD I SAY BALLON BELLY. First and Foremost, Don't Involve Turkey in this Debate. We did not condone nor take part in any military action against Iraq. We also refuzed to allow use of our borders to enter Iraq. Turkey is Like Canada, we are with USA against Terrorism but against the Iraqi Occupation. Secondly you must be a PEA BRAIN, to say that Soccer is a joke. You are the Joke my Friend. Soccer is the most Beautiful game on earth. It takes Brains, Stamina, Strength, Skill, Cordination, Balance, Speed and Agility. Something YOUR fat *** hitting the golf ball would Know nothing ABOUT!

I'm not that fat. Okay a little fat.America will never be interested in soccer, too few goals and we prefer to destroy our hometowns when our team wins, not the stadium where they are going to play next time. priorities man.

[Domer14 0]

The core issue is that being 'wrong' about starting a bloody war is pretty f'ing bad. The Intelligence community has also proven that they gave the administration plenty of information that showed they were nowhere near certitude regarding Saddam's weapons programs.

Well, unfortunately, that was proved a long time after giving their information. However, no one obviously knows what exact information Bush received. What IS known is that Iraq had been tampering with WMD's since the early 80's. Any one willing to look at the facts can come to a conclusion that A) Saddam probaly had WMD's and B Even if he didn't at that PRESENT time, he would not be disinclined with tampering with them again.In the early 1980's Saddam used Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas, and other banned chemical weapons on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War. Over 100,000 Iranian soldiers died from these chemical weapons and in today's world, Iran is second in those afflicted from attacks by weapons of mass destruction, trailing only Japan who is still suffering from our A-Bomb. In the late 1980's, Iraq launched a chemical weapons attack against the Kurds in Northern Iraq killing 4000+ civilians. Inspections by the UN in the early 1990's discoverd a MASSIVE plan for building chemical and nuclear weapons, plus a ton of equipment involved in their developments. In 1995, Iraq imported 39 tons of growth medium into Iraq which can be used for anthrax and other harmful toxins. Medically, it used in hospitals for studying patient bacteria. The funny thing was that Iraq's hospitals only consumed on average 200 kg a year of growth medium. In the latter part of the 90's, the U.N. was refused numerous times from inspecting various parts of Iraq. 1998 ended all Iraq inspections. It seems to me that 4-6 years is plent of time to transfer weapons out of the country. Sorry for the Iraqi history lesson, but refusing to think that Iraq had weapons or even the capability is ignorant in face of Saddam's history.

How many people should die before we give a damn? I don't know, ask the Rwandans. Ask the Bosnians. Ask the Sudanese. Or did you mean how many people that we give a damn about should die before we act?

It is a shame that we did not help the Rwandans or the Sudanese, but neither did anyone else. It is it America's responsibility to be the "World Police?" Comparing Iraq to your other examples is wrong, or at least at the time, because we thought Iraq posed a direct threat to our safety, unlike radical Hutus in Rwanda.

You mean, there were lots of people who saw the same intelligence report as Bush, but not all of the intelligence reports that Bush saw? Frankly I don't give a sh!t whether he lied or was wrong. Either way, that's pretty f***ing stupid to go to war and lose Americans' lives on a goof.

Very contradictory post. If you thought he lied than fine, but if he actually had reports on Iraq having WMD's than he definitely should have invaded Iraq without UN permission. Losing American lives on a goof is a lot better risk to take than losing millions of lives on a nuke that slips past customs and hits a major city. Put yourself in Bush's shoes. If you don't go to war after hearing Iraq has WMD's, and a WMD's explodes in a major American city, and you KNEW about it....Think of the public backlash. Bush would be impeached on the spot. In my opinion, Bush was in a lose-lose situation. If I was you I would be more upset over the lack of border security than by invading Iraq. Invading Iraq is all well and good, but Bush is being extremely hypocritical in the sense that he goes to war, but does not put an end to a very real and serious threat in our border. The border is a catch-22 though. Bush can't shut the border anyway because the Republican Party would never allow it. He shuts the border and the Republicans lose a great majority of the Latino vote. Unfortuantely, a Democratic president would not do anything differenty which is why our political system has some major problems. Both sides of the political spectrum our more worried about their standing in politics than the security of our country.

[Farnan 0]

It is a shame that we did not help the Rwandans or the Sudanese, but neither did anyone else. It is it America's responsibility to be the "World Police?" Comparing Iraq to your other examples is wrong, or at least at the time, because we thought Iraq posed a direct threat to our safety, unlike radical Hutus in Rwanda.

It is a shame. And what is more of a shame is that we ignore a humanitarian threat much much greater than what was the case with Iraq--and yet, we still have people saying this is some sort of humanitarian mission on the part of the US. You cannot argue a justification like this and ignore other countries that have the same problem, but much much worse. It is like saying you want to help kids cross the street--you help a kid who has his arm broken cross the street while leaving the kid in the wheelchair who doesn't have any arms to fend for himself--all while saying "hey, i can't help everyone!". The point being, we didn't go in there for humanitarian reasons---we are just revising history in an attempt to find a valid justification for this war. During the run-up to the war--Iraq was marketed to us as an imminent threat requiring swift military action. Now that we didn't find anything CLOSE to a weapon's program that anyone would deem a threat (not to mention a military that was better at pissing themselves than shooting a rifle)---we've changed our justification to that of a humanitarian nature.As far as thinking Iraq Iraq was a threat---everyone keeps pointing to SH's actions 10-20 years ago. BEFORE sanctions. BEFORE watching him like a hawk. BEFORE containment. BEFORE weapons inspections. We cannot solely rely on the actions of the past for a justification for war when there is not any evidence that those actions are continuing. Otherwise we could look at Japan, Russia, Germany, etc. to see them as threats because of the previous actions those countries took. Hell, if we are looking at past actions, we're the only nuclear threat in the world considering we're the only country to actually USE a nuclear weapon.If we go into a country on nothing more than a gut feeling that they're a threat (i.e. without hard evidence)---and your gut feeling turns out to be wrong, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE for that incorrect "gut" feeling. Considering GWB comes from the party of "personal responsibility", he sure does avoid taking responsibilty and awful lot.

[76clubs 0]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, obviously, but mine is clear: this is the worst president the country has ever had in my lifetime. The damage he is doing to this country's world view will take decades to repair, if ever. If the election happened anywhere but in the U.S. Bush would not have won 30% of the vote. It boggles my mind, that he made one of the worst and most crucial mistakes to attack an innocent country and yet, he was re-elected. I don't really want to get into a big political debate here, but let's just agree to disagree. There are so many areas outside of the war that I feel like the president is oblivious too.

i love you danieland i mean that in a very straight way

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

i ahve accually been pro bush ever since he came into power, nice to see im not the only one

It is a shame. And what is more of a shame is that we ignore a humanitarian threat much much greater than what was the case with Iraq--and yet, we still have people saying this is some sort of humanitarian mission on the part of the US. You cannot argue a justification like this and ignore other countries that have the same problem, but much much worse. It is like saying you want to help kids cross the street--you help a kid who has his arm broken cross the street while leaving the kid in the wheelchair who doesn't have any arms to fend for himself--all while saying "hey, i can't help everyone!". The point being, we didn't go in there for humanitarian reasons---we are just revising history in an attempt to find a valid justification for this war. During the run-up to the war--Iraq was marketed to us as an imminent threat requiring swift military action. Now that we didn't find anything CLOSE to a weapon's program that anyone would deem a threat (not to mention a military that was better at pissing themselves than shooting a rifle)---we've changed our justification to that of a humanitarian nature.As far as thinking Iraq Iraq was a threat---everyone keeps pointing to SH's actions 10-20 years ago. BEFORE sanctions. BEFORE watching him like a hawk. BEFORE containment. BEFORE weapons inspections. We cannot solely rely on the actions of the past for a justification for war when there is not any evidence that those actions are continuing. Otherwise we could look at Japan, Russia, Germany, etc. to see them as threats because of the previous actions those countries took. Hell, if we are looking at past actions, we're the only nuclear threat in the world considering we're the only country to actually USE a nuclear weapon.If we go into a country on nothing more than a gut feeling that they're a threat (i.e. without hard evidence)---and your gut feeling turns out to be wrong, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE for that incorrect "gut" feeling. Considering GWB comes from the party of "personal responsibility", he sure does avoid taking responsibilty and awful lot.

just a gut feeling? u gotta stop falling for the media mate, ur screwed in the head

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

When I say innocent, I mean Iraq and Saddam didn't attack us- Bin Laden did. I think the elder Bush was justified in going to war with Iraq, but since that ship sailed and all was supposedly worked out, the U.S. went to war on Iraq for no legitimate reason.

also sorry to break balls man but no legit reason?we have a moral obligation to help people who are in need, as a Christian i hope you understand this. Saddam was literally killing people in the street, millions of people died at the hands of his orders. He is a wicked man.Granted it is terrible that many people died when the US invaded, that is terrible.But this is nothing compared to how many would have been killed between the time Iraq was invaded and now.i find it uncool how so many people say that we have no legit reason to be at war with iraq.And for all you people who say that Bush is only in iraq for oil.... nup.there has been no documented improtation or deportation of oil from iraq by the US for a long time. say what you want but it is all false.again sorry to break balls and if you ever want to play some poker i'd own u in razz ... i wish lol

[mrdannyg 274]

also sorry to break balls man but no legit reason?we have a moral obligation to help people who are in need, as a Christian i hope you understand this. Saddam was literally killing people in the street, millions of people died at the hands of his orders. He is a wicked man.Granted it is terrible that many people died when the US invaded, that is terrible.But this is nothing compared to how many would have been killed between the time Iraq was invaded and now.i find it uncool how so many people say that we have no legit reason to be at war with iraq.And for all you people who say that Bush is only in iraq for oil.... nup.there has been no documented improtation or deportation of oil from iraq by the US for a long time. say what you want but it is all false.again sorry to break balls and if you ever want to play some poker i'd own u in razz ... i wish lol

as has been said before, the US is simply not altruistic. they are not in Iraq just for oil, but don't be misled that they are there for moral or other similar reasons. They are there for their own benefit, though those benefits are not always direct or straightforward.As for the oil, I'm not sure what improtation is (importation?) but no one is suggesting the US would simply take over the country and steal the oil. Any oil-related benefits would be more subversive, such as affecting a lower price and/or more consistent supply. That has already taken place, but as I said is not the only or main reason for them being there.But don't be mistaken, they are not altruistic.And to the above poster who questioned the US' role as "World Police" - they are the World Police. Through political and economic actions they have taken this role upon themselves. In the past they did this more subversively and helpfully, as opposed to near-colonization and annexation like they are currently doing. For instance after WWII, the United States almost single-handedly brought the world's economy and many individual countries back to normal extremely quickly.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

what benifit of their own do they have from being there?how are they not there for any other reason than noble reason?also ALOT of people are saying that they are there for oil only, read the news its all over it.i find it funny that people say that bush is hungrey and that he wants oil to get rich, when bush would not be gaining any wealth himself from oil importation.

[Farnan 0]

just a gut feeling? u gotta stop falling for the media mate, ur screwed in the head

You missed the point and got lost in the hyperbole. The point i was making was that we DIDN'T have hard evidence and we KNEW IT (that is why we were given a very one-sided presentation on the evidence--of which most of it was false or misleading). Besides the fact we didn't have hard evidence, the administration THOUGHT there was evidence out there, somewhere. But, as it turns out, SH was a piss-ant of a threat, fresh out of WMD and entire debacle cost us more money than we can print.I don't give a crap what your intentions were, if you go out on a limb without hard evidence and you're not only wrong, you get the country in a big cluster-**** of a mess----well, that squarely falls within the definition of culpable conduct.If that qualifies me as being "screwed in the head" or "falling for the media"--well then so be it. So you can quit the condecending retort. If you disagree with me--tell me why--don't just say i'm screwed in the head and leave it at that.

what benifit of their own do they have from being there?how are they not there for any other reason than noble reason?

If we were out for strictly noble, altruistic reasons--we'd be in Darfur first. But leaving aside all of the other extremely troubled, civil war ravaged, oppressive regimes that are througout Africa---there are several reasons why we're in Iraq.1. GWB thought there were WMD (though he was wrong)2. There is a **** ton of oil down there and we don't want anti-american governments controlling that much oil--hell, Iran and Venezuela already hate us. (this isn't a major reason--its barely icing on the cake, really)3. Having several bases in Iraq gives us a solid footprint in the Middle East--in case Iran, Syria, etc. start to act up. It is the perfect strategic military location. On top of that our ships can keep an eye on the gulf and other navagable areas. (this is a pretty big one)4. We wanted to prevent oil from converting its transaction currency to the Euro--and this is probably the biggest one--which would cause a 25-40 percent drop in our currency value.But we are NOT an altruistic nation. Kind- sometimes, giving- yes, but altruistic? Not very often.

[Domer14 0]

But don't be mistaken, they are not altruistic.And to the above poster who questioned the US' role as "World Police" - they are the World Police. Through political and economic actions they have taken this role upon themselves. In the past they did this more subversively and helpfully, as opposed to near-colonization and annexation like they are currently doing. For instance after WWII, the United States almost single-handedly brought the world's economy and many individual countries back to normal extremely quickly.

If we were the "world police" we would be in Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. so no we are not the World Police, at least not yet.I'm not sure any country is altruistic. Non-altruism is a byproduct of the world we live in. And while near-colonization and annexation seems hyperbolic to me, the Iraqi people, the ones who could drive out the American forces if they wanted to, are embracing Democracy for the most part. Sure there are those who believe anti-American propaganda, but the majority of Iraqis relish our presence there as seen through their willingness to participate in democratic elections. This is proved through the fact that a GREATER percentage of Iraqis voted in their elections than Americans in their OWN election.

The point i was making was that we DIDN'T have hard evidence and we KNEW IT

He knew it? How would you know? The fact is they thought he had WMD's and acted. That statement sounds like it is straight from Michael Moore.

I don't give a crap what your intentions were, if you go out on a limb without hard evidence and you're not only wrong, you get the country in a big cluster-**** of a mess----well, that squarely falls within the definition of culpable conduct.

And if you don't go in with evidence and you're wrong, you are impeached and the country is shambles. And I'm curious as to how Iraq put our country into a mess? If anything, as seen throughout history, wars boost the economy, not dectract from it. Also, the economy was in a mess before Bush took office. I actually don't think this was Clinton's fault either, however, it is fact that the country was on the way down 6 months before Bush took office. Not to mention 9/11 and the stock market plummet due to Enron and you got yourself a crappy economy. Funny thing is though, is that now that our economy is doing well again, no one accredits this to the president and his administration.

3. Having several bases in Iraq gives us a solid footprint in the Middle East--in case Iran, Syria, etc. start to act up. It is the perfect strategic military location. On top of that our ships can keep an eye on the gulf and other navagable areas. (this is a pretty big one)

That's one of the reasons why I'm glad we're there. The Middle East powderkeg is ready to explode and order is a necessity.

4. We wanted to prevent oil from converting its transaction currency to the Euro--and this is probably the biggest one--which would cause a 25-40 percent drop in our currency value.

Curious as to your facts on this.

But we are NOT an altruistic nation. Kind- sometimes, giving- yes, but altruistic? Not very often.

Can you name me a major world power that is altruistic? Or one that is more giving than us? Surely not Russia, France, Germany or China.

[mrdannyg 274]

If we were the "world police" we would be in Sudan, Rwanda, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. so no we are not the World Police, at least not yet.I'm not sure any country is altruistic. Non-altruism is a byproduct of the world we live in. And while near-colonization and annexation seems hyperbolic to me, the Iraqi people, the ones who could drive out the American forces if they wanted to, are embracing Democracy for the most part. Sure there are those who believe anti-American propaganda, but the majority of Iraqis relish our presence there as seen through their willingness to participate in democratic elections. This is proved through the fact that a GREATER percentage of Iraqis voted in their elections than Americans in their OWN election. I think this was in response to my post, so I'll just say that I agree and that you make good arguments.The US is not actually world police, but many of its actions have indicated they would like to do so (at their convenience). This is not due to altruism, but because it is the most benefit to the US to be able to do so.As you said though, no country is altruistic. While some country's populations might be more interested in helping others (i.e. Canada) than working for their own benefit, that's merely a product of the preferences of the population. I think many would agree that American citizens are some of the least altruistic people. However many non-altruistic people could argue altruisim is not necessarily a virtue.I did exaggerate, but many Americans believe, or at least argue, that the actions of the American government are at the base, altruistic. We agree that this is not the case, so i'm happy.

[Eclypse 0]

...ALOT of people are saying that they are there for oil only, read the news its all over it.

Like most right-wing nutjobs, you just make stuff up. Show me one legitimate news source that said that the ONLY reason we went to war was for oil.It blows my mind that you guys make claims like this and expect people to believe it.

[Farnan 0]

He knew it? How would you know? The fact is they thought he had WMD's and acted. That statement sounds like it is straight from Michael Moore.

Please spare me the michael moore comment. They most certainly thought he had WMD--but they didn't have the hard intelligence to prove it. That is what i'm saying. The aluminum tubes they trumpeted as being "proof" that he was looking to enrich uranium--hysterical that they even put that out considering they're "dual-use" nature and the fact that they'd need HUNDREDS of centrifuges to take something like a year to make enough enriched uranium for 1 bomb. Then there was the infamous yellow-cake story that was debunked BEFORE the state of the union address. Oh, then there was the story about Mohammad Atta meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Europe. That was retracted immediately. Then there were those "mobile chemical weapons labs" that were a total joke. Or maybe it was all of the "other" evidence that was too secret to divulge. You know--whenever they were asked for specifics, we'd always play the national security card? Yeah, well if any of that actually existed, we would have found it RIGHT AWAY (you'd think the first place you'd go are the super secret sites that they 'knew' bout). But no, we didn't find ****--and they KNEW this "other" information didn't exist (though they made it look like they did). If i had a dollar for every time i heard out of some hawk's mouth "and that is just the information they're telling us... imagine what they can't tell us!!!" Despite all of this "evidence" half was unverifiable (and quickly thereafter debunked) and the other half was outright bullshit---yet they played their hand like they were holding a monster. It was ALL marketing. It was all a mass effort to CONVINCE the public of the need for war, regardless of what the evidence showed. All because they THOUGHT there was WMD. Get what i'm saying here?

And if you don't go in with evidence and you're wrong, you are impeached and the country is shambles. And I'm curious as to how Iraq put our country into a mess? If anything, as seen throughout history, wars boost the economy, not dectract from it. Also, the economy was in a mess before Bush took office. I actually don't think this was Clinton's fault either, however, it is fact that the country was on the way down 6 months before Bush took office. Not to mention 9/11 and the stock market plummet due to Enron and you got yourself a crappy economy. Funny thing is though, is that now that our economy is doing well again, no one accredits this to the president and his administration.

I don't buy the "can't take the chance, so lets kill em anyways" argument. You don't go starting wars unless you have the necessary justification. It is much too destablizing.You think that this war has been positive for this country? We're about to spend 1 TRILLION dollars on this mess. We're going to have a country that is run by peopel who aren't going to like us, let alone support our interests. Hell, we've had to exercise crazy political pressure just to keep some Christian from getting KILLED in afghanistan, just because he believes in jesus. Just wait until we get to do in Iraq what we've done in afghanistan. It'll be our country's greatest achievement in "how to make a big ****ing mess in 8 short years".You think this economy is doing "well"?? Do you realize we've SPENT our way out of a recession? Do you realize that it was the INTEREST rates that keep us afloat? Do you understand what medicare and healthcare in general is doing to our businesses? Do you understand that we're losing not only manufacturing jobs overseas, but now tech jobs? Do you understand that we have a serious immigration problem that eats up jobs in factories across the west and midwest?The problem is, we are in a holding pattern. Things arent' great, but they aren't bad. We're dumping all this money into Iraq which is nothing less than FUBAR. And this distracts us from OUR problems--healthcare, job losses, immigration, etc.--and all these problems we cannot afford to fix--partly because we're dumping hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in that money pitt called Iraq.I am well aware of the problems 9/11, enron, etc. caused the economy. Personally i think it just fast-forwarded an eventual recession. But to take 5 years to get out of it is too ****ing long by most standards. Hell, that is the basic business cycle---i doubt the president can take credit for that. It is the lengths of the highs and the lengths of the lows that make the difference. I don't see anything except for a tax cut and crossing his fingers and waiting--not much credit to hand out there.

Curious as to your facts on this.

Background:http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.aspThen just search around the internet. It is a pretty common argument for this war---not sure if it isn't a decent reason to tell you the truth---but you can't, in the world's eyes, start wars over something like this.And as far as your altruistic comments--i agree that no other country is altruistic. I'm not saying we are or should be. I only mention that because "installing a democracy and freeing the Iraqi people" is NOT why we're there. It was done for strategic reasons--both military and economic. Now while i don't agree with going to war for this reason, if you are going to do it--DO IT RIGHT. This operation was bumbled since the fall of baghdad.

[Domer14 0]

I apologize about the Michael Moore comment. He is an entirely different entity and no one deserves comparison to him any form or fashion. Good points though on medicare and our outsourcing problem. I still agree with the decision to go in to Iraq, but I will agree to disagree with you.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

to farnan..again you are wrong.we had no hard evidence, of course we did. even if we didnt, when a man who has got alot of power behind him, alot of people willing to die for him starts telling people to openly attack the western world and to destroy all the people living in the western world, you dont take that lightly, especially when this man is bin laden.and again we do have hard evidence, they openly told people to destroy us in the name of allah.also, the US sold weapons of mass destruction. these large bombs dont just disappear like that mate. but of course they pose no threat to us with leaders telling people to attack the western world, and they have BIG *** BOMBS.not somthing to be taken lightly.so next time before you post think about what you are posting, and dont listen to everything the media says, as i stated before.cheers mate

[blueodum 0]

Moral obligation to help people? Why don't you start with the homeless and people who live in slums in your own country.So the US decides that the Iraqi people need help. Nevermind that they didn't ask for your help and basically nobody in the country was in favor of a US-led invasion at the time. And say, isn't it great how you've "helped" Iraqis - that country is a barrel of laughs right now.but the majority of Iraqis relish our presence there as seen through their willingness to participate in democratic elections.This is gibberish. They like the IDEA of democracy but they hate the occupation. No nation on Earth has ever liked occupation by a foreign power.

[cu in 4years Dan 1]

Moral obligation to help people? Why don't you start with the homeless and people who live in slums in your own country.So the US decides that the Iraqi people need help. Nevermind that they didn't ask for your help and basically nobody in the country was in favor of a US-led invasion at the time. And say, isn't it great how you've "helped" Iraqis - that country is a barrel of laughs right now.but the majority of Iraqis relish our presence there as seen through their willingness to participate in democratic elections.This is gibberish. They like the IDEA of democracy but they hate the occupation. No nation on Earth has ever liked occupation by a foreign power.

do you have a clue?the vast majority of the iraq nation WANT the US to be there.you think they like being killed and tortured every day? you think they like seeing people blow up in the streets time and time again?you are a sucker to the media, a sucker to good advertisment, sound to me like you make 1 heck of a poker player (sarcasm).also if you knew anything about US government you would not be saying this.It is the job of the different governments throughout the different cities and states to look after its people, to give care for the needy.Bush and the like have got alot more pressing issues to take care of.people always pull this argument of "what about the homeless" out of their ***'s without accaully knowing what they are talking about.its the same with what happened in New Orleans.everyone was blaming Bush for not going quickly, Kanye West even said on national television that bush hates black people and this is all his fault.Bush cannot be blamed for what happened there. thats the reason why they have other people to govern the different states.i find it funny that im not even from the US and yet i seem to know more about your politics than most of the people who live there.

[rakethetablemoe 0]

Time for a REVOLUTION.We need a good one every four years.Independant - Bush Basher.

[Farnan 0]

to farnan..again you are wrong.we had no hard evidence, of course we did. even if we didn’t, when a man who has got a lot of power behind him, a lot of people willing to die for him starts telling people to openly attack the western world and to destroy all the people living in the western world, you don’t take that lightly, especially when this man is bin laden.

When did SH tell people to openly attack the western world? Bin Laden? We're talking about Saddam Hussein. Different people, different countries, different wars. I supported the Afghanistan war.

and again we do have hard evidence, they openly told people to destroy us in the name of allah.

SH did? Really? Well if we're going to call telling people to destroy us justification for war---we've got a LOOOOOONG list of countries to attack. So you'd better go sign up for the military--we're going to need the help.

also, the US sold weapons of mass destruction. these large bombs don’t just disappear like that mate.

Ok, now i'm lost. What in the world are you talking about?

but of course they pose no threat to us with leaders telling people to attack the western world, and they have BIG *** BOMBS.not something to be taken lightly.

Iraq had "big ****ing bombs"? And they were so big and so deadly that we took out that country in, what, 2 weeks? Again, i have absolutely no idea what you're trying to get at here.

so next time before you post think about what you are posting, and don’t listen to everything the media says, as i stated before.cheers mate

Ditto. Half of what you said barely had any semblance of a coherent argument. The other half was about Bin Laden. The fact that you are telling ME to think first about what i'm posting is fricken hilarious. On top of that, after all of the nonsensical ramblings, you trumpet the current talking points by accusing me of believing the big bad liberal media too much? Classic. I listen to all forms of media. The good, the bad, the indifferent. And i process that information with my experiences and world view and come up with my own perspective of what is really going on in this world. You can think what you like about where i get my information, etc. but judging by the arguments you offer in your posts, you are in no position to question my sources.Since you offered some advice at the end of your post, i'll offer the same in return:Open your eyes and see the world for what it is. The media isn't 100% right, BUT it isn't 100% wrong either. Don't just find information that reinforces your beliefs--you won't grow or learn. And most importantly, don't be distracted by the shiny ball of aluminum foil the current administration has been tossing around to distract everyone---keep your eye on what is important... RESULTS.

[Steppin Razor 0]

Well, unfortunately, that was proved a long time after giving their information. However, no one obviously knows what exact information Bush received. What IS known is that Iraq had been tampering with WMD's since the early 80's. Any one willing to look at the facts can come to a conclusion that A) Saddam probaly had WMD's and B Even if he didn't at that PRESENT time, he would not be disinclined with tampering with them again.

Unfortunate? Several of the intelligence community have come forth with documents the President saw suggesting the WMD program was not going on, and/or there was no consensus that WMD's were being developed. I've even seen on the news Intelligence officers who thought the aluminum tube reports Bush sent Powell to the UN with were extremely unreliable.

In the early 1980's Saddam used Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas, and other banned chemical weapons on the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War. Over 100,000 Iranian soldiers died from these chemical weapons and in today's world, Iran is second in those afflicted from attacks by weapons of mass destruction, trailing only Japan who is still suffering from our A-Bomb. In the late 1980's, Iraq launched a chemical weapons attack against the Kurds in Northern Iraq killing 4000+ civilians. Inspections by the UN in the early 1990's discoverd a MASSIVE plan for building chemical and nuclear weapons, plus a ton of equipment involved in their developments. In 1995, Iraq imported 39 tons of growth medium into Iraq which can be used for anthrax and other harmful toxins. Medically, it used in hospitals for studying patient bacteria. The funny thing was that Iraq's hospitals only consumed on average 200 kg a year of growth medium. In the latter part of the 90's, the U.N. was refused numerous times from inspecting various parts of Iraq. 1998 ended all Iraq inspections. It seems to me that 4-6 years is plent of time to transfer weapons out of the country. Sorry for the Iraqi history lesson, but refusing to think that Iraq had weapons or even the capability is ignorant in face of Saddam's history.

I don't need an Iraqi history lesson. I know that Sadam's weapons came from the USA. I know that he used chemical weapons in the past and that doing something 20 years ago doesn't automatically mean he's doing it now.

It is a shame that we did not help the Rwandans or the Sudanese, but neither did anyone else. It is it America's responsibility to be the "World Police?" Comparing Iraq to your other examples is wrong, or at least at the time, because we thought Iraq posed a direct threat to our safety, unlike radical Hutus in Rwanda.

I was addressing Trail Boss Mitch's 'how many people have to die' comment. IMO, America has taken on the burden of 'world police' voluntarily and should relinquish it.But, the Administration would argue with you. Their whole point was that Iraq did NOT pose a direct threat. That we as a country reserve the right of preemptive action despite no direct threat.

Very contradictory post. If you thought he lied than fine, but if he actually had reports on Iraq having WMD's than he definitely should have invaded Iraq without UN permission. Losing American lives on a goof is a lot better risk to take than losing millions of lives on a nuke that slips past customs and hits a major city. Put yourself in Bush's shoes. If you don't go to war after hearing Iraq has WMD's, and a WMD's explodes in a major American city, and you KNEW about it....Think of the public backlash. Bush would be impeached on the spot. In my opinion, Bush was in a lose-lose situation.

It's not contradictory. Starting a war because 'it looked like they probably have something' is bullsh**. You may be fine with losing lives on a goof, but I much prefer not throwing lives away on a guess.The clever thing here is that the Bush administration picked a pretext that has no defense. You can't prove a negative. I read an article about how Saddam was tearing his hair out trying to figure out how he could prove he didn't have any. He can't.

If I was you I would be more upset over the lack of border security than by invading Iraq. Invading Iraq is all well and good, but Bush is being extremely hypocritical in the sense that he goes to war, but does not put an end to a very real and serious threat in our border. The border is a catch-22 though. Bush can't shut the border anyway because the Republican Party would never allow it. He shuts the border and the Republicans lose a great majority of the Latino vote. Unfortuantely, a Democratic president would not do anything differenty which is why our political system has some major problems. Both sides of the political spectrum our more worried about their standing in politics than the security of our country.

Border security is a waste of resources. No one can secure a long border. If you want to stop illegal immigration, there's only one thing you can do. People don't want to run the border. They have to because they are poor. Help them with opportunity at home and they won't want to come here.

[Steppin Razor 0]

what benifit of their own do they have from being there?how are they not there for any other reason than noble reason?

You're kidding, right? Where do you think the trillion dollars for the war is going? Iraq? hahahaHalliburton is making a killing on this war. Halliburton makes money on logistics, oil well repairs, selling fuel in Iraq, and 're-building' contracts. Every Defense supplier makes tens of millions of dollars off of war. You know how much an M1 Abrams shell costs? The flak jacket manufacturers had to seriously ramp up production because our troops didn't have adequate ones. How convenient that they were able to sell a jacket to the same soldier twice.We have military and state officials being guarded by employees of a private firm. We have private firms interrogating prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Private firms were awarded 're-building' contracts. I put that in quotes because I saw on the BBC one firm contracted to rebuild schools was just slapping a coat of paint on a partially destroyed wall. Private companies are contracted to restore power.War is big business. There's nothing like a war to bring you out of a recession.

also sorry to break balls man but no legit reason?we have a moral obligation to help people who are in need, as a Christian i hope you understand this. Saddam was literally killing people in the street, millions of people died at the hands of his orders. He is a wicked man.Granted it is terrible that many people died when the US invaded, that is terrible.But this is nothing compared to how many would have been killed between the time Iraq was invaded and now.

See above. Where was our moral obligation to Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan? Where is it for the North Koreans, or Tibetans?

[chrozzo 19]

these PRETZELS are making me THIRSTY!!!

[Farnan 0]

Border security is a waste of resources. No one can secure a long border. If you want to stop illegal immigration, there's only one thing you can do. People don't want to run the border. They have to because they are poor. Help them with opportunity at home and they won't want to come here.

I agree in theory--but that is the long-term solution that doesn't help us in the short term. I think this idea should be implemented, but in the meantime, we set up the most high-tech series of walls, etc. possible to prevent people from crossing the border illegally. There are ways to deal with tunnels, etc.--i think it can and should be done. The amount of money we lose and the risks we assume with such an open border is astounding.