NationStates Jolt Archive

Even if Hussein was never linked to al-Qaeda, this may have been enough to convince the administration that he was a threat to America.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aO.lCPToqo_A&refer=top_world_news
As Putin revealed today, Russian intelligence warned Washington that Hussein was plotting attacks inside the US, and to US troops and interests overseas, moreso since 9/11. Whatever happened in Iraq, the War on Terror would bring more US troops to the region, and he'd strike without remorse. Despite all of this, Putin was, and still is, adamantly against the war.

Praise Putin for proving that Hussein was a threat to the USA.

Apparently this is news to a lot of people in the American administration, especially in the State department. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure people will still mindlessly chant: "Bush lied! People died!"

Praise Putin for proving that Hussein was a threat to the USA.
It really wasn't Putin himself. He just revealed this peice of intelligence at a news conference in Astana. It was really the work of Russian intelligence. It's nice to know that they're still as effective as their KGB predecessors were, though hopefully much better.

Praise Putin for proving that Hussein was a threat to the USA.
It really wasn't Putin himself. He just revealed this peice of intelligence at a news conference in Astana. It was really the work of Russian intelligence. It's nice to know that they're still as effective as their KGB predecessors were, though hopefully much better.

Yes I know but he released it. So I guess I should rephrase it to:

Praise Putin for releasing the info that Proved that Hussein was a threat to the USA.

Praise Putin for proving that Hussein was a threat to the USA.
It really wasn't Putin himself. He just revealed this peice of intelligence at a news conference in Astana. It was really the work of Russian intelligence. It's nice to know that they're still as effective as their KGB predecessors were, though hopefully much better.

Yes I know but he released it. So I guess I should rephrase it to:

Praise Putin for releasing the info that Proved that Hussein was a threat to the USA.
That's better. Now, I'm going to be the eternal pessimist, and I'll say why I'm disturbed by Putin saying this.
1. What if there are still sleeper cells? Hussein is captured, but elements of a Ba'ath resistence still exist in Iraq. Could that also mean that sleeper cells of Iraqis are in the US still? After all, the quality sleeper cells have is to work independently of their commander. However, I guess I'm panicking over the right to know. This is why any government, anywhere, is hesitant to release information on national security.
2. Putin knew about Hussein's plans. But why was he so adamantly opposed to the Iraq war? My guess is that he had other motives. First, and probably foremost, he wanted Russia's oil supplies to be secure. I don't blame him, as oil is making up a large percentage of Russian GDP now. However, when the Soviet Union fell, they left behind a massive industrial base, and every former Soviet republic except Russia has rebuilt it. I fear that Putin couldn't, or simply wouldn't rebuild the nation's industry base, and preffered sticking to the oil profits that have made Russia so wealthy.
However, Russia has repeatedly said that if prices fell below $18/barrel, and they threatened to after Iraq, then Russia would start hemorrhaging money. Plus, Russian oil companies had interests in Iraq before the war, and while they're being protected, Russia may have feared the added foreign competition.
The other reason was probably the fact that Putin is afraid of US troops. He hates the idea that US troops are rebasing from Germany into Eastern Europe, once Russia's backyard. Now, there are about 1500 troops in Georgia to assist the new government and help them fight the Chechens, and a little south of there, there's an astronomical amount of US troops, who may possibly support other troops in the Caucasus and Central Asia (another former Russian playground). Putin probably sees Russian foreign power eroding, and a US troop presence in Iraq would only help that process.

Even if Hussein was never linked to al-Qaeda, this may have been enough to convince the administration that he was a threat to America.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aO.lCPToqo_A&refer=top_world_news
As Putin revealed today, Russian intelligence warned Washington that Hussein was plotting attacks inside the US, and to US troops and interests overseas, moreso since 9/11. Whatever happened in Iraq, the War on Terror would bring more US troops to the region, and he'd strike without remorse. Despite all of this, Putin was, and still is, adamantly against the war.If this is true, why hasn't the Bush administration told us about this?

Even if Hussein was never linked to al-Qaeda, this may have been enough to convince the administration that he was a threat to America.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aO.lCPToqo_A&refer=top_world_news
As Putin revealed today, Russian intelligence warned Washington that Hussein was plotting attacks inside the US, and to US troops and interests overseas, moreso since 9/11. Whatever happened in Iraq, the War on Terror would bring more US troops to the region, and he'd strike without remorse. Despite all of this, Putin was, and still is, adamantly against the war.If this is true, why hasn't the Bush administration told us about this?
Perhaps because they feared that this information may start a panic. It is certainly more scary to say that terrorists are operating inside the US, rather than saying that Hussein and al-Qaeda corroborated somewhere an ocean away from us.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.

I'll give you odds that your wrong. I bet you 3-1 that what Putin Said was true.

Apparently this is news to a lot of people in the American administration, especially in the State department. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure people will still mindlessly chant: "Bush lied! People died!"yeah Im sure it is news to Bush cause Bush couldnt find any evidence against Saddam on his own but it still didnt stop him from invading Iraq

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.

I'll give you odds that your wrong. I bet you 3-1 that what Putin Said was true.

The problem with a wager of that type is that you could never produce the evidence to prove your point.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.

I'll give you odds that your wrong. I bet you 3-1 that what Putin Said was true.

The problem with a wager of that type is that you could never produce the evidence to prove your point.

Neither can you so I guess we have evened the odds.

Apparently this is news to a lot of people in the American administration, especially in the State department. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm sure people will still mindlessly chant: "Bush lied! People died!"

Did you here about the Clinton lied but no body died slogan? A bunch of BS huh? :?

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.

I'll give you odds that your wrong. I bet you 3-1 that what Putin Said was true.

The problem with a wager of that type is that you could never produce the evidence to prove your point.

Neither can you so I guess we have evened the odds.

That is the reason the forum is an area of largely opinion and we mutually respect the right to have one. Good luck to you.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

Many of my friends are Republican and cannot understand that I am a conservative Democrat(as the tradition that predates WWII). We often enjoy rattling each others cages just to sharpen our skills in politics and debate. Our one rule is to never let emotion get the better of anyone.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

Many of my friends are Republican and cannot understand that I am a conservative Democrat(as the tradition that predates WWII). We often enjoy rattling each others cages just to sharpen our skills in politics and debate. Our one rule is to never let emotion get the better of anyone.
Democratic conservatives, though, have mostly died out in this country, haven't they?

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D

Mine never did. I wish I had your teacher. She hated Bush and loves the ACLU. My final English report was over the ACLU and how they are Eroding America's Freedom I'm still wondering how I got a B in her class.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

Meaning Limbaugh, Hannity, and a couple of others I listen too? Not hate radio. Hate Radio (meaning these guys) is another example of Liberalism run a muck.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

Meaning Limbaugh, Hannity, and a couple of others I listen too? Not hate radio. Hate Radio (meaning these guys) is another example of Liberalism run a muck.theres only one liberal radio station on the air and it just came into existence a month ago and its a breath of fresh air in a wilderness of rightwing lies for evil corporations

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

Many of my friends are Republican and cannot understand that I am a conservative Democrat(as the tradition that predates WWII). We often enjoy rattling each others cages just to sharpen our skills in politics and debate. Our one rule is to never let emotion get the better of anyone.
Democratic conservatives, though, have mostly died out in this country, haven't they?

Don't be so shocked, how do you think Reagan and Bush I won so easily. Many who cross party lines are conservatives, just as for Clinton, liberal republicans crossed over.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

Meaning Limbaugh, Hannity, and a couple of others I listen too? Not hate radio. Hate Radio (meaning these guys) is another example of Liberalism run a muck.theres only one liberal radio station on the air and it just came into existence a month ago and its a breath of fresh air in a wilderness of rightwing lies for evil corporations

MKULTRA, your so full of idiocy, I wonder why I respond to you.

AIR AMERICA is BANKRUPT. They have NO MEDIA MARKET outside of SIX CITIES! One city YANKED THEM OFF THE AIR but a JUDGE ordered them Back on the air.

Air America is DEAD hun.

This surprises me not in the least. However, I am not convinced that Putin had such good intentions. The leopard does not change its' spots overnight, and Putin was the head of the KGB. His sole goal, his passion is to rebuild Russia into a great military power once more, this time backed up by a powerful economy. If he can see any way to do this he will. And if that means alerting the yanks to something his intelligence people have picked up, so be it. What's the result? America's sucked into a damned stupid costly war that has obliterated worldwide goodwill toward her and has needed immense financial outlay, as well as providing yet another showcase for the flaws of the US military. Meanwhile, he can work with that changing tide of opinion, pointing out that he supplied the Americans with intelligence suggesting a threat from Iraq, but is adamantly against the war as a result of her subsequent actions. Furthermore, how long will it be until the oilfields are operational? And look how shaky the region is becoming, for instance Saudi Arabia. Who better to capitalise on a sudden oil shortfall than the Russian bear as he sleeps on his derricks?

@FD: Lol, way to be blunt there love :P

@FD: Lol, way to be blunt there love

Ty! Just got tired of his illogical statements!

I'll give you odds that your wrong. I bet you 3-1 that what Putin Said was true.
taken

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.
Slip of tongue, eh? -- Not if you remember that this is Putin's second statement in defence of Bush in recent times. Barely two weeks ago at the G8 summit Pooty pointed out that the Democrats are hypocritical to criticise Bush for policies that they themselves pursued in Kosovo. The timing of this latest statement in support of Bush is even more suspicious, coming as it is on the heels of the 9/11 Commission report that debunked the Administration's assertions of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And, of course, Putin offers no specifics whatsoever as to what was that supposed Saddamite threat to America.

What motivates Pooty's Crusade for Bush is less clear. It could be that he reckons he has better personal rapport with Bush than he'd ever have with Kerry. And/or he wants some trade concessions from the U.S. (such as reduction of tarrifs/increase of quotas for Russian steel). And/or he expects this Bush-ward tilt to spook Chirac/Schroeder who'd come running to him offering concessions on various issues Russia has with the EU.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

Many of my friends are Republican and cannot understand that I am a conservative Democrat(as the tradition that predates WWII). We often enjoy rattling each others cages just to sharpen our skills in politics and debate. Our one rule is to never let emotion get the better of anyone.
Democratic conservatives, though, have mostly died out in this country, haven't they?

No, we're still around, we just can't seem to get the rest of the Democrats to care and pick a candidate we really admire like Leiberman. That whole thing about Dean was frankly scary to most of us, glad that didn't work out. Plus the Republicans keep picking ultra-conservatives as candidates and masking them as "moderates" to get our votes, and would never pick a McCain, so there's no incentive to change party affiliation either. Trapped between a rock and a hard place I suppose.

The fringe can only pull so hard, eventually us moderates are going to snap.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

I have a teacher like that..or did until school came out. A true bush hater but she respected my views :D
That's nice. Rare is the liberal who can respect other's views.oh please--apparently youve never heard any of the rightwing goons talks shows on hate radio?

Meaning Limbaugh, Hannity, and a couple of others I listen too? Not hate radio. Hate Radio (meaning these guys) is another example of Liberalism run a muck.theres only one liberal radio station on the air and it just came into existence a month ago and its a breath of fresh air in a wilderness of rightwing lies for evil corporations

MKULTRA, your so full of idiocy, I wonder why I respond to you.

AIR AMERICA is BANKRUPT. They have NO MEDIA MARKET outside of SIX CITIES! One city YANKED THEM OFF THE AIR but a JUDGE ordered them Back on the air.

Air America is DEAD hun.if its dead then why is it talking? America is sick of rightwing lies

Bull.

If this were true, The Bush administration would jump all over it, to trumpet this as the reason why they invaded.

This is an election year, and its looming ever nearer.
Bush knows that no president has ever won re-election with ratings as low as his are, so the one thing you must clearly understand is:

Bush would do ANYTHING the raise those numbers, and garner more support from the undecided middle.

If this had ANY credibility, Bush would be using it.

End of story.

Bush and his supporters are habitual liars--we need someone credable to make this story real. America must not fall into the trap of believing ANYTHING from a rightwing source alone-theyve already lied to start a war that means theyll lie about anything

And you trust Putin? Someone else who won his election on sketchy grounds....

Bush and his supporters are habitual liars--we need someone credable to make this story real. America must not fall into the trap of believing ANYTHING from a rightwing source alone-theyve already lied to start a war that means theyll lie about anything

And Clinton and his supporters weren't habitual liars? If you want someone credible then run yourself. In our minds, we are more credible than our elected officials.

I trust Bush more than Nader and Kerry (Kerry is a fool in my book). Bush has fessed up to his mistakes. He has appologized to the American People when he did make a mistake. (Before you denounce this, you need to research your answer and not from air america) He WARNED the POPULACE of what was going to happen in Iraq when the major conflict was over. He was right. He Said we can expect increase attacks the closer we get to the handoff. He was Right. The government will take over on June 30, He WILL BE RIGHT! People say he mismanaged Iraq. He left it up the military to run it. The military Mishandled Iraq.

Now on to the Troops. Morale-High! They are glad they are there. Granted they don't want to be away from their Families. (come home safe dad). They know what needs to be done over there and they are getting it done despite Kerry and his supporters. Read the NY Post MKULTRA and not the Times. The Times are Anti-Bush, Anti-war, Anti-Republic newspaper. (ofcourse, I don't like war either but this one I support because of what I know of Saddam)

Bush and his supporters are habitual liars--we need someone credable to make this story real. America must not fall into the trap of believing ANYTHING from a rightwing source alone-theyve already lied to start a war that means theyll lie about anything

And Clinton and his supporters weren't habitual liars? If you want someone credible then run yourself. In our minds, we are more credible than our elected officials.

I trust Bush more than Nader and Kerry (Kerry is a fool in my book). Bush has fessed up to his mistakes. He has appologized to the American People when he did make a mistake. (Before you denounce this, you need to research your answer and not from air america) He WARNED the POPULACE of what was going to happen in Iraq when the major conflict was over. He was right. He Said we can expect increase attacks the closer we get to the handoff. He was Right. The government will take over on June 30, He WILL BE RIGHT! People say he mismanaged Iraq. He left it up the military to run it. The military Mishandled Iraq.

Now on to the Troops. Morale-High! They are glad they are there. Granted they don't want to be away from their Families. (come home safe dad). They know what needs to be done over there and they are getting it done despite Kerry and his supporters. Read the NY Post MKULTRA and not the Times. The Times are Anti-Bush, Anti-war, Anti-Republic newspaper. (ofcourse, I don't like war either but this one I support because of what I know of Saddam)

I'm tired of republicans bringing up Clinton whenever the subject gets difficult when they cannot defend their puppet. Bush is merely a puppet for big oil and Cheney. You need to check your facts beyond FOX news and the Post. Bush never admitted any mistakes about Iraq, the intelligence that he and his cronies fabricated, or the lack of planning for a post war quagmire. Bush does not care about the ordinary people who pay for his greed and self righteous fun"duh""mental"ism. Were you aware that he belongs to a Christian group who pays to send people home to Isreal in hopes of starting the final battle of the bible?

And Clinton and his supporters weren't habitual liars? If you want someone credible then run yourself. In our minds, we are more credible than our elected officials.

Yeah. No kidding. Main one there is Gore. "I invented the internet, guh-her."

:roll:

Everyone seems to forget that Clinton ordered the military he tore apart into Eastern Europe after Slovodan Milosovic. Anyone else remember that? Guess what, US Troops died there too.

Bush and his supporters are habitual liars--we need someone credable to make this story real. America must not fall into the trap of believing ANYTHING from a rightwing source alone-theyve already lied to start a war that means theyll lie about anything

And Clinton and his supporters weren't habitual liars? If you want someone credible then run yourself. In our minds, we are more credible than our elected officials.

I trust Bush more than Nader and Kerry (Kerry is a fool in my book). Bush has fessed up to his mistakes. He has appologized to the American People when he did make a mistake. (Before you denounce this, you need to research your answer and not from air america) He WARNED the POPULACE of what was going to happen in Iraq when the major conflict was over. He was right. He Said we can expect increase attacks the closer we get to the handoff. He was Right. The government will take over on June 30, He WILL BE RIGHT! People say he mismanaged Iraq. He left it up the military to run it. The military Mishandled Iraq.

Now on to the Troops. Morale-High! They are glad they are there. Granted they don't want to be away from their Families. (come home safe dad). They know what needs to be done over there and they are getting it done despite Kerry and his supporters. Read the NY Post MKULTRA and not the Times. The Times are Anti-Bush, Anti-war, Anti-Republic newspaper. (ofcourse, I don't like war either but this one I support because of what I know of Saddam)

I'm tired of republicans bringing up Clinton whenever the subject gets difficult when they cannot defend their puppet. Bush is merely a puppet for big oil and Cheney. You need to check your facts beyond FOX news and the Post. Bush never admitted any mistakes about Iraq, the intelligence that he and his cronies fabricated, or the lack of planning for a post war quagmire. Bush does not care about the ordinary people who pay for his greed and self righteous fun"duh""mental"ism. Were you aware that he belongs to a Christian group who pays to send people home to Isreal in hopes of starting the final battle of the bible? Check out Bush's finacial disclosures, it's in there. But do it quick while the freedom of information act still exists!

And Clinton and his supporters weren't habitual liars? If you want someone credible then run yourself. In our minds, we are more credible than our elected officials.

Yeah. No kidding. Main one there is Gore. "I invented the internet, guh-her."

:roll:

Everyone seems to forget that Clinton ordered the military he tore apart into Eastern Europe after Slovodan Milosovic. Anyone else remember that? Guess what, US Troops died there too.

FOX took a part of a sound bite to make that statement about Gore. I'm old enough to have seen the original interview. His statement was; "I sat on a committe that oversaw the funding to invent the internet as we know it today." We are getting tired of this old lie. Get over it, the white house was taken by a dubious election and a corrupt supreme court. (cheney takes justice on hunting trip in Louisiana for example)

That wasn't the only statement of that nature that he made and you obviously missed the main point of the post and avoided it well.

EASTERN EUROPE.

That wasn't the only statement of that nature that he made and you obviously missed the main point of the post and avoided it well.

EASTERN EUROPE.

Since you wish, it was a Republican Congress that put pressure to go into Eastern Europe. If you want to find fault in Clinton, look at Somalia.

Oh, most definately I fault Clinton for that one as well.

You mention the Republican congress as if I care whether or not the party had anything to do with it. Guess what, I'm a socialist. I don't give a d--- about republican or democrat. All I care about is that US soldiers were and are being sent to die in places we don't belong, or at least for reasons other than the ones stated. If our presidents wouldn't lie about their motives I wouldn't have such a problem.

I suppose you think I support Bush, but I really don't. I find it pathetic that we're reduced to having to choose the lesser of two evils for our President. Bush took my father away from me for a year and put him in the big sandbox. He came back fine, but spent time in Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC.

That wasn't the only statement of that nature that he made and you obviously missed the main point of the post and avoided it well.

EASTERN EUROPE.

Please cite reference to the contrary as to the origin of this internet statement if you can. Remeber to be valid it should predate the original statement and not just a rehash of the FOX lie.

Oh, most definately I fault Clinton for that one as well.

You mention the Republican congress as if I care whether or not the party had anything to do with it. Guess what, I'm a socialist. I don't give a d--- about republican or democrat. All I care about is that US soldiers were and are being sent to die in places we don't belong, or at least for reasons other than the ones stated. If our presidents wouldn't lie about their motives I wouldn't have such a problem.

I suppose you think I support Bush, but I really don't. I find it pathetic that we're reduced to having to choose the lesser of two evils for our President. Bush took my father away from me for a year and put him in the big sandbox. He came back fine, but spent time in Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC.

I'm sorry for your father, but he is not the only one who had to spend time in a V. A. hospital because of a political leaders mistruths. By the way there are currently 16 candidate for the office, all of them couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on it. They would much rather put someone else's life on the line.

By of that nature, I meant a false statement. I also would like to point out some of the wonderful things Bush said, IE the pants thing. *shakes head*

I know my dad isn't the only one in the VAs, believe me I do. Got to see some pretty nasty things there, and that's just visiting the survivors. Just making a little observation on why I don't like Bush on a personal level. Like I said, I wish we could just get someone honest in power for once.

:lol: Honest politicians, yeah, right.

The best man I saw 4 years ago was Alan Keys. Too bad the man didn't get the votes.

Yes he was an honest man, Keyes that is. It's probably why he did so poorly. It is sad to say, but the majority of America only wants to hear what they want to and could care less if it is a lie.

I liked the man and I liked his platform. He even stuck it out to the end, even knowing he wouldn't win. And I apologise for spelling his name wrong. =_=

Like I said earlier, I hated the last election. It seemed more like a 'choose the lesser of two evils' rather than a 'I can't tell which one would be better, they're both so good'. If that ever happens... well... we'll burn that bridge when we get across it.

Oh, most definately I fault Clinton for that one as well.

You mention the Republican congress as if I care whether or not the party had anything to do with it. Guess what, I'm a socialist. I don't give a d--- about republican or democrat. All I care about is that US soldiers were and are being sent to die in places we don't belong, or at least for reasons other than the ones stated. If our presidents wouldn't lie about their motives I wouldn't have such a problem.

I suppose you think I support Bush, but I really don't. I find it pathetic that we're reduced to having to choose the lesser of two evils for our President. Bush took my father away from me for a year and put him in the big sandbox. He came back fine, but spent time in Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC.

My Dad is currently over there too. Don't know when he'll come back. I hope its soon because I missed him. My dad wrote to me and he said that he was glad that he was over there. He knows why he was sent. To defend freedom, truth and justice and to bring it to the Iraqi people.

He told me that he really thinks, it'll work here.

Yes they may not like us, but they know that we are trying to help them. Terror is here, he said, but its mostly from foreigners and I don't mean Americans. Ignore what is being said and look at who is doing what. That is my advice to you my daughter. Ignore what is being said and look at who is doing what to whom

I do believe what my daddy says. Democracy will work. It is already working infact. Just got to give them time to sort it out.

It'll be more of a Democratic Republic. True democracy is highly... unreccomended for a nation of our or even their size. It would take too long to get everyone's vote on everything and therefore nothing would get done. =_=

FD: Good luck to you and your father. Where in the Sandbox is he? My dad ran Camp New Jersey for a bit, then got pushed up into Iraq.

and good luck to you. It is nice to meet someone NICE from the opposite side that respects you for your opinions and not attack it! I wish I had teachers like that.

Many of my friends are Republican and cannot understand that I am a conservative Democrat(as the tradition that predates WWII). We often enjoy rattling each others cages just to sharpen our skills in politics and debate. Our one rule is to never let emotion get the better of anyone.
Democratic conservatives, though, have mostly died out in this country, haven't they?

Don't be so shocked, how do you think Reagan and Bush I won so easily. Many who cross party lines are conservatives, just as for Clinton, liberal republicans crossed over.
I thought they won because the country was filled with centrists and independents.

It'll be more of a Democratic Republic. True democracy is highly... unreccomended for a nation of our or even their size. It would take too long to get everyone's vote on everything and therefore nothing would get done. =_=

FD: Good luck to you and your father. Where in the Sandbox is he? My dad ran Camp New Jersey for a bit, then got pushed up into Iraq.

Don't know where exactly. Never asked.

This surprises me not in the least. However, I am not convinced that Putin had such good intentions. The leopard does not change its' spots overnight, and Putin was the head of the KGB. His sole goal, his passion is to rebuild Russia into a great military power once more, this time backed up by a powerful economy. If he can see any way to do this he will. And if that means alerting the yanks to something his intelligence people have picked up, so be it. What's the result? America's sucked into a damned stupid costly war that has obliterated worldwide goodwill toward her and has needed immense financial outlay, as well as providing yet another showcase for the flaws of the US military. Meanwhile, he can work with that changing tide of opinion, pointing out that he supplied the Americans with intelligence suggesting a threat from Iraq, but is adamantly against the war as a result of her subsequent actions. Furthermore, how long will it be until the oilfields are operational? And look how shaky the region is becoming, for instance Saudi Arabia. Who better to capitalise on a sudden oil shortfall than the Russian bear as he sleeps on his derricks?

@FD: Lol, way to be blunt there love :P
I'm thinking it'll backfire, if that is the case. For one, a large presence of US troops in the Middle East can act as a base for other troops in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, further eroding Russia's power in those regions. As for the oilfields, I highly doubt that Putin had those in mind. For one, if the oil fields in the Middle East crash, more oilwealth will go into Russia, but Putin himself won't see it. It'll go into the hands of private individuals that have rather low taxes. He'll see it only when oilfields in the Middle East are back in function. They will be, because if the Saudi monarchy is overthrown, the US will have no choice but to have its troops secure the oilfields. Putin will hardly see any money, but instead, it may possibly even go into the campaigns of his political detractors (as the oligarchs have gotten a bit disgruntled at Putin).

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.
Slip of tongue, eh? -- Not if you remember that this is Putin's second statement in defence of Bush in recent times. Barely two weeks ago at the G8 summit Pooty pointed out that the Democrats are hypocritical to criticise Bush for policies that they themselves pursued in Kosovo. The timing of this latest statement in support of Bush is even more suspicious, coming as it is on the heels of the 9/11 Commission report that debunked the Administration's assertions of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And, of course, Putin offers no specifics whatsoever as to what was that supposed Saddamite threat to America.

What motivates Pooty's Crusade for Bush is less clear. It could be that he reckons he has better personal rapport with Bush than he'd ever have with Kerry. And/or he wants some trade concessions from the U.S. (such as reduction of tarrifs/increase of quotas for Russian steel). And/or he expects this Bush-ward tilt to spook Chirac/Schroeder who'd come running to him offering concessions on various issues Russia has with the EU.
Kerry believes in what'd spook Russia the most: a bigger military for us. Whether or not that'd make us safer is arguable, but if the US has a larger military, it'd certainly be in Russia's worst interests. After all, there is no doubt that they'd reinforce troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, making the Bear feel like it's in a death grip. If he's supporting Bush, it's probably for that reason.

Bush and his supporters are habitual liars--we need someone credable to make this story real. America must not fall into the trap of believing ANYTHING from a rightwing source alone-theyve already lied to start a war that means theyll lie about anything

And Clinton and his supporters weren't habitual liars? If you want someone credible then run yourself. In our minds, we are more credible than our elected officials.

I trust Bush more than Nader and Kerry (Kerry is a fool in my book). Bush has fessed up to his mistakes. He has appologized to the American People when he did make a mistake. (Before you denounce this, you need to research your answer and not from air america) He WARNED the POPULACE of what was going to happen in Iraq when the major conflict was over. He was right. He Said we can expect increase attacks the closer we get to the handoff. He was Right. The government will take over on June 30, He WILL BE RIGHT! People say he mismanaged Iraq. He left it up the military to run it. The military Mishandled Iraq.

Now on to the Troops. Morale-High! They are glad they are there. Granted they don't want to be away from their Families. (come home safe dad). They know what needs to be done over there and they are getting it done despite Kerry and his supporters. Read the NY Post MKULTRA and not the Times. The Times are Anti-Bush, Anti-war, Anti-Republic newspaper. (ofcourse, I don't like war either but this one I support because of what I know of Saddam)

I'm tired of republicans bringing up Clinton whenever the subject gets difficult when they cannot defend their puppet. Bush is merely a puppet for big oil and Cheney. You need to check your facts beyond FOX news and the Post. Bush never admitted any mistakes about Iraq, the intelligence that he and his cronies fabricated, or the lack of planning for a post war quagmire. Bush does not care about the ordinary people who pay for his greed and self righteous fun"duh""mental"ism. Were you aware that he belongs to a Christian group who pays to send people home to Isreal in hopes of starting the final battle of the bible?also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!

The CIA and FBI did the best they could with the informatin they had. It's weel documented that Rumsfeld and Cheney ignored and dismissed reports that did not support their intentions for Iraq. When it comes to that tragedy, there is plenty of blame to go around. If Bush were half the man Reagan was, he would accept his role in failure and have had the country move on. Instead they had Tenet fall on his sword to protect "Ceasar"

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!

The CIA and FBI did the best they could with the informatin they had. It's weel documented that Rumsfeld and Cheney ignored and dismissed reports that did not support their intentions for Iraq. When it comes to that tragedy, there is plenty of blame to go around. If Bush were half the man Reagan was, he would accept his role in failure and have had the country move on. Instead they had Tenet fall on his sword to protect "Ceasar"

They didn't dismiss them hun. It was vague information about what was going to happen hense why it was ignored. Tenet should've left along time ago. He was a failure.

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!

The CIA and FBI did the best they could with the informatin they had. It's weel documented that Rumsfeld and Cheney ignored and dismissed reports that did not support their intentions for Iraq. When it comes to that tragedy, there is plenty of blame to go around. If Bush were half the man Reagan was, he would accept his role in failure and have had the country move on. Instead they had Tenet fall on his sword to protect "Ceasar"

They didn't dismiss them hun. It was vague information about what was going to happen hense why it was ignored. Tenet should've left along time ago. He was a failure.as is Bush--I cant think of one thing he did right

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!LOL--Ill get facts when you do. Bush may not have caused 911 but he allowed it. Clintons lies kept concencual sex legal in america--but Bushs lies have killed people and increased terrorism levels thru the roof--the only reason why Bush never lied under oath is cause he refuses to go under Oath.At no time in american history have we had an administration as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the present one

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

A couple of people have come near my theory of all this. But first perhaps we should remind ourselves as to why the Bush regime have said nothing about it. An American government would still regard Russian intelligence with suspicion. I can imagine a question being asked in the Oval office along the lines..'Why are they telling us this, what do they want?'....that sort of thing.

Back to my theory. Whether Americans like to hear this or not, it's a fact that Putin is well aware of Bush's huge world-wide unpopularity. Now by seeming to back what intelligence the US had regarding Iraq (true or false), he may be playing a subtle game of helping Bush retain or even gain a few votes. Another four years of a detested American government, would suit Putin down to the ground. He's well aware that if he has to deal with a President Kerry, he'll get no more concessions regarding removing US troops from Russias 'backyard' than he would from Bush. At the very best, Russia is still a hostile economic power to the West and the US in particular. Those words of his didn't just 'trip off his tongue', that's not the sort of man he is. Everything he says and does is calculated. And to repeat, I believe he calculates that four more bruising years under Bush will do as much, if not more harm to America. And Russia can move in different ways. It can keep the stance of moral superiority, whilst encouragine Western business to keep pumping money into the Russian economy. Or it could decide to use Bush's new method of 'pre-emptive' stikes against former Soviet states, citing an 'imminenet danger'. Bush has given away any real authority to criticise by setting an example.

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!LOL--Ill get facts when you do. Bush may not have caused 911 but he allowed it. Clintons lies kept concencual sex legal in america--but Bushs lies have killed people and increased terrorism levels thru the roof--the only reason why Bush never lied under oath is cause he refuses to go under Oath.At no time in american history have we had an administration as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the present one

Get the facts buddy because you have no clue as to what you are talking about. He would've stopped 911 if he could. He can only go by what the CIA and the FBI are saying. Yes Bush lied about somethings, not denying he did since we all know the EVERYONE LIES!!

YOu seem to forget that CLINTON used THE EXACT SAME INTEL THAT BUSHED used to BOMB IRAQ. I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.

Before you blame Bush for somethings, Look at the Intel he used and who else got that Intel. Clinton used the same and bombed Iraq. He thought he was a threat. Granted, he didn't send troops in but an airstrike is an airstrike. He used Intel from the CIA to justify it. Never went to the UN either I might add to get permission and no outrage there.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

A couple of people have come near my theory of all this. But first perhaps we should remind ourselves as to why the Bush regime have said nothing about it. An American government would still regard Russian intelligence with suspicion. I can imagine a question being asked in the Oval office along the lines..'Why are they telling us this, what do they want?'....that sort of thing.

Back to my theory. Whether Americans like to hear this or not, it's a fact that Putin is well aware of Bush's huge world-wide unpopularity. Now by seeming to back what intelligence the US had regarding Iraq (true or false), he may be playing a subtle game of helping Bush retain or even gain a few votes. Another four years of a detested American government, would suit Putin down to the ground. He's well aware that if he has to deal with a President Kerry, he'll get no more concessions regarding removing US troops from Russias 'backyard' than he would from Bush. At the very best, Russia is still a hostile economic power to the West and the US in particular. Those words of his didn't just 'trip off his tongue', that's not the sort of man he is. Everything he says and does is calculated. And to repeat, I believe he calculates that four more bruising years under Bush will do as much, if not more harm to America. And Russia can move in different ways. It can keep the stance of moral superiority, whilst encouragine Western business to keep pumping money into the Russian economy. Or it could decide to use Bush's new method of 'pre-emptive' stikes against former Soviet states, citing an 'imminenet danger'. Bush has given away any real authority to criticise by setting an example.
It'll ultimately backfire, however. If there are four more years of Bush, then sometime in those four years, it is likely that Iraq will need less troops. They'll be sent to what I believe is helping the Taliban in Afghanistan (although not as urgent to address as Pakistani militias). More troops would probably go to Central Asia, and quite a few would help with Muslim insurrections in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan. While they are there, these governments will probably cozy up to the US more, and weaken Russia's stance regionally. Kerry won't pull such a thing off, because he advocates for US troops to remain in CONUS.

The other thing is that Bush, popular or not, is not afraid to assert American authority, where I see Kerry as being weaker on that issue. Popularity won't matter, but the actual effect on the world will. Bush's approach to foreign policy may not win him friends in Europe, but it'll certainly weaken Russia's role on Eurasia. Popularity will have little affect, and I believe that our image in Europe has little affect on anything we do.

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!LOL--Ill get facts when you do. Bush may not have caused 911 but he allowed it. Clintons lies kept concencual sex legal in america--but Bushs lies have killed people and increased terrorism levels thru the roof--the only reason why Bush never lied under oath is cause he refuses to go under Oath.At no time in american history have we had an administration as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the present one

Get the facts buddy because you have no clue as to what you are talking about. He would've stopped 911 if he could. He can only go by what the CIA and the FBI are saying. Yes Bush lied about somethings, not denying he did since we all know the EVERYONE LIES!!

YOu seem to forget that CLINTON used THE EXACT SAME INTEL THAT BUSHED used to BOMB IRAQ. I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.

Before you blame Bush for somethings, Look at the Intel he used and who else got that Intel. Clinton used the same and bombed Iraq. He thought he was a threat. Granted, he didn't send troops in but an airstrike is an airstrike. He used Intel from the CIA to justify it. Never went to the UN either I might add to get permission and no outrage there.it doesnt matter what intel Bush had--Bush had plans to attack Iraq since BEFORE he became President--in fact its prly the reason WHY he ran for President. The only intel Bush would accept is intel that gave him an excuse to invade--but no amount of intel was better then exploiting the attack on 911 itself and his excuse to invade--and thats why Bush allowed 911

[

The other thing is that Bush, popular or not, is not afraid to assert American authority, where I see Kerry as being weaker on that issue. Popularity won't matter, but the actual effect on the world will. Bush's approach to foreign policy may not win him friends in Europe, but it'll certainly weaken Russia's role on Eurasia. Popularity will have little affect, and I believe that our image in Europe has little affect on anything we do.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Regarding the paragraph I've deleted, I agree broadly but anything could happen. Who would have forecast the current situation prior to 9/11?
I dissagree with you that Americas image is not relevent. If Bush does win another four years, he's got nothing to lose politically so what you call his fearlessness to assert American authority may well be increased. If you're looking at it from the short term, no, world opinion wouldn't matter. But medium and long term, the US needs world trade even more now than ever before in its history. Oh, and by the way, I notice that many Americans interprate 'world opinion' as 'European opinion', that's a mistake. If America bullies and pushes itself around in the same manner it has these last three years, it will have many, many countries looking to do trade with other countries. Let's not kid ourselves, several European nations are already waiting their chance to 'punish' the US via trade and diplomacy. That list could grow larger, spreading from the Middle East to the Far East. Countries behave like people, rub their noses in the mud too much, for too long and they want to get their own back. That is already Bush's main legacy. Most of the world.......not just Europe......was actively against what it perceived to be an illegal and unwarrented invasion of a sovereign nation. I see the ususal criticism of Clinton, but his bombing campaigns were legally justified as part of the no-fly zones and associated agreements. He had no need to go to the UN, The US and UK were conducting bombing campaigns all the time. If, as many of us hope, Kerry wins the election. And if, as many of us hope, he 'consolidates' rather than extends this so-called war on terror, four years is plenty of time to re-establish normal trading and economic ties and more crucially, bonds.

it doesnt matter what intel Bush had--Bush had plans to attack Iraq since BEFORE he became President--in fact its prly the reason WHY he ran for President. The only intel Bush would accept is intel that gave him an excuse to invade--but no amount of intel was better then exploiting the attack on 911 itself and his excuse to invade--and thats why Bush allowed 911

Sorry MKULTRA, but once again your sources are wrong except for one thing, There were plans to invade Iraq before 911 but not by bush. They have been there when Congress authorized Regime change during the Clinton Years. So yes, Intel had to be used for targets for planes to hit. Intel had to be used to know who was doing what in Iraq. yes Intel had to be used to gauge Husseins forces.

He isn't exploiting 9/11 with the war in Iraq. He isn't even exploiting it period. If your looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, here's one for you. MASS MURDER, TORTURE, RAPE, I could go on but it sickens me at what he has done to his poor people.

MKULTRA, listen to reason. there were many reasons for Iraq but the last paragraph was good enough for me. (Hurry home dad. I love you and miss you :cry: )

[

The other thing is that Bush, popular or not, is not afraid to assert American authority, where I see Kerry as being weaker on that issue. Popularity won't matter, but the actual effect on the world will. Bush's approach to foreign policy may not win him friends in Europe, but it'll certainly weaken Russia's role on Eurasia. Popularity will have little affect, and I believe that our image in Europe has little affect on anything we do.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Regarding the paragraph I've deleted, I agree broadly but anything could happen. Who would have forecast the current situation prior to 9/11?
I dissagree with you that Americas image is not relevent. If Bush does win another four years, he's got nothing to lose politically so what you call his fearlessness to assert American authority may well be increased. If you're looking at it from the short term, no, world opinion wouldn't matter. But medium and long term, the US needs world trade even more now than ever before in its history. Oh, and by the way, I notice that many Americans interprate 'world opinion' as 'European opinion', that's a mistake. If America bullies and pushes itself around in the same manner it has these last three years, it will have many, many countries looking to do trade with other countries. Let's not kid ourselves, several European nations are already waiting their chance to 'punish' the US via trade and diplomacy. That list could grow larger, spreading from the Middle East to the Far East. Countries behave like people, rub their noses in the mud too much, for too long and they want to get their own back. That is already Bush's main legacy. Most of the world.......not just Europe......was actively against what it perceived to be an illegal and unwarrented invasion of a sovereign nation. I see the ususal criticism of Clinton, but his bombing campaigns were legally justified as part of the no-fly zones and associated agreements. He had no need to go to the UN, The US and UK were conducting bombing campaigns all the time. If, as many of us hope, Kerry wins the election. And if, as many of us hope, he 'consolidates' rather than extends this so-called war on terror, four years is plenty of time to re-establish normal trading and economic ties and more crucially, bonds.
I think it won't matter. For one, our unpopularity is largely confined to Europe, the Middle East, and Northeast Asia. The rest of the world, for one reason or another, loves us. They love us for the same reasons that no one would ever dare try to punish us: they want our culture and our money. Call me an arrogant, snobby pig, if you will, but it's true. Perhaps in the future, with an inevitable erosion of the relative strenght of the US, someone will try something diplomatic or economic on us. However, they'll have to get pass our many lawyers :lol: .

Perhaps in the future, with an inevitable erosion of the relative strenght of the US, someone will try something diplomatic or economic on us. However, they'll have to get pass our many lawyers :lol: .

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

You got me there.

Perhaps in the future, with an inevitable erosion of the relative strenght of the US, someone will try something diplomatic or economic on us. However, they'll have to get pass our many lawyers :lol: .

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

You got me there.

very funny Purly Euclid. Though Lawyers do seem to control everything from my perspective. And I'm willing to bet that the 9th will agree with the nation that did that instead of for America while others would vote for America and not the said countries.

I will have to disagree with you purely euclid. Putin is not trying to align himself with the west. If anything, he is bringing the east into a new confrontation. Russians have always had a buffer zone mentality and nothing has changed. Russia sees the expansion of NATO and American influence as a direct threat to its regional interests. If Ukraine and Byelorus were to join, Russia would be pushed into a corner. If anything, Russia opposed the war as leverage in the Chechen war. The US ignores Russian genocide of ehtnic Chechens and Russia lightens up on the war on terror. In fact, Russian companies have won many of the big tenders in the Iraq reconstruction.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

A couple of people have come near my theory of all this. But first perhaps we should remind ourselves as to why the Bush regime have said nothing about it. An American government would still regard Russian intelligence with suspicion. I can imagine a question being asked in the Oval office along the lines..'Why are they telling us this, what do they want?'....that sort of thing.

Back to my theory. Whether Americans like to hear this or not, it's a fact that Putin is well aware of Bush's huge world-wide unpopularity. Now by seeming to back what intelligence the US had regarding Iraq (true or false), he may be playing a subtle game of helping Bush retain or even gain a few votes. Another four years of a detested American government, would suit Putin down to the ground. He's well aware that if he has to deal with a President Kerry, he'll get no more concessions regarding removing US troops from Russias 'backyard' than he would from Bush. At the very best, Russia is still a hostile economic power to the West and the US in particular. Those words of his didn't just 'trip off his tongue', that's not the sort of man he is. Everything he says and does is calculated. And to repeat, I believe he calculates that four more bruising years under Bush will do as much, if not more harm to America. And Russia can move in different ways. It can keep the stance of moral superiority, whilst encouragine Western business to keep pumping money into the Russian economy. Or it could decide to use Bush's new method of 'pre-emptive' stikes against former Soviet states, citing an 'imminenet danger'. Bush has given away any real authority to criticise by setting an example.
I am glad you posted this. I was thinking along the same lines (another 4 years of Bush would help Putin). I did not want to bring it forward here for I expected the usual backlash. However, after seeing it posted, I have to agree with what you stated. I also believe that you stated this far better than I could have. The timing of Putin's comments seem to be well orchestrated.

it doesnt matter what intel Bush had--Bush had plans to attack Iraq since BEFORE he became President--in fact its prly the reason WHY he ran for President. The only intel Bush would accept is intel that gave him an excuse to invade--but no amount of intel was better then exploiting the attack on 911 itself and his excuse to invade--and thats why Bush allowed 911

Sorry MKULTRA, but once again your sources are wrong except for one thing, There were plans to invade Iraq before 911 but not by bush. They have been there when Congress authorized Regime change during the Clinton Years. So yes, Intel had to be used for targets for planes to hit. Intel had to be used to know who was doing what in Iraq. yes Intel had to be used to gauge Husseins forces.

He isn't exploiting 9/11 with the war in Iraq. He isn't even exploiting it period. If your looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, here's one for you. MASS MURDER, TORTURE, RAPE, I could go on but it sickens me at what he has done to his poor people.

MKULTRA, listen to reason. there were many reasons for Iraq but the last paragraph was good enough for me. (Hurry home dad. I love you and miss you :cry: )mass murder, torture and rape is things the US govt itself has used in its foreign policy so why would we care about it in Iraq? Saddam has a long record of doing these things even when we were friends with him...so your saying one day the US govt just woke up and said to itself "oh no this is bad" just outta the blue? and said its only bad in Iraq but its ok for all the other dictators we like to murder, torture and rape people? sorry-it dont compute

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!LOL--Ill get facts when you do. Bush may not have caused 911 but he allowed it. Clintons lies kept concencual sex legal in america--but Bushs lies have killed people and increased terrorism levels thru the roof--the only reason why Bush never lied under oath is cause he refuses to go under Oath.At no time in american history have we had an administration as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the present one

Get the facts buddy because you have no clue as to what you are talking about. He would've stopped 911 if he could. He can only go by what the CIA and the FBI are saying. Yes Bush lied about somethings, not denying he did since we all know the EVERYONE LIES!!

YOu seem to forget that CLINTON used THE EXACT SAME INTEL THAT BUSHED used to BOMB IRAQ. I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.

Before you blame Bush for somethings, Look at the Intel he used and who else got that Intel. Clinton used the same and bombed Iraq. He thought he was a threat. Granted, he didn't send troops in but an airstrike is an airstrike. He used Intel from the CIA to justify it. Never went to the UN either I might add to get permission and no outrage there.

Umm..

I hate burst your bubble here, but Clinton gave Bush a full dossiere on Al-Qeada.
It fully warned that that group would be Bush's number one concern, and that indeed, there was a plan by that group, that invloved using jetliners as missles.
Nobody knew when, and nobody knew where it would happen.

Bush ignored it, and immediately started plans to invade Iraq.
This is all proven fact.

So, for you to say this:

YOu seem to forget that CLINTON used THE EXACT SAME INTEL THAT BUSHED used to BOMB IRAQ. I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.

...Would be wrong.

Even if it were true....look at your last sentence....
I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.


So, they were the same, but different.

I wonder sometimes if rightys even believe their own spin on Bush or if they just have too much pride to admit publicly that they were duped by him the same way Clinton duped leftys?

This surprises me not in the least. However, I am not convinced that Putin had such good intentions. The leopard does not change its' spots overnight, and Putin was the head of the KGB. His sole goal, his passion is to rebuild Russia into a great military power once more, this time backed up by a powerful economy. If he can see any way to do this he will. And if that means alerting the yanks to something his intelligence people have picked up, so be it. What's the result? America's sucked into a damned stupid costly war that has obliterated worldwide goodwill toward her and has needed immense financial outlay, as well as providing yet another showcase for the flaws of the US military. Meanwhile, he can work with that changing tide of opinion, pointing out that he supplied the Americans with intelligence suggesting a threat from Iraq, but is adamantly against the war as a result of her subsequent actions. Furthermore, how long will it be until the oilfields are operational? And look how shaky the region is becoming, for instance Saudi Arabia. Who better to capitalise on a sudden oil shortfall than the Russian bear as he sleeps on his derricks?

@FD: Lol, way to be blunt there love :P
I'm thinking it'll backfire, if that is the case. For one, a large presence of US troops in the Middle East can act as a base for other troops in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, further eroding Russia's power in those regions. As for the oilfields, I highly doubt that Putin had those in mind. For one, if the oil fields in the Middle East crash, more oilwealth will go into Russia, but Putin himself won't see it. It'll go into the hands of private individuals that have rather low taxes. He'll see it only when oilfields in the Middle East are back in function. They will be, because if the Saudi monarchy is overthrown, the US will have no choice but to have its troops secure the oilfields. Putin will hardly see any money, but instead, it may possibly even go into the campaigns of his political detractors (as the oligarchs have gotten a bit disgruntled at Putin).
Don't you read the papers? :wink:
"Disgruntled oligarchs" don't fare that well under Pooty :lol:
...As for the money, he's currently suing to recoup tax saving the oil companies made through legal tax minimisation schemes. And it's not like "the impartial judiciary" is gonna say no.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.
Slip of tongue, eh? -- Not if you remember that this is Putin's second statement in defence of Bush in recent times. Barely two weeks ago at the G8 summit Pooty pointed out that the Democrats are hypocritical to criticise Bush for policies that they themselves pursued in Kosovo. The timing of this latest statement in support of Bush is even more suspicious, coming as it is on the heels of the 9/11 Commission report that debunked the Administration's assertions of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And, of course, Putin offers no specifics whatsoever as to what was that supposed Saddamite threat to America.

What motivates Pooty's Crusade for Bush is less clear. It could be that he reckons he has better personal rapport with Bush than he'd ever have with Kerry. And/or he wants some trade concessions from the U.S. (such as reduction of tarrifs/increase of quotas for Russian steel). And/or he expects this Bush-ward tilt to spook Chirac/Schroeder who'd come running to him offering concessions on various issues Russia has with the EU.
Kerry believes in what'd spook Russia the most: a bigger military for us. Whether or not that'd make us safer is arguable, but if the US has a larger military, it'd certainly be in Russia's worst interests. After all, there is no doubt that they'd reinforce troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, making the Bear feel like it's in a death grip. If he's supporting Bush, it's probably for that reason.
I doubt Putin is particularly alarmed by Kerry's plans for the military, as the proposed force expansion is quite modest (~40,000 extra troops, I believe). Likewise, the policy of expanding U.S. influence in Central Asia and Transcaucasia has been fairly consistent both under Clinton and Bush. So one has to wonder why Putin prefers Bush to Kerry. It is possible that Pooty simply has a personal preference for Bush, or he thinks that Bush will win in November anyway, and this was therefore an opportunity to win a cookie (on trade issues & such-like) by bashing Kerry without fear of retribution.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

A couple of people have come near my theory of all this. But first perhaps we should remind ourselves as to why the Bush regime have said nothing about it. An American government would still regard Russian intelligence with suspicion. I can imagine a question being asked in the Oval office along the lines..'Why are they telling us this, what do they want?'....that sort of thing.

Back to my theory. Whether Americans like to hear this or not, it's a fact that Putin is well aware of Bush's huge world-wide unpopularity. Now by seeming to back what intelligence the US had regarding Iraq (true or false), he may be playing a subtle game of helping Bush retain or even gain a few votes. Another four years of a detested American government, would suit Putin down to the ground. He's well aware that if he has to deal with a President Kerry, he'll get no more concessions regarding removing US troops from Russias 'backyard' than he would from Bush. At the very best, Russia is still a hostile economic power to the West and the US in particular. Those words of his didn't just 'trip off his tongue', that's not the sort of man he is. Everything he says and does is calculated. And to repeat, I believe he calculates that four more bruising years under Bush will do as much, if not more harm to America. And Russia can move in different ways. It can keep the stance of moral superiority, whilst encouragine Western business to keep pumping money into the Russian economy. Or it could decide to use Bush's new method of 'pre-emptive' stikes against former Soviet states, citing an 'imminenet danger'. Bush has given away any real authority to criticise by setting an example.
I am glad you posted this. I was thinking along the same lines (another 4 years of Bush would help Putin). I did not want to bring it forward here for I expected the usual backlash. However, after seeing it posted, I have to agree with what you stated. I also believe that you stated this far better than I could have. The timing of Putin's comments seem to be well orchestrated.
Praising Dubya to engineer four more years of the Bush disaster would be quite devious, I agree, but, if so, Pooty is overestimating his influence on American political process. Furthermore, Kerry, if elected, is likely to remember Vlad's rather undiplomatic comments at the G8 summit. So, I'd say Putin's gambit was a bit rash.

P.S. Spherical Objects,
A little side note: Bombing of Iraq as part of the no-flight zone enforcement was not "legal" as no UN resolution authorised the said no-flight zones.

also Bush never apologized for allowing 911 to happen and republicans in general never apologized to Clinton for all the political witch hunts they conducted against him while they defend the most corrupt administration in american history in power today

MKULTRA! Shut up until you have substancial facts.

Bush doesn't have to apologize for 9/11! He didn't cause it.

Clinton deserved what he got for LYING UNDER OATH!!!! That is PURGERY! Wanna talk about corrupt government, we could dig through history. Ours is Less Corrupt then most nations. Ours is actually managable compared to some nations.

Want to place blame on 9.11! The Blame falls to Al Qaeda not Bush! The Blame falls to the CIA and the FBI! Not Bush!LOL--Ill get facts when you do. Bush may not have caused 911 but he allowed it. Clintons lies kept concencual sex legal in america--but Bushs lies have killed people and increased terrorism levels thru the roof--the only reason why Bush never lied under oath is cause he refuses to go under Oath.At no time in american history have we had an administration as corrupt and morally bankrupt as the present one

Get the facts buddy because you have no clue as to what you are talking about. He would've stopped 911 if he could. He can only go by what the CIA and the FBI are saying. Yes Bush lied about somethings, not denying he did since we all know the EVERYONE LIES!!

YOu seem to forget that CLINTON used THE EXACT SAME INTEL THAT BUSHED used to BOMB IRAQ. I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.

Before you blame Bush for somethings, Look at the Intel he used and who else got that Intel. Clinton used the same and bombed Iraq. He thought he was a threat. Granted, he didn't send troops in but an airstrike is an airstrike. He used Intel from the CIA to justify it. Never went to the UN either I might add to get permission and no outrage there.

Umm..

I hate burst your bubble here, but Clinton gave Bush a full dossiere on Al-Qeada.
It fully warned that that group would be Bush's number one concern, and that indeed, there was a plan by that group, that invloved using jetliners as missles.
Nobody knew when, and nobody knew where it would happen.

Bush ignored it, and immediately started plans to invade Iraq.
This is all proven fact.

So, for you to say this:

YOu seem to forget that CLINTON used THE EXACT SAME INTEL THAT BUSHED used to BOMB IRAQ. I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.

...Would be wrong.

Even if it were true....look at your last sentence....
I know this because the words used by Bush were almost the same, not the same but close to it.


So, they were the same, but different.

Sweetie, Everyone knows about what Clinton gave George W. Bush! Bush never ignored it. He did go after him. He was only in office for what, nine monthes before we got hit? Not much time to form a major strategy. A plan was already in place when regime change became our new strategy with Iraq. The Military already had that said plan and used it. Bush didn't plan it, the military did.

Bush DID USE the EXACT INTEL that Clinton did when he bombed Iraq in 1996 in what was called Operation Desert Fox, I think its name was (thanks dad)!

When mentioning the causes, from the Intel on WMD, from the CIA i might add, it was the exact same reason we bombed them in 1996.

mass murder, torture and rape is things the US govt itself has used in its foreign policy so why would we care about it in Iraq? Saddam has a long record of doing these things even when we were friends with him...so your saying one day the US govt just woke up and said to itself "oh no this is bad" just outta the blue? and said its only bad in Iraq but its ok for all the other dictators we like to murder, torture and rape people? sorry-it dont compute

Sorry MKULTRA, we NEVER TORTURED OUR OWN CIVILIANS! Our Government NEVER RAPED FOR PLEASURE our own Civilians! We NEVER COMMITTED MASS MURDER on our own civilians. At that time sir, they were fighting IRAN! The Iran Iraq War 1980-1988 i think the years were. Remember Iran wanted to bring the middle eastern countries back into the stone age, so we had to support Iraq. Iraq was the lesser of the two evils. We never condone what they did.

We've been saying it was bad since the end of the Iraq Iran war. More so During and After the First Gulf War, now that was a true Oil War! (giggles)

As for the other dictators, the UN is trying to handle them but is failing utterly. I wouldn't be surprised if we find that the UN has to topple these too but that'll be too much to hope for from that World Body.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.
Slip of tongue, eh? -- Not if you remember that this is Putin's second statement in defence of Bush in recent times. Barely two weeks ago at the G8 summit Pooty pointed out that the Democrats are hypocritical to criticise Bush for policies that they themselves pursued in Kosovo. The timing of this latest statement in support of Bush is even more suspicious, coming as it is on the heels of the 9/11 Commission report that debunked the Administration's assertions of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And, of course, Putin offers no specifics whatsoever as to what was that supposed Saddamite threat to America.

What motivates Pooty's Crusade for Bush is less clear. It could be that he reckons he has better personal rapport with Bush than he'd ever have with Kerry. And/or he wants some trade concessions from the U.S. (such as reduction of tarrifs/increase of quotas for Russian steel). And/or he expects this Bush-ward tilt to spook Chirac/Schroeder who'd come running to him offering concessions on various issues Russia has with the EU.
Kerry believes in what'd spook Russia the most: a bigger military for us. Whether or not that'd make us safer is arguable, but if the US has a larger military, it'd certainly be in Russia's worst interests. After all, there is no doubt that they'd reinforce troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, making the Bear feel like it's in a death grip. If he's supporting Bush, it's probably for that reason.
I doubt Putin is particularly alarmed by Kerry's plans for the military, as the proposed force expansion is quite modest (~40,000 extra troops, I believe). Likewise, the policy of expanding U.S. influence in Central Asia and Transcaucasia has been fairly consistent both under Clinton and Bush. So one has to wonder why Putin prefers Bush to Kerry. It is possible that Pooty simply has a personal preference for Bush, or he thinks that Bush will win in November anyway, and this was therefore an opportunity to win a cookie (on trade issues & such-like) by bashing Kerry without fear of retribution.
However, it still baffles me why Putin is so much against US foreign policy. It's not just the Iraq war, but things like sanctioning Iran. Then again, I think we've established that this man is certainly an enigma.

This surprises me not in the least. However, I am not convinced that Putin had such good intentions. The leopard does not change its' spots overnight, and Putin was the head of the KGB. His sole goal, his passion is to rebuild Russia into a great military power once more, this time backed up by a powerful economy. If he can see any way to do this he will. And if that means alerting the yanks to something his intelligence people have picked up, so be it. What's the result? America's sucked into a damned stupid costly war that has obliterated worldwide goodwill toward her and has needed immense financial outlay, as well as providing yet another showcase for the flaws of the US military. Meanwhile, he can work with that changing tide of opinion, pointing out that he supplied the Americans with intelligence suggesting a threat from Iraq, but is adamantly against the war as a result of her subsequent actions. Furthermore, how long will it be until the oilfields are operational? And look how shaky the region is becoming, for instance Saudi Arabia. Who better to capitalise on a sudden oil shortfall than the Russian bear as he sleeps on his derricks?

@FD: Lol, way to be blunt there love :P
I'm thinking it'll backfire, if that is the case. For one, a large presence of US troops in the Middle East can act as a base for other troops in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, further eroding Russia's power in those regions. As for the oilfields, I highly doubt that Putin had those in mind. For one, if the oil fields in the Middle East crash, more oilwealth will go into Russia, but Putin himself won't see it. It'll go into the hands of private individuals that have rather low taxes. He'll see it only when oilfields in the Middle East are back in function. They will be, because if the Saudi monarchy is overthrown, the US will have no choice but to have its troops secure the oilfields. Putin will hardly see any money, but instead, it may possibly even go into the campaigns of his political detractors (as the oligarchs have gotten a bit disgruntled at Putin).
Don't you read the papers? :wink:
"Disgruntled oligarchs" don't fare that well under Pooty :lol:
...As for the money, he's currently suing to recoup tax saving the oil companies made through legal tax minimisation schemes. And it's not like "the impartial judiciary" is gonna say no.
Well, ok. Saying they are a little annoyed is an understatement. If he were a little nicer to the oligarchs than he is now, I believe that the Russian economy would fare better than now.

However, it still baffles me why Putin is so much against US foreign policy. It's not just the Iraq war, but things like sanctioning Iran. Then again, I think we've established that this man is certainly an enigma.
Because Russia traditionally views itself as an empire and a superpower by the virtue of it being somehow culturally "special". Kind of a "chosen nation" mentality. They are still out to regain the political influence of the Soviet Union- and they can't get it by allying themselves with the US, can they?

However, it still baffles me why Putin is so much against US foreign policy. It's not just the Iraq war, but things like sanctioning Iran. Then again, I think we've established that this man is certainly an enigma.
Because Russia traditionally views itself as an empire and a superpower by the virtue of it being somehow culturally "special". Kind of a "chosen nation" mentality. They are still out to regain the political influence of the Soviet Union- and they can't get it by allying themselves with the US, can they?
While I'd agree with that, it's in direct contradiction to what has been said by others in the past few posts.

Hussein = threat to world, not America solely.

However, since America said Hussein was a threat to them directly and singlely, hence why the rest of the world turned its backs on us.

Sorry MKULTRA, we NEVER TORTURED OUR OWN CIVILIANS! Our Government NEVER RAPED FOR PLEASURE our own Civilians! We NEVER COMMITTED MASS MURDER on our own civilians. At that time sir, they were fighting IRAN! The Iran Iraq War 1980-1988 i think the years were. Remember Iran wanted to bring the middle eastern countries back into the stone age, so we had to support Iraq. Iraq was the lesser of the two evils. We never condone what they did.

We've been saying it was bad since the end of the Iraq Iran war. More so During and After the First Gulf War, now that was a true Oil War! (giggles)

As for the other dictators, the UN is trying to handle them but is failing utterly. I wouldn't be surprised if we find that the UN has to topple these too but that'll be too much to hope for from that World Body.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

You talk about the UN as if it was another country, a superpower that can't be arsed to do anything. It is an organisation of the countries of the world. It can only take action of any sort with the support of at least the majority. Many of the UN nations are the very ones you say they should 'topple'. The UN, by it's nature, is an unweildy body but without it, most of the behind the scenes diplomacy and pressures couldn't happen. Whether this Iraq war is supported by you or not, it was an illegal, pre-emptive strike against a fellow member of the UN and the vast majority of other members were strongly against it. If you believe that at the moment, while the US is the worlds pre-eminent military power, we should ignore the UN, and America should simply go to war with whoever it chooses, the UN will grow even weaker and that will benefit no-one, including the US. Of course the US and European nations don't torture their own people, that's a fallacious argument. We take our starting point from telling the world that we stand for freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law. America and the UK have sullied their moral positions. As of today, obviously we should be staying and working to bring order and democracy to Iraq, despite the idiots that sabotage all our efforts. As for the Iran / Iraq war, as far as the West was concerned it couldn't have cared less about the loss of life, it simply wanted Iran, seen as an enemy, crushed. We, in the West armed Sadaam for that fight and probably used a few special units in secret ourselves (Delta, SAS). We wouldn't have cared what Iraq did after that war. Amnesty International bombarded us with information about the attrocities that sadaam was committing against his own people, especiall the Kurds. But Sadaam went too far, he invaded Kuwait and the US and UK acted immediately with troops from many other nations, including the French. That was a just and 'honest' war, to kick the Iraqis out (even though oil was the main imperitive). After 9/11, following the understandable international attack and invasion of Afghanistan, Bush for reasons that are still far from clear, became hell-bent on finishing off Sadaam, who had nothing whatsover to do with quaida. Sadaam and Quaida were mortal enemies. The situation now is that there are thousands more Quaida supporters than before the invasion of Iraq. We are less safe now than before the toppling of Sadaam, no matter that he was butcher of people.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.
Slip of tongue, eh? -- Not if you remember that this is Putin's second statement in defence of Bush in recent times. Barely two weeks ago at the G8 summit Pooty pointed out that the Democrats are hypocritical to criticise Bush for policies that they themselves pursued in Kosovo. The timing of this latest statement in support of Bush is even more suspicious, coming as it is on the heels of the 9/11 Commission report that debunked the Administration's assertions of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And, of course, Putin offers no specifics whatsoever as to what was that supposed Saddamite threat to America.

What motivates Pooty's Crusade for Bush is less clear. It could be that he reckons he has better personal rapport with Bush than he'd ever have with Kerry. And/or he wants some trade concessions from the U.S. (such as reduction of tarrifs/increase of quotas for Russian steel). And/or he expects this Bush-ward tilt to spook Chirac/Schroeder who'd come running to him offering concessions on various issues Russia has with the EU.
Kerry believes in what'd spook Russia the most: a bigger military for us. Whether or not that'd make us safer is arguable, but if the US has a larger military, it'd certainly be in Russia's worst interests. After all, there is no doubt that they'd reinforce troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, making the Bear feel like it's in a death grip. If he's supporting Bush, it's probably for that reason.
I doubt Putin is particularly alarmed by Kerry's plans for the military, as the proposed force expansion is quite modest (~40,000 extra troops, I believe). Likewise, the policy of expanding U.S. influence in Central Asia and Transcaucasia has been fairly consistent both under Clinton and Bush. So one has to wonder why Putin prefers Bush to Kerry. It is possible that Pooty simply has a personal preference for Bush, or he thinks that Bush will win in November anyway, and this was therefore an opportunity to win a cookie (on trade issues & such-like) by bashing Kerry without fear of retribution.
However, it still baffles me why Putin is so much against US foreign policy. It's not just the Iraq war, but things like sanctioning Iran. Then again, I think we've established that this man is certainly an enigma.
There is no particular reason for Putin to support US policy on Iran. Russia does good business selling military hardware to Iran -- and building those nuclear reactors at Bushehr. :wink:
Furthermore, there is the question of Iran's underdeveloped oil & gas reserves: if and when the Iranians decide to open their energy sector a little more to foreign investment strong relations between Russian and Iranian gov'ts would help Russian oil companies to win contracts there.
Last but not least, historically Iran and Russia have been on good terms because of the common enemy: the Ottoman Empire. And both are still wary of Turkey's regional ambitions.

Don't you read the papers? :wink:
"Disgruntled oligarchs" don't fare that well under Pooty :lol:
...As for the money, he's currently suing to recoup tax saving the oil companies made through legal tax minimisation schemes. And it's not like "the impartial judiciary" is gonna say no.
Well, ok. Saying they are a little annoyed is an understatement. If he were a little nicer to the oligarchs than he is now, I believe that the Russian economy would fare better than now.
Well, Putin is a control freak with very low tolerance for opposition or independent centres of power (which is what Khodorkovskiy was trying to buy for himself with the oil money). And putting the smack down on the oligarchs is quite popular with the little people. Persecution of Khodorkovskiy hasn't really affected the economy -- the GDP still growing by over 5% per year. Besides, the oligarchs will be fine, even if they have to pay a bit more in tax. The real challenge for Pooty would be to encourage growth of small and medium-size businesses to diversify the economy.

However, it still baffles me why Putin is so much against US foreign policy. It's not just the Iraq war, but things like sanctioning Iran. Then again, I think we've established that this man is certainly an enigma.
Because Russia traditionally views itself as an empire and a superpower by the virtue of it being somehow culturally "special". Kind of a "chosen nation" mentality. They are still out to regain the political influence of the Soviet Union- and they can't get it by allying themselves with the US, can they?
Methinks Israelis should be THE LAST to complain about the "chosen people" talk -- considering how the Old Testament is peppered with that chauvinist garbage.

It is truly ironic that the evidence for Bush's reason to go to war comes from the former head of the KGB. Were these not the guys that the Republicans said could never be trusted. You remember them, the red menace, commies, etc. I don't trust anything Bush or Putin put forth, both fabricate truths to serve their purposes.
Putin is a capitalist, so obviously, he was never a true believer of the Soviet system. If anything, he wishes for Russia to be more powerful, but he knows he can't logically do that. The best way to make sure Russia even has a voice in the world is to align themselves with the US, and stay on their good side. Occaisonal political sniping is okay, apparantly.
However, why would Putin be lying? He has everything to loose: his reasons for opposing the war so much, his reputation, perhaps even Russian market share in the world oil market. I think that what Putin made in Astana was more of an honest slip, and under normal circumstances, Putin would never disclose that information.
Slip of tongue, eh? -- Not if you remember that this is Putin's second statement in defence of Bush in recent times. Barely two weeks ago at the G8 summit Pooty pointed out that the Democrats are hypocritical to criticise Bush for policies that they themselves pursued in Kosovo. The timing of this latest statement in support of Bush is even more suspicious, coming as it is on the heels of the 9/11 Commission report that debunked the Administration's assertions of ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And, of course, Putin offers no specifics whatsoever as to what was that supposed Saddamite threat to America.

What motivates Pooty's Crusade for Bush is less clear. It could be that he reckons he has better personal rapport with Bush than he'd ever have with Kerry. And/or he wants some trade concessions from the U.S. (such as reduction of tarrifs/increase of quotas for Russian steel). And/or he expects this Bush-ward tilt to spook Chirac/Schroeder who'd come running to him offering concessions on various issues Russia has with the EU.
Kerry believes in what'd spook Russia the most: a bigger military for us. Whether or not that'd make us safer is arguable, but if the US has a larger military, it'd certainly be in Russia's worst interests. After all, there is no doubt that they'd reinforce troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, making the Bear feel like it's in a death grip. If he's supporting Bush, it's probably for that reason.
I doubt Putin is particularly alarmed by Kerry's plans for the military, as the proposed force expansion is quite modest (~40,000 extra troops, I believe). Likewise, the policy of expanding U.S. influence in Central Asia and Transcaucasia has been fairly consistent both under Clinton and Bush. So one has to wonder why Putin prefers Bush to Kerry. It is possible that Pooty simply has a personal preference for Bush, or he thinks that Bush will win in November anyway, and this was therefore an opportunity to win a cookie (on trade issues & such-like) by bashing Kerry without fear of retribution.
However, it still baffles me why Putin is so much against US foreign policy. It's not just the Iraq war, but things like sanctioning Iran. Then again, I think we've established that this man is certainly an enigma.
There is no particular reason for Putin to support US policy on Iran. Russia does good business selling military hardware to Iran -- and building those nuclear reactors at Bushehr. :wink:
Furthermore, there is the question of Iran's underdeveloped oil & gas reserves: if and when the Iranians decide to open their energy sector a little more to foreign investment strong relations between Russian and Iranian gov'ts would help Russian oil companies to win contracts there.
Last but not least, historically Iran and Russia have been on good terms because of the common enemy: the Ottoman Empire. And both are still wary of Turkey's regional ambitions.
I would think, though, that Russia would procede in its Iran policy a little more carefully then they have now. It's as if they are saying to the world that Russia will help a terrorist regime.

Don't you read the papers? :wink:
"Disgruntled oligarchs" don't fare that well under Pooty :lol:
...As for the money, he's currently suing to recoup tax saving the oil companies made through legal tax minimisation schemes. And it's not like "the impartial judiciary" is gonna say no.
Well, ok. Saying they are a little annoyed is an understatement. If he were a little nicer to the oligarchs than he is now, I believe that the Russian economy would fare better than now.
Well, Putin is a control freak with very low tolerance for opposition or independent centres of power (which is what Khodorkovskiy was trying to buy for himself with the oil money). And putting the smack down on the oligarchs is quite popular with the little people. Persecution of Khodorkovskiy hasn't really affected the economy -- the GDP still growing by over 5% per year. Besides, the oligarchs will be fine, even if they have to pay a bit more in tax. The real challenge for Pooty would be to encourage growth of small and medium-size businesses to diversify the economy.
Arresting Khodorkovkiy hasn't hurt now, but it will just above the horizon. Yukos released a statement saying that they'll be bankrupt by the end of the year. If that happens, I'm sure ExxonMobil will gobble them up, and Putin will have what he sees as a headache in his country: foreign penetration of oil.

I would think, though, that Russia would procede in its Iran policy a little more carefully then they have now. It's as if they are saying to the world that Russia will help a terrorist regime.
"(fill-in-the-blanks) is terrorist regime" is just so much propaganda hooey. The U.S. says Cuba and Iran are terrorist regimes. And somebody else responds that American allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are terrorist regimes.

Don't you read the papers? :wink:
"Disgruntled oligarchs" don't fare that well under Pooty :lol:
...As for the money, he's currently suing to recoup tax saving the oil companies made through legal tax minimisation schemes. And it's not like "the impartial judiciary" is gonna say no.
Well, ok. Saying they are a little annoyed is an understatement. If he were a little nicer to the oligarchs than he is now, I believe that the Russian economy would fare better than now.
Well, Putin is a control freak with very low tolerance for opposition or independent centres of power (which is what Khodorkovskiy was trying to buy for himself with the oil money). And putting the smack down on the oligarchs is quite popular with the little people. Persecution of Khodorkovskiy hasn't really affected the economy -- the GDP still growing by over 5% per year. Besides, the oligarchs will be fine, even if they have to pay a bit more in tax. The real challenge for Pooty would be to encourage growth of small and medium-size businesses to diversify the economy.
Arresting Khodorkovkiy hasn't hurt now, but it will just above the horizon. Yukos released a statement saying that they'll be bankrupt by the end of the year. If that happens, I'm sure ExxonMobil will gobble them up, and Putin will have what he sees as a headache in his country: foreign penetration of oil.
What Yukos is saying is that they will go bankrupt if forced to pay the multi-billion tax bill that Putin (or as he insists, the "totally independent" Prosecutor General) has hit them with. In my opinion, the reason why Pooty went after Khodorkovskiy is 1) K's attempt to buy loyalty of a number of opposition parties and their parliamentary deputies, and 2) K's rumoured intention to sell a stake in Yukos to ExxonMobil. (1) is unacceptable to Putin because he doesn't tolerate political opposition very well, and (2) -- because ExxonMobil is too close to the U.S. gov't and b/c such sale would interfere with Putin's intention to create a Russian oil super-major. Such a super-major could come about through merger of Yukos and Sibneft', but Putin would prefer the merged behemoth under control of Roman Abramovich (a more loyal oligarch who owns Sibneft'). Tax charges are just the means of getting Khodorkovskiy to comply -- and of striking fear of God (a.k.a. Putin) into the hearts of the oligarchs (Abramovich included). Once Khodorkovskiy capitulates, you can bet your last dollar that gov't would consent to Yukos repaying the tax claims against it over several years, rather than in a lump sum, and Khodorkovskiy himself would be released "on medical grounds" or some-such and exiled abroad.