NationStates Jolt Archive

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that Bush is an asshole and a moron for going into Iraq.

Everyone says: "This is a war about oil."
No, it is not, if it was our gas prices would not have skyrocketed a few months ago. Even if we did start getting more oil it would do us no good. Our oil refineries are running at 96% of maximum capacity, that can not be maintained for very long before stuff starts to breakdown and go wrong.

"But where are the WMD's"
Face it people, you were fooled, their are no WMD's, and if there are WMD's they will likely never be found, the Iraqi dessert is a large place, they could be buried and never found.

"War is wrong."
My response to that one: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

And also: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill

Saddam Hussein was a bastard. The UN had 12 years to find the WMD's in Iraq, the US deserves 12 years to see if they can find them, if we fail then perhaps we were wrong, but atleast we realised that something was not right and we tried to fix it. Let's hear the French response to that one, atleast someone learned a lesson from WWI and WWII (and it wasn't France).

I apologize for the harsh language if any of you who read this are offended.

So why did Bush have to cloak our "real" mission under WMDs, then? Is it because, I don't know, the war couldn't be justified by removing Hussein alone?

And with the French quip. It means nothing. "OMFG Teh Frehcn suxxorz!!!! Teh stooopid n00b frenches!!! !111!!11821111!!!" is not the epitome of wit. Why not insult Germany, too? Oh, right, because if you made fun of the Germans on national TV it'd be racist.

Casualties-
Civilian, Coalition, Iraqi
11,000-13,000 + 700 + ???
Yee-haw, mission accomplished!

My apologies for the harsh words, also.

Saddam Hussein was a bastard. The UN had 12 years to find the WMD's in Iraq, the US deserves 12 years to see if they can find them, if we fail then perhaps we were wrong, but atleast we realised that something was not right and we tried to fix it. Let's hear the French response to that one, atleast someone learned a lesson from WWI and WWII (and it wasn't France).

This makes for a good excuse after you get into the war, and had it been the reason to start with, I would have been most apt to support the war, however (you hate on Anti-Bushers, so I will hate on pro-Bushers) you people have to remember that while everyone was thinking that removing Saddam would be good for humanity, no one (included the Bush admin) said anything about that until after we were already in and they started realized that there are no WMDs and no terrorist ties. And by the way, I'd like you to explain your World War lesson statement a little more...

Sigh. The UN did not simply come up empty in the 12 years since the first Gulf War. They succesfully contained and dismantled existing WMD programs. The current invasion was based on the erroneous assertion that Iraq still possessed WMD's (despite the succesful dismantlements), and were furthermore capable of launching them at Western targets. This theory was accepted as fact by a majority of the American public, when there was no intelligence to support it.

And now, you claim that the WMD assertion didn't matter, that the fact Saddam was an evil man justified the invasion and killing of many Iraqis, as well as many American soldiers. This argument simply does not hold up.

I agree with you on one thing... ad hominem attacks on Bush are not helpful. There is plenty of factual statements to back up a dislike for Bush to choose from.

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".


I guess that means that most Americans either lack the courage to defend their own freedom, or are too dumb to realize how the current administration is eroding their freedom -- what's left of that freedom anyways.

This makes for a good excuse after you get into the war, and had it been the reason to start with, I would have been most apt to support the war, however (you hate on Anti-Bushers, so I will hate on pro-Bushers) you people have to remember that while everyone was thinking that removing Saddam would be good for humanity, no one (included the Bush admin) said anything about that until after we were already in and they started realized that there are no WMDs and no terrorist ties. And by the way, I'd like you to explain your World War lesson statement a little more...

What would have perhaps been more useful is if the U.S. had removed Saddam after he gassed the Iranians and the Kurds with U.S. supplied chemical stockpiles. Instead, the U.S. saw fit to prop him up untill he invaded Kuwait. The truth is, Saddam has done nothing for 12 years on the scale of what he did to the Kurds and Iranians. Hell, he didn't have to, because UN backed sanctions did it for him,

I guess that means that most Americans either lack the courage to defend their own freedom, or are too dumb to realize how the current administration is eroding their freedom -- what's left of that freedom anyways.
Heh, and along these lines, freedom being the sure possession of those alone willing to fight for it or whatever...guess Iraq won't be very free as we had to fight their revolution for them...

What would have perhaps been more useful is if the U.S. had removed Saddam after he gassed the Iranians and the Kurds with U.S. supplied chemical stockpiles. Instead, the U.S. saw fit to prop him up untill he invaded Kuwait. The truth is, Saddam has done nothing for 12 years on the scale of what he did to the Kurds and Iranians. Hell, he didn't have to, because UN backed sanctions did it for him,
Yep. And the same with the Taliban. They definitely came to power on their own, right? Nope. They were using US weapons when they first came to power.

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that Bush is an asshole and a moron for going into Iraq.

Everyone says: "This is a war about oil."
No, it is not, if it was our gas prices would not have skyrocketed a few months ago. Even if we did start getting more oil it would do us no good. Our oil refineries are running at 96% of maximum capacity, that can not be maintained for very long before stuff starts to breakdown and go wrong.

"But where are the WMD's"
Face it people, you were fooled, their are no WMD's, and if there are WMD's they will likely never be found, the Iraqi dessert is a large place, they could be buried and never found.

"War is wrong."
My response to that one: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

And also: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill

Saddam Hussein was a bastard. The UN had 12 years to find the WMD's in Iraq, the US deserves 12 years to see if they can find them, if we fail then perhaps we were wrong, but atleast we realised that something was not right and we tried to fix it. Let's hear the French response to that one, atleast someone learned a lesson from WWI and WWII (and it wasn't France).

I apologize for the harsh language if any of you who read this are offended.

The fact you brought up the French argument shows the extent of your rather limited brainpower. Fuck off, and stop involving yourself in the affairs of the EU, like Bush did just a month ago, and Chirac told him where to stick it. We don't like Right Wing America concerning itself with Europe. And we don't like Right Wing America as a whole.

Yep. And the same with the Taliban. They definitely came to power on their own, right? Nope. They were using US weapons when they first came to power.

Yep. Another example of the chronic short-sightedness of American foreign policy. Mujahadeen = non-communist = good. Sigh.

I am American, but as far as my geneology goes, I think I'm like half French. I tend to just ignore anti-French comments (partly because I don't even live in France), but the way people criticize France of making up their own mind instead of letting America decide for them (Like the UK tends to do) is kind of like racism...except nationality =/= race.

Is it our job to kick out brutal dictators? If so, we're gonna be in Africa for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.



And what's your problem with the French? How about this for a comeback they can use: You're war still isn't justified, even if he's a sadistic bastard.

Is it our job to kick out brutal dictators? If so, we're gonna be in Africa for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time.



And what's your problem with the French? How about this for a comeback they can use: You're war still isn't justified, even if he's a sadistic bastard.

Not to mention the tinpot dictatorships of Turkmenistan and Tadjikistan, which are America's allies in the "war on terror". Hmm... beginning to see a bit of hypocrisy in American foreign policy?

Yep. Another example of the chronic short-sightedness of American foreign policy. Mujahadeen = non-communist = good. Sigh.
I know why they have the weapons so personal attacks are kind of jumping the gun. The fact of the matter is that whether or not a country is communist shouldn't be of much of a concern to America (Afghanistan is nothing but a sandbox either way).

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

the need to defend freedom and the actual defense of freedom itself negate the very freedom you are so valiantly protecting.

freedom itself is inherantly unatainable unless you propose so type of exlcusive freedom for the worthy. or the rich.

iraq war was not about oil exclusively.
it was about lucrative govt contracts in the destruction and subseqent re-construction of iraq, shifting blame, personalising the "war on terror", securing adminstion and its cronies a nice pension and formulating the creation of economist's "wet-dream" a fiercly competive market begging for investment to develop it's "soveriegn" resource of the SECOND LARGEST OIL RESEVRE IN THE WORLD

defeintly not justified by the mindless rhetoric you so will swallowed

Not to mention the tinpot dictatorships of Turkmenistan and Tadjikistan, which are America's allies in the "war on terror". Hmm... beginning to see a bit of hypocrisy in American foreign policy?
Where is Tadjikistan?

Heh, and along these lines, freedom being the sure possession of those alone willing to fight for it or whatever...guess Iraq won't be very free as we had to fight their revolution for them...

Right on!! Too weak to fight Saddam in order to get their freedom = too weak to fight the US for freedom. And the US sure as hell isn't going to throw any freedom their way. We all know what happened in South America, don't we? Same with Iraq.

I know why they have the weapons so personal attacks are kind of jumping the gun. The fact of the matter is that whether or not a country is communist shouldn't be of much of a concern to America (Afghanistan is nothing but a sandbox either way).

I think you may have misconstrued my post. I was agreeing with you. Under the dominoe-theory of the cold-war, conventional American wisdom was that anti-Communist movements, no matter how theocratic or regressive, were to be trained and supported. This included Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen, which used their CIA training to plan devastating attacks against America.

Where is Tadjikistan?

I may have spelled it wrong, but it is a former soviet sattelite that borders Afghanistan

<a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ti.html">CIA World Factbook Entry for Tajikistan</a>

I think you may have misconstrued my post. I was agreeing with you. Under the dominoe-theory of the cold-war, conventional American wisdom was that anti-Communist movements, no matter how theocratic or regressive, were to be trained and supported. This included Osama bin Laden and the Mujahadeen, which used their CIA training to plan devastating attacks against America.
Okay, sorry. I see you were attacking other people's views of Afghanistan and the fact that they don't know we put them in power. Anyway, all this has happened before. Fidel Castro first came to power with the assistance of the CIA if I remember correctly (of course, we've now tried multiple times to remove him...but oh well). If we don't put dictators in place, we wouldn't have to go remove them and look like hypocrites. We should just leave countries be and at the very most assist the side we agree with in a civil war that was started by the people of that country (it's why France hasn't stepping in to America to change anything, they waited to assist us until we had already started our war...)

I may have spelled it wrong, but it is a former soviet sattelite that borders Afghanistan

<a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ti.html">CIA World Factbook Entry for Tajikistan</a>

I know where Tajikistan is...heh, I know a lot about Middle East geography and such. I was just giving you a hard time because that D made that country name look REALLY funny.

British and American people are greedy, I have said it before I will say it again, most will not support a war that will not benefit them somehow or unless they feel threatened. The Bush administration lied the American people and the world, I will repeat that again, BUSH LIED, get over it

Politics got in the way of the first Iraqi war, I'll be damned if that will happen again, if Saddam is set free I can quarantee he will not live long, but thankfully he won't be set free, we would sooned bomb the whole prison he is in, killing the civilians inside along with him, than let Saddam go free.

We were wrong in 1991 to pull out early, I joked about that for a year before Bush was elected, I said his dad was making him run so Bush Jr. could finish what Bush Sr. started. It was the right thing to do, we could not let Iraq rebuild because Saddam would have all to likely started his WMD programs up all over again. Remember when Israel destroyed that Nuclear Power Plant that was being used to create a Nuclear Bomb? It was not till after Desert Storm that we realised that Israel may have saved thousands of Coalition Soldiers lives by doing that, they did so at a great risk to themselves, lucky enough for them the entire Iraqi Air Defense system was down for maintenance the day they did it. The pilots went up there expecting to die, and then, they dropped their bombs and headed home, nothing happened, they risked having the entire Middle East attack them, again. Even Europe was pissed at them. Israel did what needed to be done, now who is to say that what we are doing in Iraq is not the same thing?

And how many of you will be going over to Iraq? Go ahead, say it. I will be, I was told I would be going to Europe but the Army include the Middle East as part of Europe, and you know what, I have no problem with that because I am secure with the knowledge that what I am doing is right and that I am helping to make life better for someone that I will never meet. Do the images of people being decapitated on TV make me nervous? You are damn right they do, but I have told myself and my family that I will never be one of the people on Al Jazeera, I will not put them through that, I will put a bullet in my own head before I allow myself to be captured. And this is different than Kamikazes and japanese ritualistic suicide during WWII, I know what will happen to me if I am captured and it is not good, I will not kill myself out of honor but rather because I will not make my mom and dad watch me being killed on TV. They do not deserve that I make sure that never happens.

I was not trying to piss anyone off by this, but I just get so sick of other people telling me that I am wrong, I am an American, I am less than human, and why is it that only America is getting heat for his? It is a coalition of many nations that are fighting or have sent some sort of aid to Iraq, why are we the only one's that are being criticized, along with the UK, who is also taking alot of heat, and not Japan, or Itay, or any of the other many countries that have set aid?

And when a Pro-Saddam rally in the heart of Baghdad can only draw 150 people I think that should send a message to everyone about how the Iraqis really feel about the US soldiers being in Iraq.

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that Bush is an asshole and a moron for going into Iraq.

Everyone says: "This is a war about oil."
No, it is not, if it was our gas prices would not have skyrocketed a few months ago. Even if we did start getting more oil it would do us no good. Our oil refineries are running at 96% of maximum capacity, that can not be maintained for very long before stuff starts to breakdown and go wrong.

"But where are the WMD's"
Face it people, you were fooled, their are no WMD's, and if there are WMD's they will likely never be found, the Iraqi dessert is a large place, they could be buried and never found.

"War is wrong."
My response to that one: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

And also: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill

Saddam Hussein was a bastard. The UN had 12 years to find the WMD's in Iraq, the US deserves 12 years to see if they can find them, if we fail then perhaps we were wrong, but atleast we realised that something was not right and we tried to fix it. Let's hear the French response to that one, atleast someone learned a lesson from WWI and WWII (and it wasn't France).

I apologize for the harsh language if any of you who read this are offended.

I never understood the incessant bashing of France. You're only detract from your message when you add unlearned comments that bash France. Germany and Italy and other UN nations were against the war as well.

Come on, I may not want to live in France, but it doesn't make it alright to constantly beret them (HAHAHAHA, I made a pun).

Do the images of people being decapitated on TV make me nervous? You are damn right they do, but I have told myself and my family that I will never be one of the people on Al Jazeera, I will not put them through that, I will put a bullet in my own head before I allow myself to be captured. And this is different than Kamikazes and japanese ritualistic suicide during WWII, I know what will happen to me if I am captured and it is not good, I will not kill myself out of honor but rather because I will not make my mom and dad watch me being killed on TV. They do not deserve that I make sure that never happens.
Sorry to say, but that is suicide for honor in a roundabout way.

I was not trying to piss anyone off by this, but I just get so sick of other people telling me that I am wrong, I am an American, I am less than human, and why is it that only America is getting heat for his? It is a coalition of many nations that are fighting or have sent some sort of aid to Iraq, why are we the only one's that are being criticized, along with the UK, who is also taking alot of heat, and not Japan, or Itay, or any of the other many countries that have set aid?
Uh, it is Americans that are throwing most of the heat and they're taking their part in Democracy and voicing their opinion and showing their distaste for what is going on because they don't agree with it. Like it or not, this is how we do things in America. It is a representative Democracy and if our opinions aren't voiced then our opinions can't be represented. I don't see how can look at yourself as better than the people who disagree with the war. Your first post in this thread had a very condescending tone to it. Kind of a "This is how it is and this is why Bush was right." And then you get mad at us protesting the accuracy of your statements. And as far as non-American criticism--people outside America are going to criticize the big bully who started all this mess. America today has abused her status as the world superpower and she has become the world's bully.

And when a Pro-Saddam rally in the heart of Baghdad can only draw 150 people I think that should send a message to everyone about how the Iraqis really feel about the US soldiers being in Iraq.
Just because I'm not pro-Bush doesn't make me pro-Kerry. An Iraqi who is not pro-Saddam is not necessarily pro-US troops. They don't like the occupation just as much as they don't like Saddam, but given the choice, they'd choose us..that does not make them satisfied. I'm only voting for Kerry because I think I will be more satisfied with him than I would Bush, but neither really makes me all that happy. And again, I have to stress the fact that removing Saddam was never a reason, it was merely an excuse after the fact...

British and American people are greedy, I have said it before I will say it again, most will not support a war that will not benefit them somehow or unless they feel threatened. The Bush administration lied the American people and the world, I will repeat that again, BUSH LIED, get over it.
Another reason I won't be voting for Bush. It is not acceptable for him to have lied about this war. It is not acceptable for him to put millions of young American lives at risk over a lie. I realize that I'm stuck with it at least until January, but that does not mean I have to put up with it for another 4 years. If you know he lied to get us into Iraq then what makes you think he won't lie to get us to go in somewhere else?

British and American people are greedy, I have said it before I will say it again, most will not support a war that will not benefit them somehow or unless they feel threatened. The Bush administration lied the American people and the world, I will repeat that again, BUSH LIED, get over it

Politics got in the way of the first Iraqi war, I'll be damned if that will happen again, if Saddam is set free I can quarantee he will not live long, but thankfully he won't be set free, we would sooned bomb the whole prison he is in, killing the civilians inside along with him, than let Saddam go free.

We were wrong in 1991 to pull out early, I joked about that for a year before Bush was elected, I said his dad was making him run so Bush Jr. could finish what Bush Sr. started. It was the right thing to do, we could not let Iraq rebuild because Saddam would have all to likely started his WMD programs up all over again. Remember when Israel destroyed that Nuclear Power Plant that was being used to create a Nuclear Bomb? It was not till after Desert Storm that we realised that Israel may have saved thousands of Coalition Soldiers lives by doing that, they did so at a great risk to themselves, lucky enough for them the entire Iraqi Air Defense system was down for maintenance the day they did it. The pilots went up there expecting to die, and then, they dropped their bombs and headed home, nothing happened, they risked having the entire Middle East attack them, again. Even Europe was pissed at them. Israel did what needed to be done, now who is to say that what we are doing in Iraq is not the same thing?

And how many of you will be going over to Iraq? Go ahead, say it. I will be, I was told I would be going to Europe but the Army include the Middle East as part of Europe, and you know what, I have no problem with that because I am secure with the knowledge that what I am doing is right and that I am helping to make life better for someone that I will never meet. Do the images of people being decapitated on TV make me nervous? You are damn right they do, but I have told myself and my family that I will never be one of the people on Al Jazeera, I will not put them through that, I will put a bullet in my own head before I allow myself to be captured. And this is different than Kamikazes and japanese ritualistic suicide during WWII, I know what will happen to me if I am captured and it is not good, I will not kill myself out of honor but rather because I will not make my mom and dad watch me being killed on TV. They do not deserve that I make sure that never happens.

I was not trying to piss anyone off by this, but I just get so sick of other people telling me that I am wrong, I am an American, I am less than human, and why is it that only America is getting heat for his? It is a coalition of many nations that are fighting or have sent some sort of aid to Iraq, why are we the only one's that are being criticized, along with the UK, who is also taking alot of heat, and not Japan, or Itay, or any of the other many countries that have set aid?

And when a Pro-Saddam rally in the heart of Baghdad can only draw 150 people I think that should send a message to everyone about how the Iraqis really feel about the US soldiers being in Iraq.

I'd have to agree whole heartedly... despite the fact that I'm liberal and I'm supposed to disagree on the idea.

The only thing is, war isn't the best thing for a country already in 30,000 per capita debt to be getting into.

First we must go back to WWI and the Treaty of Versaille. The French, who had to endure the worst of the fighting in WWI wanted a harsh peace for Germany, America and President Woodrow Wilson wanted a leniant peace, Britain also wanted a harsh peave on Germany but not to the extent France did. Finally we (the US) just said screw, if you want it you got it, we left and signed our own treaty with Germany. France and Britain then forced their own terms on Germany, one of which was demilitarising the Rhine Industrial areas, and Germany had no choice but to accept due to the English Blockade that was starving Germany.

Now, lets move up quite a few years, Hitler is in power and he is rebuilding the German armed forces, finally he sends troops and "tractors" (tanks) into the Rhine DMZ, France, who wanted a harsh peach on Germany did nothing. Germany then started rebuilding at an even faster rate and Bobs your uncle WWII started up. Germany almost defeated Britain and the Soviet Union because of this. Now, how this relates to Iraq.

Remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Well as you may remember a very large coalition led by the US liberated Kuwait from Iraq. We set the peace terms, we left (kind of, we kept lots of troops in the area). Saddam plotted to kill President Bush Sr. Clinton ordered an Air Strike against Iraq. Saddam used attack helicopters on rebelling Kurds in the North, who were rebelling because of the way they were treated by Saddam before the war, we put tighter restrictions on Iraq and the no fly zone. Then, finally realising that the only option left was to get rid of Saddam we invaded. See the difference? France trusted Germany and believed that Hitler really would stop asking for land. We knew Saddam would keep demanding more and more so we kept him on a short leash and put a choke collar on him.

While I can not deny that my first post was definetly anti-French I will tell you this, I do not hate all French people because they are French, I do not hate Chinese people because they come from China, I do not truly hate many people in the world as in order to hate them you pretty much need to know them. I also can not deny that I was an ass in the first post in how I talked about the French, I apologize for this, I could have written it better, but writing is not one of my strong points and all of my teachers have told me about this, I have the ideas in my head but I can't put them into words, that is why many of the things I write come out much different than how I meant to say them. Once again, I apologize for this, english is not my strong subject, I talk to lots of people from Europe and have no problem getting along with them.

Another reason I won't be voting for Bush. It is not acceptable for him to have lied about this war. It is not acceptable for him to put millions of young American lives at risk over a lie. I realize that I'm stuck with it at least until January, but that does not mean I have to put up with it for another 4 years. If you know he lied to get us into Iraq then what makes you think he won't lie to get us to go in somewhere else?

I don't, all I can say to that is that it is the government duty to watch out the best interest and rights of the people of that country. If Bush felt he had to lie to do it that was his choice and we will see how far it gets him in the next election.

To be quite honest I would rather that he does lie and get us into another war in a place that greatly needs our help, the next country on my list would have to be N. Korea, thounds starving everyday so that Kim can have his Million Man Army. Why can't they do what Vietnam did? Vietnam beat us and then they focused on their people, not the defense of the country, while most people in Vietnam are "poor" they are eating, they may not have much of monetary value but does all that money mean anything when you can't eat?

No Opal Isle, that is not Suicide for honor, if anything that is a cowardly way to do it.

The Japaneses didn't have to worry about the whole world seeing pictures of them benig beheaded, I do. The grief on my parents over my death will be enough, they do not need to actually see it, they horrible image of anybody being killed like that, especially not their first born and only son.

And about the suicide for honor, I would do it because their is no way I want to go through the pain of being beheaded, a bullet is quick, a thousandth of a second of pain and then, nothing, I saw the video of Nick Berg being beheaded, that will not happen to me.

I don't, all I can say to that is that it is the government duty to watch out the best interest and rights of the people of that country. If Bush felt he had to lie to do it that was his choice and we will see how far it gets him in the next election.

To be quite honest I would rather that he does lie and get us into another war in a place that greatly needs our help, the next country on my list would have to be N. Korea, thounds starving everyday so that Kim can have his Million Man Army. Why can't they do what Vietnam did? Vietnam beat us and then they focused on their people, not the defense of the country, while most people in Vietnam are "poor" they are eating, they may not have much of monetary value but does all that money mean anything when you can't eat?
You condone an American dictatorship, but not an Iraqi one?

And again, I have to stress the fact that removing Saddam was never a reason, it was merely an excuse after the fact...

And again I must say that it is because Americans are greedy and they will not all that willingly help others unless they themselves are threatened, hence why alot of movies with British veterans like to say "Damn yanks, always showin up late for every war." It is true, Bush lied to us to kick us in the rear and force us to act. I truly don't believe, but I do hope I am wrong about this, that we would not be in Iraq if we had simply said that it was because Saddam was oppressing the people of Iraq.

As for this talk about Turkmenistan and Tajikstan, all I have to say is one at a time. We can not invade every totalitarian country in the world at once, if we can at all, but Iraq would be the most shining example of American Democract at work overseas and that alone might be enough to stir rebellions in other countries, like those listed above.

No Opal Isle, that is not Suicide for honor, if anything that is a cowardly way to do it.

The Japaneses didn't have to worry about the whole world seeing pictures of them benig beheaded, I do. The grief on my parents over my death will be enough, they do not need to actually see it, they horrible image of anybody being killed like that, especially not their first born and only son.

And about the suicide for honor, I would do it because their is no way I want to go through the pain of being beheaded, a bullet is quick, a thousandth of a second of pain and then, nothing, I saw the video of Nick Berg being beheaded, that will not happen to me.
Well...it is suicide for honor, and as you didn't take the tie to consider my statement, I'll explain it to you. First, just because you don't do it for the same reason as the Japanese (even though you do sort of), you still are doing it for honor. To the Japanese, giving up to your enemy was considered dishonorable, therefore, suicide wasn't completely honorable, it was just more honorable than dieing by surrendering. The Japanese didn't go off committing suicide for honor. Anyways, you say that you would shoot yourself because it would be less painful (well, you say that now, but that wasn't the first reason), but you also say you would not want your parents to have to see you die. Why? Because it is kind of dishonorable to have been taken prisoner by a bunch of terrorists and then executed for "doing the right thing." Therefore, suicide, while not honorable, would appear more honorable than being beheaded on TV because your death would not be recorded for freaks like you to go download off the internet and watch.

You condone an American dictatorship, but not an Iraqi one?

Bush was elected, the people still have power over him, he is not a dictator, he is also limited in his powers by that of Congress and the Supreme Court in addition to the people themselves. Bush must appease the people, if it were a dictatorship then the people would have to appease Bush.

And again I must say that it is because Americans are greedy and they will not all that willingly help others unless they themselves are threatened, hence why alot of movies with British veterans like to say "Damn yanks, always showin up late for every war." It is true, Bush lied to us to kick us in the rear and force us to act. I truly don't believe, but I do hope I am wrong about this, that we would not be in Iraq if we had simply said that it was because Saddam was oppressing the people of Iraq.

As for this talk about Turkmenistan and Tajikstan, all I have to say is one at a time. We can not invade every totalitarian country in the world at once, if we can at all, but Iraq would be the most shining example of American Democract at work overseas and that alone might be enough to stir rebellions in other countries, like those listed above.
Well maybe Americans are like that because Americans don't want to have our fingers in everyone's pie. Maybe the average American isn't greedy like you say, just very aware of foreigners perceptions of us. You can be all-knowing in your own mind if you'd like, but I'd rather us have gone into Iraq under the proclamation that Saddam is evil and needs to be removed because it would have gone over with the entire world much better. I mean seriously. And aside from that, how would Bush have known we wouldn't've supported a war that was aimed to remove Saddam. He NEVER EVER even brought that point up until afterwards. I mean seriously...he could have at least mentioned that Saddam was evil and that he'd like a war against Iraq to remove him and then if that didn't work he could step into his dictator boots and decide for us (which is against the American ideal, but you think its okay...)

Bush was elected, the people still have power over him, he is not a dictator, he is also limited in his powers by that of Congress and the Supreme Court in addition to the people themselves. Bush must appease the people, if it were a dictatorship then the people would have to appease Bush.
But it is a dictatorship. The fact that we appear to know what our government is doing proves it. We didn't decide whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary like we should have. He did. He, according to your arguments, decided that Saddam must be removed. Before mentioning that to the people, according to your arguments, he told us that Iraq was a threat to America and Saddam had WMDs and ties to terrorist organizations. Of course this type of war would get support.

Bush was elected, the people still have power over him, he is not a dictator, he is also limited in his powers by that of Congress and the Supreme Court in addition to the people themselves. Bush must appease the people, if it were a dictatorship then the people would have to appease Bush.
By the way, Saddam was "elected" as well.

"War is wrong."
My response to that one: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".



You can quote John Stuart Mill (of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill) but I can quote the Eagles.

"Freedom, oh freedom. Well that's just some people talking."

Freedom is nothing without security and stability. Otherwise, we call it anarchy. Sure, Iraqis are free to say what they want (as long as it doesn't offend Americans). However, they're also free to kill, steal, thieve and rape each other.

Who the hell starts a war without working out how they're gonna finish it. Whatever the legalities and moralities of the war, one thing is certain- the people who started it are idiots. They have the capabilities of a dyslexic four year old when it comes to weighing up intelligence, and are totally feckless when it comes to nation building. Even if you don't hate them for the war, ridicule them for the 'peace'.


Remember, as Quakers say, Peace is more than just an absence of War.

Damn it Opal Isle, think about it, back in WWII we had a very limited amount of cameras covering the war, you didn't have to worry about the whole world seeing you die, especially since our enemies had even fewer cameras than we do. Now you can get a webcam for $10 and show the whole world an image on the internet.

My parents would not be dishonored by seeing me being beheaded, they would be horrified, and since they had to sign the paperwork letting my join the Army since I was only 17 at the time they would likely blame themselves. So it I have the choice of having a closed casket funeral or no funeral at all and my parents last vision of me was me being beheaded I know which one I would choose. It is not suicide strictly out of honor, it is because my mom, who has Diabets and MS, would likely go into shock from seeing that and it could kill her. I do not want to have to sit there thinking for 3 days what they would do next. Their is no honor in suicide, suicide is not accepting responsibility for your actions and taking the easy way out, the truly honorable thing to do would to to fight to the death or until the simply overpower you and knock you out cold, then the honorable thing to do would be to stand proud and not bow down to the level of the terrorists, put up with the pain and torture, that is honotable.

People seriously need to understand the meaning of the word justify. It was not justified. And anyway. By how do you mean "We" Do you mean as in the Pro-war crowd as opposed to the Anti-war crowd. I hate this thread. Your summary sums up the exact same points as dozens of other threads that have been posted here over the past year. Theres nothing left to fight over, yet everyone still sticks to thier guns. Its over, We in iraq now and whats done is done Sure the debate was a great deal of fun, but its time to stop living in the past.

In these threads I usually post a few interesting predictions that were made aound the turn of the century.

War For Oil, Peace For Oil. (ie: "follow the money")
Most people think this coming war is about oil. And it is. But not in the way you might think.

Iraq sits on the second-largest proven reserves in the world. Currently, it produces slightly less than 2 million barrels a day. And under the terms of U.N. resolution 986, Iraq is allowed to export around 2.2 million bpd to pay for food and critical domestic infrastructure plans.

Yet according to Iraqi Oil Minister Amir Rashid, as of early 2002, only 24 of Iraq's 73 developed oil fields were actually producing. Part of this is Iraq's own fault. Iraq destroyed much of the production capacity of its southern oil fields before advancing coalition ground forces could seize them in the Gulf War.

All that's about to change. In a free Iraq, billions more in reserves are likely to come online, increasing Iraqi oil production to somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 million bpd. But who gets rich off of this? Is it Iraq? Is it major integrated oil companies? Is it Bush and Cheney and their
Texas Oil Mafia cronies? Is it France and Russia?

First off, contrary to popular belief, an increase in Iraqi oil production doesn't make big U.S. oil companies richer. Rising oil production in Iraq should lead to falling oil prices. And falling oil prices aren't generally good for big oil profits, even on increased volume. They will lower prices at the pump for sure. But they will not increase profits for Texaco. In fact, if oil prices don't fall after the war with Iraq - and I mean fall back down to around $15/barrel, then there really IS a conspiracy.

The only companies who will profit after the war - no matter who owns the fields - are the companies who will help make the fields productive. I'm talking about oil service companies. It doesn't matter if France, Russia, the U.S. Army or a new Iraqi government owns the fields. Whoever owns them will need the services and the equipment to make them profitable..

In any case, an increase in Iraqi production seems almost inevitable. The only question is how it will come about. If Saddam chooses to lose gracefully, leaving oil fields intact - or if he simply runs out of time to destroy them - existing capacity will be expanded, and new reserves located and developed without much hassle. Otherwise, the United States and its allies will be faced with the black scenario of repairing the entire destroyed infrastructure of the Iraqi oil industry.

If Iraq does destroy its oil infrastructure preemptively - or even if Iraq becomes a 'free' state at all - certain people stand to lose an awful lot. These are the people for whom the war really IS about oil.

In order to produce its oil, Iraq is allowed to enter into contracts with foreign firms to sell parts and equipment for its oil industry. Those contracts must be approved by the U.N.

You can actually view the contracts on line at the U.N. website. The site reveals that France, Russia, and China have 798, 862, and 227 contracts in various states of approval with Iraq, respectively, although not all the contracts have yet been approved or executed. U.S. firms have a grand total of one contract with the Iraqi oil industry. The U.K has eight, two of which have been nullified and six of which have been approved.

According to an article by Thomas W. Murphy at www.usainreview.com, "Russia has ranked first among nations doing business with Iraq under the oil-for-food program, with sales exceeding $4 billion." As for France, Mr. Murphy states that France sold $1.5 billion worth of goods to Iraq last
year, the most of any nation for the year.

Russia has a lot to lose in a free Iraq. The DOE report states that "Russia, which is owed several billions of dollars by Iraq for past arms deliveries, has a strong interest in Iraqi oil development, including a $3.5-billion, 23-year deal to rehabilitate Iraqi oilfields, particularly the 11-15 billion barrel West Qurna field (located west of Basra near the Rumaila field)."

And then come the French, who've got a lot to lose too. The DOE report states: "The largest of Iraq's oilfields slated for post-sanctions development is Majnoon, with reserves of 12-20 billion barrels of 28o-35o API oil, and located 30 miles north of Basra on the Iranian border." French company TotalFinaElf reportedly has signed a deal with Iraq on development rights for Majnoon.

You can throw the Chinese and Germans on the pile, too. Dozens of countries, in fact. The black gold rush has been going on for twelve years, under the tight control of the U.N. A Deutsche Bank study estimates international oil companies have signed $50 billion in deals with Iraq. The
deals cover the development of an estimated 50 billion barrels of reserves and an additional 4 million bbl/d of potential production.

There are only two major countries that don't seem to be getting in on the act...and significantly, these are the ones applying pressure for a regime change.

-Dan Denning, Daily Reckoning

There was also an article by a guy on the oil crash who said "I feel there is a a chance of some ill concieved military action in order to secure oil" That was back in 2000

War is never justified, even if there are cool-looking starships or mobile suits. War is violence and thus wrong.

they're also free to kill, steal, thieve and rape each other.

Isn't that what the US army is there for?...

BTW Quite interesting to see the number of female soldiers being raped by their fellow male soldiers, and even more interesting how most of the time this is being ignored by their superiors. Those same superiors who often don't object to do a little raping on the side as well. But that's a topic for another thread.

By the way, Saddam was "elected" as well.

So was Hitler and we all know how that went.

And did Saddam host fair elections after he was elected? No. Jesus couldn't even get 99.6% of the popular vote if it were all catholics voting. The following elections were rigged, Bush does not have the power to do that, atleast not to the extent Saddam did.

So was Hitler and we all know how that went.

And did Saddam host fair elections after he was elected? No. Jesus couldn't even get 99.6% of the popular vote if it were all catholics voting. The following elections were rigged, Bush does not have the power to do that, atleast not to the extent Saddam did.


Hitler? :rolleyes:

Saddam could only dream to do what he did.

How he was elected is not an issue. It's not the job of the US to tell others how to run their elections. Our system works because of who we are. Iraq is a totally different animal.

So was Bush and we all know how that went.

Heh heh its funny cuz Bush was "elected", Like hitler. And He started aggressive wars, Like hitler. He locked people up in camps, like Hitler and fled to an isolated place in his mind where no one could reach him, like hitler.

Heh heh its funny cuz Bush was "elected", Like hitler. And He started aggressive wars, Like hitler. He locked people up in camps, like Hitler and fled to an isolated place in his mind where no one could reach him, like hitler.

But unlike Hitler we have a check to Bush's powers, if he loses the election he will stand down, in America we have an established tradition of peaceful seccession, Germany did not have that, they had a country that was ripped apart by one world war and a $33billion debt that they had no way to pay off. The soldiers with which Bush would keep his power would never use force to keep Bush in power. As you may have noticed Bush is not the best public speaker, he can not brainwash a whole country using his speaking abilities and charisma like Hitler could.

he can not brainwash a whole country using his speaking abilities and charisma like Hitler could.

That is sooooo true.

My Great-aunt met him once. She said you just liked him. He was a charming man.

the UN should have overthrown him, he vailated the genva convetion or whatever he toutred a little girl on live television feed, he stole money from the international money for food, and he murder millons they have found mass graves with limbs severed on almost every one burried there. WMD were probally in the making any way

As you may have noticed Bush is not the best public speaker, he can not brainwash a whole country using his speaking abilities and charisma like Hitler could.

That's what he got his Baron von Rumsfeld and the likes for. Also, who says that the US needs any more brainwashing? Ain't brainwashed enough as it is? The fact that Bush&cronies are still in the seat of power should tell you to what extend the US is ALREADY brainwashed. Any healthy nation would long ago have had them march into the courtroom on charges of conspiracy (conspiring to get the US to invade Iraq on false grounds), and a whole bunch of other crap they pulled off. And hey, if the guy really was just misguided by false intel then he should be send home for incompetence.

Also, before Hitler took the seat of Grand Dictator of Germany he had more criticism from the press than Bush has had thus far. And compared to what Bush has pulled off so far pre-dictator Hitler looks like a girl scout!

That is sooooo true.

My Great-aunt met him once. She said you just liked him. He was a charming man.
Who? Bush? :confused:

Who? Bush? :confused:

Sorry Hitler.....

Now, lets move up quite a few years, Hitler is in power and he is rebuilding the German armed forces
I seem to recall the SA was armed with Remington pistols and rifles.

Sorry Hitler.....
:p I was wondering how Bush could be charming and lovebal.

the UN should have overthrown him, he vailated the genva convetion or whatever he toutred a little girl on live television feed, he stole money from the international money for food, and he murder millons they have found mass graves with limbs severed on almost every one burried there. WMD were probally in the making any way

It's simple to make a woulda/shoulda/coulda claim.

You willing to fight that fight? You willing to have your relations fight that fight?

The UN has not acted with similar ilk. PolPot and Rawanda come to mind.

Poor countries with nothing to exploit tend to be not as much a problem as they "really" are.....

But unlike Hitler we have a check to Bush's powers, if he loses the election he will stand down, in America we have an established tradition of peaceful seccession, Germany did not have that, they had a country that was ripped apart by one world war and a $33billion debt that they had no way to pay off. The soldiers with which Bush would keep his power would never use force to keep Bush in power. As you may have noticed Bush is not the best public speaker, he can not brainwash a whole country using his speaking abilities and charisma like Hitler could.

Hitler didnt do it all be himself you know. All the nazi Leaders were shrewd politicians.

Göbbels was in charge of the brainwashing. And he was great at it.

But it is a dictatorship. The fact that we appear to know what our government is doing proves it. We didn't decide whether or not the war in Iraq was necessary like we should have. He did. He, according to your arguments, decided that Saddam must be removed. Before mentioning that to the people, according to your arguments, he told us that Iraq was a threat to America and Saddam had WMDs and ties to terrorist organizations. Of course this type of war would get support.
hey opal did you forget me anti-UN bad speller guy i hope not but to tear apart you'r arugument will be my pleasure. we did decide wether or not to go even if according to you it was under in you're opion a lie we chose it anyway saddam was in power for over 13 years he was without oppostion in poltics and iraq did have terrorist tei as is evident by the chemical bombs we have been seeing

If we're going to go to war with every country that has a bastard dictator, why haven't we gone to war with the PRC, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Pakistan and a whole bunch of countries in Africa?

Saddam Hussein was a bastard.
I think your a bastard, am I right to kill innocent people to put you in prison?


If your going to argue something, you need to make a valid point, calling someone a bad name is not a legitmament (sorry, I can't spell) reason for going to war.

He hasn't murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people using illegal weapons.

Funny how the sanctions are neer affixed to those kinds of statements. Are you implying that Hussein murdered all those people with chemical weapons. Was ever a signatory to those chemical and bioweapons treaties?

The reason they havnt gone to war with China and Pakistan is that it more proitable to sell oil to those countries than to control them.

He hasn't murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people using illegal weapons.
I was trying to make a point that his argument for why the war was justified sucked. "He's a bastard" that's not a reason to go to war, what you just said might be a reason, but what he said, is not.


but if you want to get into the whole killing people thing. I would like to bring something up. There is a country called Indonesia, it used to be occupied by the Dutch. After WWII the Indonesians broke away from the Dutch. There was a struggle for power between the communist and the brutal General Suharto. Suharto took control of Indonesia, and he decided he had to stop the people that opposed him. So he set up concentration camps, put a bunch of Indonesian communist in there, as well as many Chinese. He had a gustapo that went around and killed people in the middle of the night if they were known to be communist or against Suharto, and just some Chinese people because Suharto didn't like them. He oppressed the Chinese, he even chose what they would name their children, and wound up giving all the boys girl's names and all the girl's boys names. The U.S. gave him money to support this cause since it prevented communism from starting in Indonesia. The U.S. does not give a flying fuck about civil rights, they only do things when they benefit from it.

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that the First Gulf War wasn't justified, either.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor

The second in command of the Third Reich

"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

-George W Bush (1946- )
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces

President of the United States of America

*rubs chin in thought*

Doesn't that seem a little … similar?

Heh heh its funny cuz Bush was "elected", Like hitler. And He started aggressive wars, Like hitler. He locked people up in camps, like Hitler and fled to an isolated place in his mind where no one could reach him, like hitler.

When did Bush lock people into camps? How did he isolate himself so people couldn't reach him, last I checked, Bush still goes out in public?


Justification for the war?

Keeping troops in Saudi Arabia has been a pain the arse for those people serving there. Its also been a point of contention with the Saudi royalty along with the fact that by making America less dependent on troop bases in Saudi Arabia makes it alot simpler to invade if the time ever comes.

Saddam had for too long been an idol of the Anti-America movement in the Middle East. He was seen and perceived as someone who had opposed America and live to tell the tale. Removing Saddam was justified on the basis that he continued to oppose American attempts to bring peace in the region. Saddam supported the Palestinian terrorist organisations and if you hadn't noticed the amount of suicide bombings went down abruptly after the war. Arafat is also not longer as cavalier about his power and standing.

The invasion of Iraq has also provided America with the potential to move most of their regional bases into one country. Aside from the fact that it would relieve the possible political pressure that governments with bases can exert on the U.S. it also places in a more strategic area of the world to deal with future problems from Iran, Syria or any other Central Asian or Arabian (in the peninsula) state.

After the end of the Cold War, too many regimes that America had propped up in its struggle against the Soviet Union became an embarassment or outright hostile. Without the balance of power, there was no reason to keep any of these "allies" in the fold. Even now I believe that the notion of "traditional" ally is finally going out the window (to the chagrin of continental western europeans).

There is no such thing as an eternal ally or friend, only a state's interests are eternal. (parapharsed very liberally from Churchill).

It doesnt need to be pointed out. Although it should be noted that during the first gulf war Bush Snr. Adamantly denied that Iraq had chemical wepons (Cuz he sold them to Iraq and becase he would have to fork out for gulf war syndrome compensation) And now george Bush Jnr. Admantly refuses to deny.

When did Bush lock people into camps? How did he isolate himself so people couldn't reach him, last I checked, Bush still goes out in public?


Justification for the war?(Yada Yada Yada).
Those are all good things from the war. But it was not a justification. It was not reasons offered to the Public in order to gain support for the war. The justification was Pre-emptive defense. People didnt much care about the rest. You'll notice that wars for the sake of people other than themselves are never very popular with the people that fight them. And the hitler crack was a joke. He has guantanamo bay and Muslims still get rough treatment by law enforcement agencies. And Bush is not nearly as public as other presidents, he never does a press conference without a pre-approved reporters list. They hve to make sure the right questions get asked, and no difficult ones. And he will seemingly listen to no one else. He ignores the world around him.

Those are all good things from the war. But it was not a justification. It was not reasons offered to the Public in order to gain support for the war. The justification was Pre-emptive defense. People didnt much care about the rest. You'll notice that wars for the sake of people other than themselves are never very popular with the people that fight them. And the hitler crack was a joke. He has guantanamo bay and Muslims still get rough treatment by law enforcement agencies. And Bush is not nearly as public as other presidents, he never does a press conference without a pre-approved reporters list. They hve to make sure the right questions get asked, and no difficult ones. And he will seemingly listen to no one else. He ignores the world around him.

Whatever reasons he may have used to go to war, I don't much care for anymore. It would have been a substantially more difficult job to convince America that the geopolitical ramifications of moving Air Force and Army bases into Iraq at a later date would increase America's leverage in the region 20-30 years down the line. Real Politiks isn't as "sexy" as threats to national security. I didn't like the fact he concentrated solely on the WMD component, but then again, I also thought they'd find large amounts of WMD's and illegal weapons instead othe paltry sums and conventional weapons.

As far as Guantanamo goes, they get a decent treatment for the allegations that have been placed against them.

Bush holds less reporter conferences. But I've also seen him do meetings on the campaign trail with his own supporters or people who come to the rallies. No one likes to hear dissenting views, same goes for Kerry, their not going to open themselves up to criticism at rallies that are supposed to show "popular support".

The good things to come out of this war as I enumerated them is sufficient for me, but, then again, I'm not American, so its their decision at the next presidential election.

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that Bush is an asshole and a moron for going into Iraq.

Everyone says: "This is a war about oil."
No, it is not, if it was our gas prices would not have skyrocketed a few months ago. Even if we did start getting more oil it would do us no good. Our oil refineries are running at 96% of maximum capacity, that can not be maintained for very long before stuff starts to breakdown and go wrong.

"But where are the WMD's"
Face it people, you were fooled, their are no WMD's, and if there are WMD's they will likely never be found, the Iraqi dessert is a large place, they could be buried and never found.

"War is wrong."
My response to that one: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

And also: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill

Saddam Hussein was a bastard. The UN had 12 years to find the WMD's in Iraq, the US deserves 12 years to see if they can find them, if we fail then perhaps we were wrong, but atleast we realised that something was not right and we tried to fix it. Let's hear the French response to that one, atleast someone learned a lesson from WWI and WWII (and it wasn't France).

I apologize for the harsh language if any of you who read this are offended.

Wow! You really are the poster boy for believing everything that the mainstream media tells you.

*psst* Wanna buy a bridge? ;)

I know you probably think the alternative media are a bunch of left wing kooks with conspiracy theories, but if you only ever listen to one side of an argument you will never know the full story.

If we're going to go to war with every country that has a bastard dictator...
NorthKorea

Whatever reasons he may have used to go to war, I don't much care for anymore. It would have been a substantially more difficult job to convince America that the geopolitical ramifications of moving Air Force and Army bases into Iraq at a later date would increase America's leverage in the region 20-30 years down the line. Real Politiks isn't as "sexy" as threats to national security. I didn't like the fact he concentrated solely on the WMD component, but then again, I also thought they'd find large amounts of WMD's and illegal weapons instead othe paltry sums and conventional weapons.

As far as Guantanamo goes, they get a decent treatment for the allegations that have been placed against them.

Bush holds less reporter conferences. But I've also seen him do meetings on the campaign trail with his own supporters or people who come to the rallies. No one likes to hear dissenting views, same goes for Kerry, their not going to open themselves up to criticism at rallies that are supposed to show "popular support".

The good things to come out of this war as I enumerated them is sufficient for me, but, then again, I'm not American, so its their decision at the next presidential election.

The point is that He is a puppet. But He is good at doding questions. I remember reading a transcript on the Whitehouse Website about the bodgy economy and he kept on babbling on about ribs at the resturant they were at. Then he told the reporter that he shoould help the economy by helping the owner of the resturant by buying some ribs. Its like sometimes hes a sharp guy and others a complete moron. Maybe he's just drug fucked.
And the Detainees dont get decent treatment. They are low level at best. There are only a couple of people with any real information. A lot of them are probably inocent becaus of the bounty program in afghanistan after the invasion. "Turn in members of Al QEADA and get money" So the locals turned in any old chump they could.

I am sick and tired of hearing people say that Bush is an asshole and a moron for going into Iraq.

If the shoe fits, wear it? You could add that Bush, Cheney, et al, are con men, and have tried to dupe the American public. Unfortunately for them, more Americans are learning about this deception and are angry as hell. After 911, Bush's approval rating was in the 90's, and it is now down in the 40's.

Everyone says: "This is a war about oil."
No, it is not, if it was our gas prices would not have skyrocketed a few months ago. Even if we did start getting more oil it would do us no good. Our oil refineries are running at 96% of maximum capacity, that can not be maintained for very long before stuff starts to breakdown and go wrong.
I think you and many others have missed the point on this one. It is not about the current price of gas, it is about controlling future reserves. Now who has an interest in oil stocks, and oil futures? The Bush family for sure, and of course their Saudi friends the Sauds do.

Don't forget that the rebuilding of Iraq is a lucrative business as well. That is where Halliburton comes in. Halliburton is responsible for providing meals for the troops and are involved in a multi-billion dollar enterprise of getting Iraqi oil wells back up and running. Who has a lot to gain from increased business for Halliburton? Well Dick Cheney of course, who has millions of dollars worth of Halliburton stocks (at arms length of course).


"But where are the WMD's"
Face it people, you were fooled, their are no WMD's, and if there are WMD's they will likely never be found, the Iraqi dessert is a large place, they could be buried and never found.

Do you honestly believe that Congress would have approved a war on Iraq, if this element was non existent? The fact that they haven't been found sheds a bad light on Bush and company.


"War is wrong."
My response to that one: "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

So the US was defending "freedom" by attacking Iraq? From what I understand, the vast majority of Iraqis do not want to be "westernized". They don't want American style "freedom". And surely you don't expect me to buy that the war on Iraq was to defend American "freedom"?

And also: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
~John Stuart Mill
This quote might apply more to the Iraqis who are still trying to defend THEIR country from western aggressors, and occupiers?

Saddam Hussein was a bastard.
However, the US had no right to violate Iraqi sovereignity as per the UN Charter.


The UN had 12 years to find the WMD's in Iraq, the US deserves 12 years to see if they can find them, if we fail then perhaps we were wrong, but atleast we realised that something was not right and we tried to fix it.
From the end of the Gulf War, until 1998, the UN had been successful in disarming Iraq of 90 to 95% of its weaponry, including WMD, and its weapons factories. Perhaps you might find the report of Scott Ritter a good read about this very subject, and here is an excerpt:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

Add to that the following sections of the Blix Report to the UN Security Council on 27 JANUARY 2003:

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

And near the bottom of the Report:

UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

Even though there were negative elements to the report, the fact remains that the UN inspections team was making headway, that is until the US suggested that they were going to invade no matter what.

It was this type of ultimatum that led many US traditional allies to state that they would not take part in an attack on Iraq.

This war was not only unnecessary, but immoral, and a violation of the UN Charter.

The best thing the American citizens can do is remove Bush from office in the November elections, so that he won't get a chance to make the same mistake again.

A few points:

If pre-emptive war did not exist, war would not exist. Being the agressor makes you the bad guy. Sorry, them's the breaks. Saddam never initiated military action against the US, nor has the 9/11 commission found any collaborative agreements between Saddam and terrorist groups.

Bush and his people lied by inference in order to gain support for the war. He ignored intelligence and pushed his own agenda forward. When his lies were revealed, he lied about the lies, and continues to do so. Just today he made a statement, "I want to be the peace president." This, of course is in sharp contrast to his earlier words about being a war president. There is evidence of widespread profiteering by Halliburton, and there are BILLIONS of dollars missing or unaccounted for from the Iraq rebuilding fund.

There's mounting evidence that Bush used his close connections to the Florida leadership (the Governor being his brother, and Katherine Harris, who was in charge of elections there, was a part of Bush's campaign,) to manipulate the votes by turning away black voters (who traditionally vote democrat) while strangely enough, precincts with latino voters (who tend to vote republican,) reported no difficulties at all.

Bush has energy companies write energy legislation, logging companies write environmental legislation. His administration has been called the most secretive ever.

There is a widespread malaise spreading over this country. The intoxicating power of being the only remaining Superpower is surely corrupting our bloody handed, dirty monied leadership, and it needs to stop. Bush calls the "haves" and the "have mores" his base unabashedly. To him, they are all that matter. A lifetime of getting his way, doing whatever he wants, always being protected and shown in the best light, no matter what he does has forever disconnected him from any sense of morality or empathy towards other life.

There's a definite sense of them being above any laws. They have worked to acheive such. If this is not the sowing of the seeds of tyranny and fascism, I do not know what is...

Has anyone considered that perhaps America waged war on Iraq for interests other than its own as a result of the massive Jewish and Judeo-Protestant lobbying on behalf of one of the most genocidal and corrupt
states in the world? Considering they control both the government and the media its a wonder the U.S.A. hasn't struck any other of Israel's laundry list of enemies just like a good slave should.
Iraq was fought for Israeli interests and Israeli interests are supreme to
Bush and the left-wing establishment. We shall soon see our new pledge of allegiance ("under the Talmud") when PATRIOT Act II shows up.

Too bad the "anti-Semitic" Mohammadans had the Jewropean Union to preoccupied to mobilize in time.

Israel's blatant disregard for human rights and laws is the reason behind all of the West's conflicts with the Arab/Mohammedan world.

Has anyone considered that perhaps America waged war on Iraq for interests other than its own as a result of the massive Jewish and Judeo-Protestant lobbying on behalf of one of the most genocidal and corrupt
states in the world? Considering they control both the government and the media its a wonder the U.S.A. hasn't struck any other of Israel's laundry list of enemies just like a good slave should.
Iraq was fought for Israeli interests and Israeli interests are supreme to
Bush and the left-wing establishment. We shall soon see our new pledge of allegiance ("under the Talmud") when PATRIOT Act II shows up.

Too bad the "anti-Semitic" Mohammadans had the Jewropean Union to preoccupied to mobilize in time.

Israel's blatant disregard for human rights and laws is the reason behind all of the West's conflicts with the Arab/Mohammedan world.

Please. Jews in America are primarily affiliated with the Democratic party. That blows a gigantic hole in your bigoted and ill-informed bit of bile. The last thing we need is stupic scapegoating taking our eyes off the real criminals. Yes, I am aware that Israel is as brutal a state as there is, but they do not control the US. If they did, there would simply be no Palestinians left. There is no Jewish Conspiracy, just the usual politics of every country for itself.

Sigh. The UN did not simply come up empty in the 12 years since the first Gulf War. They succesfully contained and dismantled existing WMD programs. The current invasion was based on the erroneous assertion that Iraq still possessed WMD's (despite the succesful dismantlements), and were furthermore capable of launching them at Western targets. This theory was accepted as fact by a majority of the American public, when there was no intelligence to support it.

Thats not quite correct, there was intelligence to support it, it just turned out the intelligence was wildly incorrect. Secondly the premise of the WMD search was due to the fact that Hussein had ejected UN watchdogs, and even when they were allowed to return, they had extremely restricted access (pre-planned schedules, inability for surprise searches, etc).

May I also note the whole "Blame the Jews" section is quite hilarious, and I must applaude its author for their comic interlude.

I think we were justified because, whether the US intended this or not, the war is gonna change the political landscape of the Middle East forever. There are three things I hope this war accomplishes (and seems to be accomplishing as we speak).
1. Iron filings: magnet :: terrorists: US. Let's face it, terrorists prefer US troops to another target, like a Saudi oil field, even when it isn't strategic. A large presence of US troops deep in the Arab world is bait. Despite what they do to us, we have superior firepower to any al-Qaeda affiliates. It was even true in Vietnam, for our withdraw (and many of our worst defeats) were more political than tactical or logistical. This should fullfill a short-term goal of wiping existing terrorists out, and sending a warning to recruitees.
2. Reform from the ground-up. We all know that the Middle East is a breeder of terrorism, but only now has it come to light on why: corrupt and oppressive autocracies, the rise of radical imans since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and most importantly, the distribution of wealth. Saudi Arabia has a GDP/capita of a decent $11,000, yet the literacy rate is just 64%. Even many poor nations in Africa have higher rates. This means that there is something wrong with the entire system.
Iraq is the most ripe for change. They have the largest middle class in the Arab world, and an extremely brutal dictatorship, but a surprisingly few amount of fundementalists. Even now, the core of the Islamic insurgency is mostly foreign born, and most Iraqi members are simply disgruntled, not religiously motivated. Such education, and a tradition of a market economy in the region, make a republic far more likely to grow there first than any other Arab nation.
In ten years, I see Iraq as being far more representative than under Hussein, and far more prosperous. In twenty years, they should be at a spot that South Korea was in the eighties and Singapore is now, with rapid growth and a republic being stableized. By this time, thanks in large part to an Iraqi model, Iran will be a true republic, the Gulf states will be constitutional monarchies (with Qatar and Dubai the farthest along), and Egyptian authoritarianism will end. True liberty and democracy in the region, as I see twenty years from now, will be the death warrant for terrorism. I don't see it stopping then. In fact, as they get more desparate, they may attack more. But such conditions will destroy the breeding ground for terrorism, and take the wind out of it as a factor in geo-politics.
3. Oil is a factor that ties in with two, but is ultimatly a win-win. Iraq is literally a trust fund state, and its inheritance is in the ground. Unlike Saudi Arabia, which spends it on their royal family and new arms (and prefers social programs to real social reform), Iraq has the oppritunity to truely spend it wisely. Once the security situation starts quieting down (and it'll peter out just like the SS remnants in post WWII Germany), the cash will flow, and in exchange, it'll help the growing economies of the East.
Iraq was a great oppritunity, and a great strategic move on the administration's part. In fifty years, our posterity should remember this with greater fondness than even I'm capable of today.

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that the First Gulf War wasn't justified, either.
I don't agree that it wasn't. Saddam invaded Kuwait. That is a threat to American interests. That is a threat to all the developed nation's of the world. He'd have control of way too much oil cause really weird things to happen in world economy. He actually struck first that time. (Although it still was us that put him in power...)

Please. Jews in America are primarily affiliated with the Democratic party. That blows a gigantic hole in your bigoted and ill-informed bit of bile. The last thing we need is stupic scapegoating taking our eyes off the real criminals. Yes, I am aware that Israel is as brutal a state as there is, but they do not control the US. If they did, there would simply be no Palestinians left. There is no Jewish Conspiracy, just the usual politics of every country for itself.

Rabbi Kohn and Bush are just figureheads as are the republicrats.
The establishment is all the same. The media is entirely controlled by Jews and the media controls the country. War in Iraq was planned and nurtured by the media and so it came to be. The U.S. is a fascist state and does not care about its people and their opinions. Instead all are silenced except those on the furthest left. Don't want to disturb Ashcroft, do we now?

The point is that He is a puppet. But He is good at doding questions. I remember reading a transcript on the Whitehouse Website about the bodgy economy and he kept on babbling on about ribs at the resturant they were at. Then he told the reporter that he shoould help the economy by helping the owner of the resturant by buying some ribs. Its like sometimes hes a sharp guy and others a complete moron. Maybe he's just drug fucked.
And the Detainees dont get decent treatment. They are low level at best. There are only a couple of people with any real information. A lot of them are probably inocent becaus of the bounty program in afghanistan after the invasion. "Turn in members of Al QEADA and get money" So the locals turned in any old chump they could.

A puppet of whom?

And I agree, he's easy to "catch". He's not as good as Reagan, Clinton or Trudeau at just letting a question go by or replying with a witty comeback.

Has anyone considered that perhaps America waged war on Iraq for interests other than its own as a result of the massive Jewish and Judeo-Protestant lobbying on behalf of one of the most genocidal and corrupt
states in the world? Considering they control both the government and the media its a wonder the U.S.A. hasn't struck any other of Israel's laundry list of enemies just like a good slave should.
Iraq was fought for Israeli interests and Israeli interests are supreme to
Bush and the left-wing establishment. We shall soon see our new pledge of allegiance ("under the Talmud") when PATRIOT Act II shows up.

Too bad the "anti-Semitic" Mohammadans had the Jewropean Union to preoccupied to mobilize in time.

Israel's blatant disregard for human rights and laws is the reason behind all of the West's conflicts with the Arab/Mohammedan world.

Jews are predominantly affiliated or say their affiliated with the Democratic party. Prove to us that the media is controlled by Jewry, I doubt that most of the owners are even religious. Your rant is the standard attack on America and the left that its too "pro-Israeli". Conspiracy theories aren't going to convince anyone.

Thats not quite correct, there was intelligence to support it, it just turned out the intelligence was wildly incorrect.
True.

Secondly the premise of the WMD search was due to the fact that Hussein had ejected UN watchdogs, and even when they were allowed to return, they had extremely restricted access (pre-planned schedules, inability for surprise searches, etc).
False.

"Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt."

"Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct."

Excerts from the Blix Report, earlier in this thread.

You can't say a war is justified because of the things it has or will accomplish. That has nothing to do with it. The justification for a war depends SOLELY on THE REASONS given for going to war and whether or not these reason were true and good.

The reasons given to the American people for war in Iraq:
There are WMDs in Iraq.
There are Saddam-Al Qaidia ties.

Neither of these were true. Bush never had solid proof they were true. He should have questioned his sources a lot more before immediately pursuing war. It at least would've made me feel better. He was really antsy and adamant about getting into the war and a place that he can't turn back from before the truths had a chance to arise. Anyway, if the REASON for the war would have been to remove Saddam and liberate Iraqis, then the war could've been justifiable. However, declaring war on a country and completely demolishing it for possibly truths that don't even threaten our country and don't really help out the citizens of the other country are not justifiable reasons. Again, I repeat, JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR COMES NOT FROM THE PRODUCT OF THE WAR BUT FROM THE REASONS WE ARE IN THE WAR. Toppling Saddam's regime WAS NEVER A REASON until after we got into Iraq.

You can't say a war is justified because of the things it has or will accomplish. That has nothing to do with it. The justification for a war depends SOLELY on THE REASONS given for going to war and whether or not these reason were true and good.

The reasons given to the American people for war in Iraq:
There are WMDs in Iraq.
There are Saddam-Al Qaidia ties.

Neither of these were true. Bush never had solid proof they were true. He should have questioned his sources a lot more before immediately pursuing war. It at least would've made me feel better. He was really antsy and adamant about getting into the war and a place that he can't turn back from before the truths had a chance to arise. Anyway, if the REASON for the war would have been to remove Saddam and liberate Iraqis, then the war could've been justifiable. However, declaring war on a country and completely demolishing it for possibly truths that don't even threaten our country and don't really help out the citizens of the other country are not justifiable reasons. Again, I repeat, JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR COMES NOT FROM THE PRODUCT OF THE WAR BUT FROM THE REASONS WE ARE IN THE WAR. Toppling Saddam's regime WAS NEVER A REASON until after we got into Iraq.
True. I wish they were more forthcoming about the objectives. The American people, and perhaps the world, would've supported the war far more if the stated reasons were liberating Iraq, and turning it into a model for the Middle East.

True. I wish they were more forthcoming about the objectives. The American people, and perhaps the world, would've supported the war far more if the stated reasons were liberating Iraq, and turning it into a model for the Middle East.

Bush going into Iraq is like a little boy going through puberty. He doesn't know what exactly is going on, but he knows he's got some new powers now so he's gonna play with all he can until he figures it all out. He has until January...and he was a C student, so I'm not expecting much...

Why would we ever vote in someone who spent their life studying business instead of law and politics?!

Rabbi Kohn and Bush are just figureheads as are the republicrats.
The establishment is all the same. The media is entirely controlled by Jews and the media controls the country. War in Iraq was planned and nurtured by the media and so it came to be. The U.S. is a fascist state and does not care about its people and their opinions. Instead all are silenced except those on the furthest left. Don't want to disturb Ashcroft, do we now?

Again name then people who are the "masters" of the Republican party or Bush.

Name the people who control the media, stating that the Jews do, isn't good enough. If the U.S. didn't care what their people thought then the U.S. wouldn't have elections. All types of outlets criticize the administration for alot of things.

Tenete Traditiones, I'm sorry, but you are an idiot, and very possibly a dangerously deranged idiot at that. No have no substantiation for your claim, you are simply regurtgitating some vile filth that you've been indoctrinated with at some point. Where's your proof?

I can make wild claims too. For example, some very reliable sources tell me that you are personally responsible for the asphyxiation of several dozen rodents that expired ignominiously within your lower gastro-intestinal tract. They also tell me that you sleep with a lifesize David hasselhoff doll, and that you sing, "You Light up My Life," repeatedly to it until you fall asleep within it's polyethylene embrace.

True. I wish they were more forthcoming about the objectives. The American people, and perhaps the world, would've supported the war far more if the stated reasons were liberating Iraq, and turning it into a model for the Middle East.
I do not believe that Congress would have supported a war on those stated grounds and I further believe that the world would not except regime change as a logical concept to war.

You can't go around change regimes because YOU don't like them. It is contrary to the Charter of the UN.

I can make wild claims too. For example, some very reliable sources tell me that you are personally responsible for the asphyxiation of several dozen rodents that expired ignominiously within your lower gastro-intestinal tract. They also tell me that you sleep with a lifesize David hasselhoff doll, and that you sing, "You Light up My Life," repeatedly to it until you fall asleep within it's polyethylene embrace.
...wait a second...how'd you know all that about me...

I do not believe that Congress would have supported a war on those stated grounds and I further believe that the world would not except regime change as a logical concept to war.

You can't go around change regimes because YOU don't like them. It is contrary to the Charter of the UN.
But so is the war we are in right now, what gives?

I do not believe that Congress would have supported a war on those stated grounds and I further believe that the world would not except regime change as a logical concept to war.

You can't go around change regimes because YOU don't like them. It is contrary to the Charter of the UN.
And in the case of Iraq, a regime change would have been justified under the UN charter I think. Let me go find the part of the charter that explains that real quick.

Rabbi Kohn and Bush are just figureheads as are the republicrats.
The establishment is all the same. The media is entirely controlled by Jews and the media controls the country. War in Iraq was planned and nurtured by the media and so it came to be. The U.S. is a fascist state and does not care about its people and their opinions. Instead all are silenced except those on the furthest left. Don't want to disturb Ashcroft, do we now?
FOOL Anti-American Bastards are one thing I hate with such a passion i hate becasue of 9/11 I will die to free my country if my need be but you are a idiot, false claims like that are worthless disgrace of THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE Period infact you deserve to be banned from nationstates.

FOOL Anti-American Bastards are one thing I hate with such a passion i hate becasue of 9/11 I will die to free my country if my need be but you are a idiot, false claims like that are worthless disgrace of THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE Period infact you deserve to be banned from nationstates.
And by that same logic, should Michael Moore be banned from life?

And by that same logic, should Michael Moore be banned from life?
quite possibly yes.

So why did Bush have to cloak our "real" mission under WMDs, then? Is it because, I don't know, the war couldn't be justified by removing Hussein alone?

And with the French quip. It means nothing. "OMFG Teh Frehcn suxxorz!!!! Teh stooopid n00b frenches!!! !111!!11821111!!!" is not the epitome of wit. Why not insult Germany, too? Oh, right, because if you made fun of the Germans on national TV it'd be racist.

Casualties-
Civilian, Coalition, Iraqi
11,000-13,000 + 700 + ???
Yee-haw, mission accomplished!

My apologies for the harsh words, also.

Okay, let's get all this striaght, if we can...
Why did we need to get rid of Saddam?
First, he attacked the USS Stark, without provocation, at a time when we were supposed to be allies...
Second, he agreed to a cease fire to which he has never held (the fact that his attacks were utterly ineffectual doesn't mean that he didn't try)...
Third, he agreed to inspections, and then interfered with the Inspectors (and by the way, most of his WMDs were *probably* moved to Syria, but we don't know for sure...)
Fourth, what WMDs he had (mostly chemical, especially Mustard Gas... ever see what Mustard Gas does to someone?), he was perfectly willing to use on his own populace...
Fifth, he DID support terrorism, if not Al Quaeda! {What do you call offering $25.000.00 to the families of each Suicide bomber who blew himself up in Israel?}
Sixth, UN Sanctions certainly weren't getting the job done! {That might have something to do with the fact that Saddam didn't care about how many of his people starved to death, so long as he and the Republican Guard kept getting those 10,000 cases of imported Scotch a month! Oh, and Mr. Kofi Annan, thank you for doing such a GOOD job of administering Saddam's funds, so that his expenditures always showed the correct priorities!}

And why did we make such a big deal about WMDs, with all these reasons to go to war? Because Europe (who we were treating as allies for some reason) can't care less about what happens to Israelis, or Americans, or Iraqis!
{Oh, yeah, we killed a bunch of Iraqis, going in...
about as many as Saddam had killed, every month, for 10 years! The difference being, that we stopped killing innocent Iraqis (for the most part... 'collateral damage' will happen) when we won!

Tenete Traditiones,

oh, and just so you know, the "Neo-Conservatives" are in power in America right now. They are considered radically to the far RIGHT by many, but of course, since you obviously know nothing, I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out a simple fact like that.

The Left concerns itself with things like equal rights, workers rights, the environment, alternative fuel sources, control of one's own body, the arts, free expression, regulation of rampant capitalism, medical care, clearly defined checks and balances in government, adherence to the Bill of Rights, the clear seperation of Church and State, and other such socially and civically minded topics. This tends to go counter to your argument

I don't see the current administration as having these ideals in mind. They are for free and unrestrained capitalism, the privitization of most everything, (christian) prayer in school, the rolling back of civil liberties, the stifling of freedom of expression (people have been arrested for wearing anti-bush t-shirts,) the handing over of legislative power to corporate interests, the ability to spy on it's citizens without notice, the removal of due process, etc...
These things are to the extreme Right and blow the hell out of your misinformed and ludicris ideas. Jerkwad.

I love America, for it's beauty and for the fact that at one time it stood for great ideals. It's industriousness wasn't based on the pure pursuit of money, but the satisfaction of doing things better, or at least in innovative ways. I was brave and moved ahead with government forms the like of which had never been seen before.
We're getting a little too stagnant now. We need to shake things up, to breathe new and vigorous life into this Republic, and tax cuts ain't gonna do it.

I criticize America because I expect the best from it, but that's not what I'm seeing.

The second that Saddam Hussein ordered the murder of his own people, he asked for it.
And as far as I'm concerned, Hussein got exactly what he deserved. There may be no WMD, there may be oil that economies across the world would benifit from-- I don't care the reasons that were said.
People with power like Hussein should not be allowed to do the things that were tolerated-- the gassing of the kurds, the invasion of Kuwait. He has killed, tortured, raped and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades.
According to a 2001 Amnesty International report, "victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks... some victims have died as a result and many have been left with permanent physical and psychological damage."
Saddam has had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered.
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds.

Executions: Saddam Hussein's regime has carried out frequent summary executions, including: o 4,000 prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in 1984 o 3,000 prisoners at the Mahjar prison from 1993-1998 o 2,500 prisoners were executed between 1997-1999 in a "prison cleansing campaign" o 122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000 o 23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001 o At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001
Please, after reading this information, try and find me one person who truly believes that he should have been left in power to terrorize even more people. If you can, I pat you on the back for being sure to search the mental institutions.

This are all really good reasons that you guys are presenting and again, I can not stress enough that I don't like Saddam and I'm glad for Iraq that he is gone.
However, this does not change the fact that this wasn't a reason until after the war was started, therefore, this was not a reason for the war, therefore, no matter how good the results of the war could be, it was not justified. I don't see how anyone can continue to argue that it is.

Dark Fututre, please, invite Bush to your house and the two of you sit down and have a Constitution reading party.

Jews are predominantly affiliated or say their affiliated with the Democratic party. Prove to us that the media is controlled by Jewry, I doubt that most of the owners are even religious. Your rant is the standard attack on America and the left that its too "pro-Israeli". Conspiracy theories aren't going to convince anyone.
Some Jewish-owned media outlets:
Walt Disney Company(including Touchstone/BuenaVista),CEO Michael Eisner, Jew
Walt Disney Picture Company(incl. ABC), Joe Roth, Jew
Miramax Films, Weinstein brothers, both Jews
Time Warner Inc., Gerald Levin, Jew
Viacom Inc.(incl. CBS), Murray Rothstein(aka Sumner Redstone), Jew
Paramount Pictures, Sherry Lansing, Jewess
News Corporation(incl. Fox) TV & Movie production headed by Peter Chernin, Jew
Sony Corporation of America,Michael Schulhof, Jew
Sony Pictures Alan Levine, Jew
New World Entertainment, owner Ronald Perelman, Chairman Brandon Tartikoff, Jews
DreamWorks SKG, David Geffen, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Steven Spielberg, Jews
MCA/Universal Pictures Edgar Bronfman (president of World Jewish Congress), Jew
Newsweek/ Washington Post Katherine Meyer Graham, Jewess
U.S. News & World Report/ NY Daily News Mortimer Zuckerman, Jew
Random House Publishing Newhouse Media, Jews
NBC News, Andrew Lack, Jew
Newhouse Media, incl. 26 newspapers, led by Newhouse family Jews
New York Times/ Boston Globe + 32 other newspapers, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., Jew
Wall Street Journal Peter Kann, Jew

The following are some of their subsidaries:
Time Magazine
MTV
Nickelodeon
Prentice Hall
Simon & Schuster
Warner Books
Little, Brown
Disney Channel
HBO
CNN
Fox News
ABC
NBC
CBS


This is far from complete but it covers every major media outlet in the United States. Now we can at least agree on who runs the nation's media.

The war may not have been justified according to some-- but please, try to justify the murder of 50,000-100,000 Kurds.

but they do not control the US.
Sharon seems to think they do. Apparently he ones said in an interview: we own them. (the US)

The war may not have been justified according to some-- but please, try to justify the murder of 50,000-100,000 Kurds.
At that time the US and Saddam where still tight. So they looked the other way. Try and justify that.

The war may not have been justified according to some-- but please, try to justify the murder of 50,000-100,000 Kurds.
If to avenge the lives of those 50,000-100,000 Kurds was the reason for the war, the war might have had justification, but how many times do I have to bounce this off you GOP boneheads? THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR! THEREFORE, THE LOGIC THAT WENT UP TO OUR DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ IS UNJUSTIFIABLE! HOW CAN YOU ARGUE AGAINST THIS?!

If to avenge the lives of those 50,000-100,000 Kurds was the reason for the war, the war might have had justification, but how many times do I have to bounce this off you GOP boneheads? THIS WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT THE REASON WE WENT TO WAR! THEREFORE, THE LOGIC THAT WENT UP TO OUR DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ IS UNJUSTIFIABLE! HOW CAN YOU ARGUE AGAINST THIS?!

Forgive me, but I don't care if the war was politically justified.
A favor has been done to the humane world, so stop whining.

Forgive me, but I don't care if the war was politically justified.
A favor has been done to the humane world, so stop whining.
I wasn't aware that destabilising an entire region is considerd a favor to anyone.

Forgive me, but I don't care if the war was politically justified.
A favor has been done to the humane world, so stop whining.
The subject of this thread is about the justification of the war which is exactly what I'm discussing so why don't you go find a new thread or get on topic?

I wasn't aware that destabilising an entire region is considerd a favor to anyone.

There may be tragic and serious detrimental effects of the war, which is inexcusable, but what is gained by far outweights what is lost.
A region is destablished.
We are establishing a new government that is far more favorable for the people. We have freed the Iraqi people- they may want our troops out now, but most of them are glad to have the new government, if not thankful.

There may be tragic and serious detrimental effects of the war, which is inexcusable, but what is gained by far outweights what is lost.
A region is destablished.
We are establishing a new government that is far more favorable for the people. We have freed the Iraqi people- they may want our troops out now, but most of them are glad to have the new government, if not thankful.
The subject of this thread is about the justification of the war which is exactly what I'm discussing so why don't you go find a new thread or get on topic?
...

Tenete Traditiones,

I found a resource that completely debunks your pet theory. See, you were only given one part of the information. You haven't been shown the myriad now Jews who own media. Yes, that's right. You've been brainwashed. You've been given incomplete information so that you form an incorrect conclusion. Sounds kinda like what Bush did to us doesn't it?

Here's one link: http://www.fair.org/extra/9609/jewsownthenews.html

Tenete Traditiones,

oh, and just so you know, the "Neo-Conservatives" are in power in America right now. They are considered radically to the far RIGHT by many, but of course, since you obviously know nothing, I wouldn't expect you to be able to figure out a simple fact like that.


You live in a rather narrow tube of "liberal" and "consevative" as defined by the media. Big business and capitalism are not supported by the right. No matter how much he and the media tells us so, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are not conservatives. Ralph Nader has more support among the right than
Seňor Jorge Boosh. Bush has stifled the opposition as you pointed out, ensuring only pro-Bush, pro-Israel sentiment was made public among Americans. Failure to comply with a pledging to Israel is punishable by the PATRIOT Act. And of course everyone must support his allowance of millions of Mexicans into America. Nobody seems to care about terrrorism since our Arab immigration problem continues unaddressed. Instead we fight a war thousands of miles away with no logical reasoning other than zionism.

Now if the personal attacks would cease maybe we can get back on topic as to what justifcation was there for America to shed blood over foreign interests.

Tenete Traditiones,

I found a resource that completely debunks your pet theory. See, you were only given one part of the information. You haven't been shown the myriad now Jews who own media. Yes, that's right. You've been brainwashed. You've been given incomplete information so that you form an incorrect conclusion. Sounds kinda like what Bush did to us doesn't it?

Here's one link: http://www.fair.org/extra/9609/jewsownthenews.html

That article does nothing to debunk my "theory". I presented facts about who owns the media. An outdated, opinionated piece does nothing to refute that.

No, you simply cannot define what is "right" and what is "left" by your own personal standards and expect to get away with it. Did you even look at my links so you could see the fallacy of your beliefs? The richest man in the world is Bill Gates. Is he Jewish? You cannot logically debate the correctness or incorrectness of this war before you get your facts straight and stop depending upon the pablum you were force fed at some point. You are wrong, okay? Your preconcieved notions crumble at the sight of real evidence. I don't know by what criteria you define "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" but they certainly do not conform the the norms of conventional political discourse. What's the use if you decide to flip all the definitions around just because you say so? We might as well say up is down, hot is cold, and red is green.

See, it's because of a vast, anti-gravity, cold-blooded, green-hearted conspiracy that we ufortunately misunderstand the meaning of down, hot, and red, right?

There may be tragic and serious detrimental effects of the war, which is inexcusable, but what is gained by far outweights what is lost.
A region is destablished.
We are establishing a new government that is far more favorable for the people. We have freed the Iraqi people- they may want our troops out now, but most of them are glad to have the new government, if not thankful.
This article was written 13 years ago but seemed so appropriate that I thought I would share it with you. I think it speaks volumes about the true US agenda regarding the Middle East. There is plenty of other interesting tidbits written in this article by:

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention by Sheldon L. Richman

Sheldon L. Richman is senior editor at the Cato Institute.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-159.html

In the aftermath of the most overt and direct U.S. attempt to manage affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf War, it is more important than ever to understand how the United States came to be involved in the region and the disastrous consequences of that involvement. President Bush's willingness to sacrifice American lives to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, to restore the "legitimate" government of that feudal monarchy, and to create a "new world order" proceeds logically from the premises and policies of past administrations. Indeed, there is little new in Bush's new world order, except the Soviet Union's assistance. That may mean the new order will be far more dangerous than the old, because it will feature an activist U.S. foreign policy without the inhibitions that were formerly imposed by the superpower rivalry. That bodes ill for the people of the Middle East, as well as for the long-suffering American citizens, who will see their taxes continue to rise, their consumer economy increasingly distorted by military spending, and their blood spilled--all in the name of U.S. leadership.

BTW, the Bush referred to here is George W.'s father.

I said I don't care if the war was -politically- justified.
I believe it was justified by the fact that Hussein was a terrible murderer and has been effectively elimanated. If it took a war to improve a situation, then I believe that it was justified.

Then get off your ass and go fight for this cause you believe in so much. And do it alone. Don't drag the rest of the nation in with you.

Then get off your ass and go fight for this cause you believe in so much. And do it alone. Don't drag the rest of the nation in with you.
I can't get off my ass and go fight for this cause.
I'm only sixteen, not old enough to be in the armed forces.
I'm female, most women are not allowed to fight on the field.

I can't get off my ass and go fight for this cause.
I'm only sixteen, not old enough to be in the armed forces.
I'm female, most women are not allowed to fight on the field.
Well perhaps you could read some history then, and understand that the US and Iraq were allies while Iraq was fighting against Iran. It didn't seem to bother the US that Iraq was using US chemicals against the Iranians.

I said I don't care if the war was -politically- justified.
I believe it was justified by the fact that Hussein was a terrible murderer and has been effectively elimanated. If it took a war to improve a situation, then I believe that it was justified.
Uh, it isn't justified no matter how you look at it...

EDIT: (I have to add this because if I don't some idiot will call me evil.) ...even if it has good results...

Why we were justified in going into Iraq.

In a sentence, you weren't!

Ok, even if one takes the position that the war was in no way justified-
everyone (or at least nearly everyone) may not like the war, but likes the theoretical outcome. Hussein is eliminated, and the Iraqi people are given a better way of life. In theory. However, we have yet to see if these things will be accomplished.

If we're going to go to war with every country that has a bastard dictator, why haven't we gone to war with the PRC, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Cuba, Pakistan and a whole bunch of countries in Africa?

I already addressed that question, one at a time.

Ok, even if one takes the position that the war was in no way justified-
everyone (or at least nearly everyone) may not like the war, but likes the theoretical outcome. Hussein is eliminated, and the Iraqi people are given a better way of life. In theory. However, we have yet to see if these things will be accomplished.
What was the point of this post?

I already addressed that question, one at a time.
Bush doesn't have that much time...

The fact you brought up the French argument shows the extent of your rather limited brainpower. Fuck off, and stop involving yourself in the affairs of the EU, like Bush did just a month ago, and Chirac told him where to stick it. We don't like Right Wing America concerning itself with Europe. And we don't like Right Wing America as a whole.


and we don't like europe conerning it's self with any part of america so why do u go and fuck off !!!!

Children, who asks for justification for going to love? Make love to me; don't bury your yearning in a phlegmatic hole of dread. I'm yours! If thou has the longing to believe... believe in me... believe in latex products. :fluffle:

No, you simply cannot define what is "right" and what is "left" by your own personal standards and expect to get away with it. Did you even look at my links so you could see the fallacy of your beliefs? The richest man in the world is Bill Gates. Is he Jewish? You cannot logically debate the correctness or incorrectness of this war before you get your facts straight and stop depending upon the pablum you were force fed at some point. You are wrong, okay? Your preconcieved notions crumble at the sight of real evidence. I don't know by what criteria you define "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" but they certainly do not conform the the norms of conventional political discourse. What's the use if you decide to flip all the definitions around just because you say so? We might as well say up is down, hot is cold, and red is green.

See, it's because of a vast, anti-gravity, cold-blooded, green-hearted conspiracy that we ufortunately misunderstand the meaning of down, hot, and red, right?

Ah, so because Bill Gates is rich or the fact that a few newspapers are Gentile-owned somehow debunks the irrefutable facts about who owns every major media outlet. Pretty faulty logic. I presented facts. Prove that what I stated was wrong about who runs each of those outlets and cease this constant flow of irrelevant nonsense.

Also the Right-wing and Left-wing were defined long before the existance of Neoconservatism, a leftist phenomenon. Isolationism, racial homogeny, and traditional Christian values were tenets of conservatism, not imperialistic wars for foreign Jewish nations. That's the way it was before the left seized the media and rewrote its enemy, driving the traditional Right into the "Far Right" and stifling opposition just as the ADL of B'nai B'rith did when censoring "The Passion of the Christ."

Now enough of this, why do you avoid the topic at hand by focusing on petty topics like these ?

Rabbi Kohn and Bush are just figureheads as are the republicrats.
The establishment is all the same. The media is entirely controlled by Jews and the media controls the country. War in Iraq was planned and nurtured by the media and so it came to be. The U.S. is a fascist state and does not care about its people and their opinions. Instead all are silenced except those on the furthest left. Don't want to disturb Ashcroft, do we now?

If the media controlled the country we would not be in Iraq right now. I read an e-mail that a Kentucky National Gaurdsmen wrote to CNN, I can't remember it word for word but here is the gist of it:

Dear CNN,
I am a captain in the Kentucky National Gaurd, currently on assignment in Iraq. Everyday we go out on patrol and every night we watch CNN. Do not be honored by this, because everyday when we go out on patrol we are out there helping the people, helping to rebuild Iraq with our own hands. On one rare occasion we were fired upon by enemy insurgents, no one was hurt and we were rather pleased with that. But when we got back to base that night and turned on CNN we saw pictures of us shooting and a caption that said "2 Dead, several injured in firefight with insurgents." We had to all stay up half the night so we could call our families and let them know that we were safe and that nothing had happened. Please, if you are going to take the time to report the news, please do it correctly.

That is basically what it said, while it was written differently I did not want to take the time to list all the names that the person said and their reactions.

I have heard alot about Jewish conspiracies in the US, the only one in the entire history of the United States of America that even seems to in the least be odd is the USS Liberty incident. As for Jews running the country behind closed doors, not likely, Gore would have been a shoe in if that was the case. The jews have their own country to run, and I am sure after 2500 years of waiting they would be overjoyed with the one they got. If only the UN would have considered the Arabs and Muslims when they set up Israel. That more than any other reason is the cause of all their fighting now, the UN took away the Muslims lands and gave them to the Jews without asking, that will cause lots of problems, especially when those two both believe that their sacred monument should be on the same exact spot.

Quote: "And what's your problem with the French? How about this for a comeback they can use: You're war still isn't justified, even if he's (Saddam) a sadistic bastard."

Now, replace the word 'Saddam' in brackets with the word 'Hitler'.

You think this is silly? Well the same thing was said during WW2 by quite a few Frenchmen. Ever hear of the Vichy French? They worked with the Germans in rounding up Jews and others and transported them to concentration camps. The French even surrendered because they didn't want Paris bombed! My god, don't talk about the French. They still have not forgiven the British for not surrendering to the Germans!

If the media controlled the country we would not be in Iraq right now. I read an e-mail that a Kentucky National Gaurdsmen wrote to CNN, I can't remember it word for word but here is the gist of it:

Dear CNN,
I am a captain in the Kentucky National Gaurd, currently on assignment in Iraq. Everyday we go out on patrol and every night we watch CNN. Do not be honored by this, because everyday when we go out on patrol we are out there helping the people, helping to rebuild Iraq with our own hands. On one rare occasion we were fired upon by enemy insurgents, no one was hurt and we were rather pleased with that. But when we got back to base that night and turned on CNN we saw pictures of us shooting and a caption that said "2 Dead, several injured in firefight with insurgents." We had to all stay up half the night so we could call our families and let them know that we were safe and that nothing had happened. Please, if you are going to take the time to report the news, please do it correctly.
Relevance?



I have heard alot about Jewish conspiracies in the US, the only one in the entire history of the United States of America that even seems to in the least be odd is the USS Liberty incident. As for Jews running the country behind closed doors, not likely, Gore would have been a shoe in if that was the case. The jews have their own country to run, and I am sure after 2500 years of waiting they would be overjoyed with the one they got. If only the UN would have considered the Arabs and Muslims when they set up Israel. That more than any other reason is the cause of all their fighting now, the UN took away the Muslims lands and gave them to the Jews without asking, that will cause lots of problems, especially when those two both believe that their sacred monument should be on the same exact spot.
Bush or Gore would not have mattered. What matters is they got their war.
Since neocons are more easily manipulated due to ideology than open liberals it made sense to choose Bush to lead the Iraq war.
The West should never have gotten involved with the MidEast and allowed Jews and Mohammedans to kill each other as they wished without being involved. But that was the very reason the Jewish lobby existed- to advance Israel's interests at the expense of other peoples, bringing young American blood along with it to be shed for Israel. And that leads us into Iraq with Boosh's rhetoric about WMDs and all other lies to justify the zionist war.

They found wmds there so :gundge:

Quote: "And what's your problem with the French? How about this for a comeback they can use: You're war still isn't justified, even if he's (Saddam) a sadistic bastard."

Now, replace the word 'Saddam' in brackets with the word 'Hitler'.

You think this is silly? Well the same thing was said during WW2 by quite a few Frenchmen. Ever hear of the Vichy French? They worked with the Germans in rounding up Jews and others and transported them to concentration camps. The French even surrendered because they didn't want Paris bombed! My god, don't talk about the French. They still have not forgiven the British for not surrendering to the Germans!

Ever hear of the french resistance? Obviously not, that would require looking at both sides of the conflict. Are you telling me that there arn't americans who would support, lets just say, Russia if it were to invade?

Oh, and Hitler had this little thing called "a fucking huge army."

Bush going into Iraq is like a little boy going through puberty. He doesn't know what exactly is going on, but he knows he's got some new powers now so he's gonna play with all he can until he figures it all out. He has until January...and he was a C student, so I'm not expecting much...

Why would we ever vote in someone who spent their life studying business instead of law and politics?!
I actually know of a few presidents who were generals, and one or two were doctors.
Besides, I have more faith in members of Bush's cabinet than Bush himself, truth be told, and I know he won't dump them. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and others, may disagree a lot, but they are all very bright and extremely capable. In fact, the only thing that I can see wrong with them is that they all are extremely ruthless.

I do not believe that Congress would have supported a war on those stated grounds and I further believe that the world would not except regime change as a logical concept to war.

You can't go around change regimes because YOU don't like them. It is contrary to the Charter of the UN.
There was one problem with the UN Charter. When it was written, the leaders were far too idealogical. The benefits of that ideaology were that it immediatly isolated the Soviet Union, and it was extremely useful then. However, realities have changed. In principle, there is a consensus in the West and Asia that democracy is the best form of government, and remember, that consensus didn't exist twenty years ago.
Thus, with this shift in thinking, realities on the ground have changed, and such an ideaology can't work, as it attempts to isolate an omnipresent enemy. Hussein was, arguably, the biggest threat in the Middle East, but it wasn't by action (although if he choose such a course, he probably would be an even greater threat). Rather, it was through inaction. By not reforming his nation's institutions (which only need a slight push compared to the rest of the Middle East), and his apathy toward terrorism, he was encouraging the rise of terrorism elsewhere. The reforms needed to eliminate this apathetic threat required major concessions of Hussein's power, which he wouldn't do. An invasion, therefore, was the only way to change these. Call it bandwagoning, if you will, but a secure and free Iraq would do more to fight terrorism than the US or the EU combined.
To briefly touch on a broader point, the ideaology of 1945 won't work in 2005, unless one lives under a rock. We need to consider if changes to international law are needed, and I feel that the broader War on Terror will show that a change is needed.

I actually know of a few presidents who were generals, and one or two were doctors.
Besides, I have more faith in members of Bush's cabinet than Bush himself, truth be told, and I know he won't dump them. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and others, may disagree a lot, but they are all very bright and extremely capable. In fact, the only thing that I can see wrong with them is that they all are extremely ruthless.
A General would have a better idea of what our military is capable of...anyway, just because other non-politicians have made themselves president doesn't make it a good thing. The President should be like the ultimate diplomat of our nation. A politician would know better how to be a diplomat than a businessman because politicians know a lot about compromise where a lot of businessmen push until they get it their way. Kind of like Iraq...when Bush just plowed through everything that was in his way to get this war to go down. I don't think a person with a background in politics would've been as adamant and hasty about the war in Iraq.

A General would have a better idea of what our military is capable of...anyway, just because other non-politicians have made themselves president doesn't make it a good thing. The President should be like the ultimate diplomat of our nation. A politician would know better how to be a diplomat than a businessman because politicians know a lot about compromise where a lot of businessmen push until they get it their way. Kind of like Iraq...when Bush just plowed through everything that was in his way to get this war to go down. I don't think a person with a background in politics would've been as adamant and hasty about the war in Iraq.
Still, business backrounds aren't bad. Modern economies are built off them, and it hasn't only brought lots of money in. It's develped areas and countries that governments, for one reason or another, can't develope themselves. Besides, a critical element for any businessman is to know when to walk away.

Besides, a critical element for any businessman is to know when to walk away.
Is that why Bush was a C student?

Is that why Bush was a C student?
Maybe. After all, Albert Einstein was an F student. Put him in a business environment, and I bet that he'd be a moderately successful CEO, because if you think about it, some of the same elements of science are also in business.

Maybe. After all, Albert Einstein was an F student. Put him in a business environment, and I bet that he'd be a moderately successful CEO, because if you think about it, some of the same elements of science are also in business.
Albert Einstein wasn't an F student. Albert Einstein dropped out of school.

Albert Einstein wasn't an F student. Albert Einstein dropped out of school.
Even juicier. But hey, quite a few CEO's, like the late Harlan Sanders, were high school dropouts as well.

Even juicier. But hey, quite a few CEO's, like the late Harlan Sanders, were high school dropouts as well.
Bush didn't drop out of school though. So what are we talking about? Einstein dropped out of school because he didn't like his teachers. Bush stayed in school because a Masters in Business is impressive. He isn't bound to say he was a C student.

Bush didn't drop out of school though. So what are we talking about? Einstein dropped out of school because he didn't like his teachers. Bush stayed in school because a Masters in Business is impressive. He isn't bound to say he was a C student.
Still, it doesn't matter if you are the Queen of Sheba, but Yale won't take anyone unless they are bright enough. But then again, MBAs don't make as many great CEOs as does Middle Class America, where Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, and Warren Buffet are from.

Still, it doesn't matter if you are the Queen of Sheba, but Yale won't take anyone unless they are bright enough. But then again, MBAs don't make as many great CEOs as does Middle Class America, where Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, and Warren Buffet are from.
George W. Bush's father was head of the CIA. Also, I am not denying that Bush knows what he is talking about with Business. I'm not denying he has intelligence. I just don't think he makes a good diplomat or president and I think he has proved that.

George W. Bush's father was head of the CIA. Also, I am not denying that Bush knows what he is talking about with Business. I'm not denying he has intelligence. I just don't think he makes a good diplomat or president and I think he has proved that.
Well, a corporate style diplomacy has really never had a shot. Besides, I feel it is working, because from my viewpoint, American foreign policy is a sucess. It sounds Machievallian, but I'm one of those people who believe that, in the long run, US foreign policy does lots of good. And it has nearly all the time in the past.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=341452

It's unjustified.