NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush


WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that pulling out of Iraq now is not an option, rejecting calls by some lawmakers and many people asked in polls to start bringing U.S. troops home.


"The terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"We will settle for nothing less than victory" over terrorists there, he said later.

Bush's radio address is part of a series of appearances and speeches in the coming weeks aimed at countering poll ratings that are near their lowest levels on both the Iraq war and the economy. Bush said his administration is committed to success in both areas of concern for Americans.

About six in 10 in a Gallup poll taken in early June said the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops — the highest level of support for withdrawing U.S. troops since the war began.

On the economy, the president said he needs help from Congress to keep the nation on the right track. With some of his signature domestic priorities experiencing difficulties on Capitol Hill, he urged support for his request for a free-trade agreement with Central American and Caribbean nations, an overhaul of Social Security and wide-ranging energy legislation.

And even as Bush just this week delayed another domestic priority — a massive rewriting of the tax code to simplify it — by two months, he said it must be done.

"We need to work together to ensure that opportunity reaches every corner of our great country," Bush said.

But it is the president's Iraq policy that has taken the biggest slide in the polls. Once a mainstay of his public support, his handling of the Iraq war was backed by only 41 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month — his lowest level of support yet on Iraq.

Bush acknowledged discontent over his decisions but signaled no shift in policy or timing for the American presence in Iraq.

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," he said. "This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight."

Amid continuing attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq, a few Republicans and Democrats — including one GOP lawmaker who voted for war in Iraq — introduced a resolution this week calling for Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006. There have been nearly 1,100 violent deaths in Iraq linked to the insurgency since a transitional government took office seven weeks ago.

The administration insists no timetable can be set for bringing U.S. forces home from Iraq until enough Iraqi forces have been sufficiently trained to take over the fight against the insurgency. Anything else, the administration argues, would only embolden the insurgency.

Bush also paid tribute to progress seen in Iraq this week. Iraq's Shiite-led parliament and leaders of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority, which is believed to be the backbone of the insurgency, agreed on a process for drafting Iraq's constitution.

"Time and again, the Iraqi people have defied the skeptics who claim they are not up to the job of building a free society," he said. "I am confident that Iraqis will continue to defy the skeptics as they build a new Iraq that represents the diversity of their nation and assumes greater responsibility for their own security. And when they do, our troops can come home with the honor they have earned."

After elections in January, writing a constitution is Iraq's next milestone in its fits-and-starts transition to democracy. Later this year, the document is to put up for a vote in a public referendum and then a new government is to be elected.

If recruitment problems continue the way they are going, we're gonna have two options: pull out of Iraq, or institute a draft. Guess Bush just told us which it is gonna be...hope he's got his daughters ready to serve!

If recruitment problems continue the way they are going, we're gonna have two options: pull out of Iraq, or institute a draft. Guess Bush just told us which it is gonna be...hope he's got his daughters ready to serve!

That's not going to be an issue, look at what happened to GW Bush during the vietnam war. Draft dodging pollies are the norm.

Thank you, Mr. Bush, for stating the obvious.

If there's a draft, there will be a revolution...

If he does start a draft that would suck cuz in a few years I would get drafted :mad: I dont wanna die lol. I asked my friend if he ever would wanna go into the military and he said "hell no! unless they make it so you can respawn!" LoL

If recruitment problems continue the way they are going, we're gonna have two options: pull out of Iraq, or institute a draft. Guess Bush just told us which it is gonna be...hope he's got his daughters ready to serve!

You're absolutely right, if we have to maintain these troop levels in Iraq for about 7 more years. That won't happen, provided that the new Iraqi government doesn't fall. IF things go well, the US should be able to pull out half the troops in about 2 years.

Either way, there will be no draft. The US will leave outright first, since anyone who puts a draft bill into Congress will be an immediate political pariah and drag down anyone who votes for it.

putin merde

You're absolutely right, if we have to maintain these troop levels in Iraq for about 7 more years. That won't happen, provided that the new Iraqi government doesn't fall. IF things go well, the US should be able to pull out half the troops in about 2 years.

Either way, there will be no draft. The US will leave outright first, since anyone who puts a draft bill into Congress will be an immediate political pariah and drag down anyone who votes for it.

Never say never, Markreich. All it needs is a big name and "impending doom" if it doesn't get passed. I found the gall of Condoleeza Rice, at a press conference a few days ago, pretty much saying "thanks for your sacrifices, but we need more". Sorry, we're at the bottom of the barrel already.

Whoever proposed the exit date is a damn smart man or woman in my opinion. If I find out which of my Senators/Representatives voted no on this, they aren't getting re-elected.

This should be a campaign issue, and the Democrats can run with this. AND WIN.

If I find out which of my Senators/Representatives voted no on this, they aren't getting re-elected.



Wow, you really are a powerful person. Aren't you? I wish I had the power to determine who was elected. :rolleyes:

Never say never, Markreich. All it needs is a big name and "impending doom" if it doesn't get passed. I found the gall of Condoleeza Rice, at a press conference a few days ago, pretty much saying "thanks for your sacrifices, but we need more". Sorry, we're at the bottom of the barrel already.

Whoever proposed the exit date is a damn smart man or woman in my opinion. If I find out which of my Senators/Representatives voted no on this, they aren't getting re-elected.

This should be a campaign issue, and the Democrats can run with this. AND WIN.

I'll say it: never. The US still has one spectre from 'Nam, and that's the draft. It would simply never pass. They'll raise solider pay & benefits. They'll privitize more positions. They'll start fast tracking citizenship for illegals to join. But they'll never start a draft.
Bottom of the barrell? Nah. 100.000 out of a population of 285 million+? I don't think so.

I disagree. The minute a withdrawl date is proposed, the insurgency has won. We will have bases in Iraq for the next 15-25 years, at a minimum. (Not active in fighting like now, but to replace the bases we no longer have in Saudi).

If the DEMs make this a campaign issue, it will backfire for one reason and one reason only: it's not in the country's best interest to lose. We started this mess, and we need to finish it. If the terrorists are allowed a new base (as in Taleban Afganistan), then all this has been for naught, and at a huge loss of people, money and goodwill.

Of course Bush said it--his biggest asset is his willingness to stick by his decisions, no matter how stupid they turn out to be. His base loves him for it. Now mind you, in any real world situation, that's generally a stupid way to go about making decisions--pragmatism defeats dogmatism any day--but all Bush has is his ideology, so as they say, you got to dance with what brung you.

If we were to pull out, it would just become a have for terrorists, just like Afghanistan before we went in there, except closer to Israel and Saudi Arabia, which isnt good. Once you go in somewhere, you have to stay until you are done, or else you end up worse off then you started

That's not going to be an issue, look at what happened to GW Bush during the vietnam war. Draft dodging pollies are the norm.

Funny. I thought it was Clinton that dodged the draft. At least Bush was in the NATIONAL GUARD!

Never say never, Markreich. All it needs is a big name and "impending doom" if it doesn't get passed.

What? I thought this was tried once and it still failed. Heck, the person that introduced the bill voted against it. He being a DEMOCRAT!

I found the gall of Condoleeza Rice, at a press conference a few days ago, pretty much saying "thanks for your sacrifices, but we need more". Sorry, we're at the bottom of the barrel already.

We still have troops so we're not at the bottom of the barrel yet.

Whoever proposed the exit date is a damn smart man or woman in my opinion.

Luckily it is your opinion. I can tell you right now what would happen if we pulled out now.

If I find out which of my Senators/Representatives voted no on this, they aren't getting re-elected.

Good luck. I can tell you most people want the job to get done so we can pull out.

This should be a campaign issue, and the Democrats can run with this. AND WIN.

Doubtful.

Funny. I thought it was Clinton that dodged the draft. At least Bush was in the NATIONAL GUARD!
Not this crap again. I'll only say this once--during Vietnam, getting into the Guard was the equivalent of dodging the draft in the sense that it meant ou didn't have to go to Vietnam, and Bush couldn't even complete that service.

And that's all I'm going to say--I refuse to hijack this thread into a discussion of how Bush failed to complete his requisite duty in the TANG, so scream all you want about it Corneliu. I'm sure you will regardless.

Thank goodness I'm joining the Foreign Service(y'know, diplomats and stuff). Of course, that won't be till 2010.

Not this crap again. I'll only say this once--during Vietnam, getting into the Guard was the equivalent of dodging the draft in the sense that it meant ou didn't have to go to Vietnam, and Bush couldn't even complete that service.

And that's all I'm going to say--I refuse to hijack this thread into a discussion of how Bush failed to complete his requisite duty in the TANG, so scream all you want about it Corneliu. I'm sure you will regardless.

Thank you.

You're absolutely right, if we have to maintain these troop levels in Iraq for about 7 more years. That won't happen, provided that the new Iraqi government doesn't fall. IF things go well, the US should be able to pull out half the troops in about 2 years.

Either way, there will be no draft. The US will leave outright first, since anyone who puts a draft bill into Congress will be an immediate political pariah and drag down anyone who votes for it.

Righto. This man or woman understands what he or she is talking about. Whether it is Bush or not we will not be in there more than 4 years. Otherwise it will be an election issue and the next conservative, in order to win, will have to make a heck of a campaign about removing the troops. Second, the insurgency will not be able to keep up in such a bad position as things are. As we push for arab rights in Gaza as Rice is doing support for the insurgency will also slacken. No one has mentioned that we are loosing few people in this war. Nor has anyone mentioned that the insurgency is slackening. We are not fighting in the capitol as we were months before. now, we are fighting in little known towns throughout Iraqi. If this doesn't give you an idea of how well we are doing, I am sorry to say you are greatly mislead.

Righto. This man or woman understands what he or she is talking about. Whether it is Bush or not we will not be in there more than 4 years. Otherwise it will be an election issue and the next conservative, in order to win, will have to make a heck of a campaign about removing the troops. Second, the insurgency will not be able to keep up in such a bad position as things are. As we push for arab rights in Gaza as Rice is doing support for the insurgency will also slacken. No one has mentioned that we are loosing few people in this war. Nor has anyone mentioned that the insurgency is slackening. We are not fighting in the capitol as we were months before. now, we are fighting in little known towns throughout Iraqi. If this doesn't give you an idea of how well we are doing, I am sorry to say you are greatly mislead.

Agreed.

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Saturday that pulling out of Iraq now is not an option, rejecting calls by some lawmakers and many people asked in polls to start bringing U.S. troops home.


"The terrorists and insurgents are trying to get us to retreat. Their goal is to get us to leave before Iraqis have had a chance to show the region what a government that is elected and truly accountable to its citizens can do for its people," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

"We will settle for nothing less than victory" over terrorists there, he said later.

Bush's radio address is part of a series of appearances and speeches in the coming weeks aimed at countering poll ratings that are near their lowest levels on both the Iraq war and the economy. Bush said his administration is committed to success in both areas of concern for Americans.

Hear is an idea for Bush. Retreat. No shame. Trust me if the insurgents/terrorist do kill any innocent civilians, guess what? They aren't Freedom Fighters anymore. They can't be fighting the USA, only Iraq!

What will this cause? I don't know, maybe Iraq might call for our help after two months when Terrorist have lost all support because they have no "Great Satan" to fight. We than return and help get rid of the terrorist.

Bam, we win the peace in Iraq. As long as terrorist can say, "I was aiming at Americans not innocent civilians". They have an excuse for the bombings. Yes, it isn't a good excuse but taking it away saps away all support.

Only trouble is a few civilians might die proving terorrist are scum and not Freedom Fighters. Granted they would die anyway when they bomb us.

About six in 10 in a Gallup poll taken in early June said the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops — the highest level of support for withdrawing U.S. troops since the war began.

On the economy, the president said he needs help from Congress to keep the nation on the right track. With some of his signature domestic priorities experiencing difficulties on Capitol Hill, he urged support for his request for a free-trade agreement with Central American and Caribbean nations, an overhaul of Social Security and wide-ranging energy legislation.

And even as Bush just this week delayed another domestic priority — a massive rewriting of the tax code to simplify it — by two months, he said it must be done.

"We need to work together to ensure that opportunity reaches every corner of our great country," Bush said.

But it is the president's Iraq policy that has taken the biggest slide in the polls. Once a mainstay of his public support, his handling of the Iraq war was backed by only 41 percent in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month — his lowest level of support yet on Iraq.

Bush acknowledged discontent over his decisions but signaled no shift in policy or timing for the American presence in Iraq.

"Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," he said. "This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight."

No, you made Iraq the central front on the war on terrorist Mr. Bush.

Amid continuing attacks and suicide bombings in Iraq, a few Republicans and Democrats — including one GOP lawmaker who voted for war in Iraq — introduced a resolution this week calling for Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1, 2006. There have been nearly 1,100 violent deaths in Iraq linked to the insurgency since a transitional government took office seven weeks ago.

The administration insists no timetable can be set for bringing U.S. forces home from Iraq until enough Iraqi forces have been sufficiently trained to take over the fight against the insurgency. Anything else, the administration argues, would only embolden the insurgency.

Bush also paid tribute to progress seen in Iraq this week. Iraq's Shiite-led parliament and leaders of the disaffected Sunni Arab minority, which is believed to be the backbone of the insurgency, agreed on a process for drafting Iraq's constitution.

"Time and again, the Iraqi people have defied the skeptics who claim they are not up to the job of building a free society," he said. "I am confident that Iraqis will continue to defy the skeptics as they build a new Iraq that represents the diversity of their nation and assumes greater responsibility for their own security. And when they do, our troops can come home with the honor they have earned."

After elections in January, writing a constitution is Iraq's next milestone in its fits-and-starts transition to democracy. Later this year, the document is to put up for a vote in a public referendum and then a new government is to be elected.


Okay, let me tackle this by posting a great speech that would be good if occured:


WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR ANY U.S. PRESIDENT, DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of Iraq regime has been completed.



Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia, and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains everyone not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 will not cease immediately and indefinitely. Though we will be thinking hard about how much we actually send out toward those countries. And possibly reducing the funds a small amount.

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect some the money sent previously toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth. As the Senatir John Kerry said when he was running.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world.

Mexico is also on List 2. President Fox and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra tank and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put em? Yep, border security. We are tired of you allow your people to run illegally to America.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism because we are lowering fundings sent out. But a Nation must at some point look at its own problems and fix them.

God bless America. May you all relax , good night ladies and Gentleman.


how was the speech? Too far right or too far left? Just enough?

I'm sorry who actually thought pulling out of Iraq was an option?

Thank goodness I'm joining the Foreign Service(y'know, diplomats and stuff). Of course, that won't be till 2010.

Only if you get accepted, its tough believe me I'm studying Politics and International Relations to join the Foriegn Office and competition is tough.

If you're too chickenshit to pull out, don't fucking put it in in the first place.

No one has mentioned that we are loosing few people in this war.

17,000 casualties in 2 years is a lot of people.

Nor has anyone mentioned that the insurgency is slackening. We are not fighting in the capitol as we were months before. now, we are fighting in little known towns throughout Iraqi.

Please give me what evidence you have that the insurgency is slackening. Because the American and Iraqi deaths are more now than they were a few months ago. And car bombings, massacres, assasinations, etc are now as prevalent as ever.

Those 'little towns' are Iraqi border provinces, which we are attacking for the third time now in an attempt to keep foreign fighters out of Iraq. The first two operations were not successful.

If this doesn't give you an idea of how well we are doing, I am sorry to say you are greatly mislead.

:rolleyes:

Never say never, Markreich. All it needs is a big name and "impending doom" if it doesn't get passed. I found the gall of Condoleeza Rice, at a press conference a few days ago, pretty much saying "thanks for your sacrifices, but we need more". Sorry, we're at the bottom of the barrel already.

Whoever proposed the exit date is a damn smart man or woman in my opinion. If I find out which of my Senators/Representatives voted no on this, they aren't getting re-elected.

This should be a campaign issue, and the Democrats can run with this. AND WIN.

No, all it needs is a little name and to be a 5 word line (the draft will be reinstated) in a 30 page bill that has new laws about everything from how loudly senators say the pledge of alliegence to a .0000000003% tax cut. Oh, and call it the "Patriotism and Loyalty to the United States of America Act," so that no one will vote against it and be accused of being unpatriotic and treasonous.

17,000 casualties in 2 years is a lot of people.

I'm inclined to think you're misplacing your zeroes, because last I checked (this morning) the official number of US "casualties" was 1708 people. Of course, this number is greatly misleading because up until this war a casualty was any injury that requires that the injured man be taken off of the battlefield.

This time around the administration has changed the definition to mean battlefield deaths. So not only does it count as a casualty if someone gets his arms and legs blown off by a roadside bomb, it doesn't even count as a casualty if if a guy gets blown to bits, but is still warm when they get him to the infermary.

The most misleading definition change since Nixon changed the rules for determining the unemployment numbers and claimed that it meant he had "reduced unemployment."

Whoever proposed the exit date is a damn smart man or woman in my opinion. If I find out which of my Senators/Representatives voted no on this, they aren't getting re-elected.

The only thing an exit date will do is allow the insurgents to sit back and gain strength until we leave. Then throw the country into civil war after we leave.

If you're too chickenshit to pull out, don't fucking put it in in the first place.

There must be sooooo many prom night flashbacks upon reading this post.

Funny. I thought it was Clinton that dodged the draft. At least Bush was in the NATIONAL GUARD!

:D

The only thing an exit date will do is allow the insurgents to sit back and gain strength until we leave. Then throw the country into civil war after we leave.

No, the only thing an exit date will do will cause insurgents to say "the imperialist infidels are trying to make your homeland into a tribute state," and hear back "no they're not, they're going to pull out in (insert date here)."

We're essentially giving them recruiting propaganda material. Otherwise they'd just bide their time and lick their wounds and hit back as soon as our backs were turned. Check your history. The more we fight, the more we give them the will to fight.

Not this crap again. I'll only say this once--during Vietnam, getting into the Guard was the equivalent of dodging the draft in the sense that it meant ou didn't have to go to Vietnam,

You are absolutely wrong. There were Guards who served in Vietnam. Being in the Guard did not mean you would not go; it just made it more unlikely. Not at all, like dodging the draft.

17,000 casualties in 2 years is a lot of people.

We, the US, has not had 17,000 casualties. :(

While I hate the US more than anyone, at this point them pulling out would only help Sunni terrorists. The only insurgents I have ever supported were Muqtada Al-Sadr and his army and now that they are more legal, I support no insurgent.

Good on Bush. The troops really need to stay there for at least 5 more years. You didn't see then out of Japan so soon.

Funny. I thought it was Clinton that dodged the draft. At least Bush was in the NATIONAL GUARD!
:rolleyes:

Do you really have to turn every thread into a Democrats vs Republicans flamefest?

You are absolutely wrong. There were Guards who served in Vietnam. Being in the Guard did not mean you would not go; it just made it more unlikely. Not at all, like dodging the draft.

Bush's unit was called the "Champagne Unit." Doesn't exactly speak of an eagerness for battle. Much of the National Guard was reserved for the sons of the rich. Perhaps not the entire guard, but I assure you, the odds of a unit with a George Jr. going to Vietnam were not the same as those composed entirely of Joes Blow.

Do you really have to turn every thread into a Democrats vs Republicans flamefest?

It's not a matter of flaming. Republicans have all been hard wired to respond to every criticism of any Republican with "Clinton did..." Bush and his entire Cabinet are draft dodgers (he had a token warrior around in a strictly civilian capacity, but got rid of him as soon as it was politically pheasable), and yet they keep bringing up Clinton's absence from the military.

Note, Clinton didn't bring us into a rediculous war. He participated in a UN policing effort to stop a genocide, but that's nothing like what we're doing in Iraq. For an anti war president to stay out of war, or a presidential war hero to be eager for war is understandable. For a presidential war hero to be anti-war is also understandable. It's only surviving war heroes who know what a battlefield looks like afterwards. For people like Bush to wage a war is the most detestable kind of rank hypocrisy and cowardice.

I feel like a fool repeating myself but who actually thought that pulling out of Iraq was an option?

Bush's unit was called the "Champagne Unit." Doesn't exactly speak of an eagerness for battle. Much of the National Guard was reserved for the sons of the rich.

There you go again, spouting off about something you know nothing about. Many people who had money opted for a college deferment. Many who did not want to go but would if they had to joined the National Guard or Reserves. Some waited until their draft number came up and immediately joined the Air Force or Navy to keep from going into the Marines or Army. Others took off to Canada, and there were those who actually enlisted. The idea that "much of the Guard was 'reserved' for the rich’ is false.

Note, Clinton didn't bring us into a rediculous war. He participated in a UN policing effort to stop a genocide, but that's nothing like what we're doing in Iraq.

It was not a UN police action. It was an action led by the US and NATO. Clinton never took it to the UN.

Good on Bush. The troops really need to stay there for at least 5 more years. You didn't see then out of Japan so soon.

If there's an exit date, the terrorists will win. I agree with you that we need to stay till the job is done.

:rolleyes:

Do you really have to turn every thread into a Democrats vs Republicans flamefest?

Sorry but I'm tired of people saying that he dodged the draft when infact Bush didn't.

I believe pulling out is not going to happen. And to proove it, I am joining the military myself. I think it is a good thing to serve the country than for the country to serve you. I suggest others to join (noting that you do live in the USA and you are at least 18).

I believe pulling out is not going to happen. And to proove it, I am joining the military myself. I think it is a good thing to serve the country than for the country to serve you. I suggest others to join (noting that you do live in the USA and you are at least 18).

"Ask not what this country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" President John F. Kennedy.

Sorry but I'm tired of people saying that he dodged the draft when infact Bush didn't.

Oh please. If u were as rich as Bush, would u willingly get drafted if u could just as easily not?

his entire Cabinet are draft dodgers (he had a token warrior around in a strictly civilian capacity, but got rid of him as soon as it was politically pheasable),

This maybe asking to much and I may be feeding a troll, but I so want to see proof of this statement. And don't bring up Cheney because he had a student Differement. Something that Kerry (yes Kerry) tried to get.

Note, Clinton didn't bring us into a rediculous war. He participated in a UN policing effort to stop a genocide,

And which Genocide will that be? As far as I know, he didn't use the UN to stop any genocide. I'm curious what genocide your talking about.

but that's nothing like what we're doing in Iraq. For an anti war president to stay out of war, or a presidential war hero to be eager for war is understandable.

If Clinton was so anti-war then why did he:
1) Authorize Desert Fox (Iraq)
2) Bomb and asprin factory in Sudan (what? Sudan)
3) Get NATO to go into Bosnia without a UN Resolution (something I'm familiar with)

For a presidential war hero to be anti-war is also understandable. It's only surviving war heroes who know what a battlefield looks like afterwards.

All I have to do is ask my dad and my relatives. They have seen war.

For people like Bush to wage a war is the most detestable kind of rank hypocrisy and cowardice.

How so and don't come back with a scorn comment or an anti-Bush or anti-republican comment either.

Oh please. If u were as rich as Bush, would u willingly get drafted if u could just as easily not?

He. was. in. the. NATIONAL GUARD

How did he avoid military service?

OK, enough of the bullshit, and make the differences between Bush and Clinton crystal clear....without any mention of service for the United States' military. Make your own decisions from this, mine is pretty evident

Clinton:
Got his di(k sucked in office

Bush:
Manipulated election numbers to get into office
Killed an unprecedented amount of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq
Racked up human rights violations galore in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib
Ruined the economy of the U.S., Iraq and Afghanistan
Killed thousands of civilians at the hands of indiscriminate bombings
Went against United Nations ruling in regards to actions in Iraq
Hampered U.N. efforts for weapons inspection in Iraq
Decieved the American public by saying that Iraq had an arsenal of WMDs that were of immediate threat to the U.S.
Made the U.S. even more dependent than ever before on the Middle East
Got the U.S. booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commision
I'm sure there are more, but I'm going back to studying for finals

And note the absence of service record crap

Can we get on with the real debate now?

What's to debate? Bush stated there's no time table to leave Iraq because that'll give the insurgents a victory. He really is right in this case. We can't leave till the Iraqis are able to defend themselves or until the Iraqi government asks us to leave.

OK, enough of the bullshit, and make the differences between Bush and Clinton crystal clear....without any mention of service for the United States' military. Make your own decisions from this, mine is pretty evident

Clinton:
Got his di(k sucked in office

Bush:
Manipulated election numbers to get into office
Killed an unprecedented amount of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq
Racked up human rights violations galore in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib
Ruined the economy of the U.S., Iraq and Afghanistan
Killed thousands of civilians at the hands of indiscriminate bombings
Went against United Nations ruling in regards to actions in Iraq
Hampered U.N. efforts for weapons inspection in Iraq
Decieved the American public by saying that Iraq had an arsenal of WMDs that were of immediate threat to the U.S.
Made the U.S. even more dependent than ever before on the Middle East
Got the U.S. booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commision
I'm sure there are more, but I'm going back to studying for finals

And note the absence of service record crap

Can we get on with the real debate now?

Congratulations this Bush Vs Clinton thing will last at least 2 more pages

No, the only thing an exit date will do will cause insurgents to say "the imperialist infidels are trying to make your homeland into a tribute state," and hear back "no they're not, they're going to pull out in (insert date here)."

We're essentially giving them recruiting propaganda material. Otherwise they'd just bide their time and lick their wounds and hit back as soon as our backs were turned. Check your history. The more we fight, the more we give them the will to fight.

you're both right. The only thing the Terrorists can do that might be effective, is try to out-wait the Americans. This is easier with an Exit-Date, but not necessary to implement the tactic.
With an undefined exit-date, the Islamofascists and Ba'athists might be able to use the spectre of a "Tribute State" condition to scare up more recruits...but given reports of locals taking on these "Insurgents" on their own hook, I doubt it has long-term viability, particularly in a nation like Iraq, where literacy is fairly widespread, and even under saddam, the Age of Reason was finally taking root. The Iraqis (I believe) want a First-World economy, not a Third-world Theocracy (they've tasted it, found it good...), appeals to "Faith" and "Pan-Arabism" probably won't work as well as having running water, electric lights, and fuel for your motorcar do. This is probably reason number one why most of the "insurgents" come from out-of-state.

It all really depends heavily on whether or not the Iraqis are able to actually achieve the critical mass of viability, or if they have to spend decades being incompetent until the Yanks get tired and leave.

If recruitment problems continue the way they are going, we're gonna have two options: pull out of Iraq, or institute a draft. Guess Bush just told us which it is gonna be...hope he's got his daughters ready to serve!

Now, calm down, kids. There won't be a draft. Don't need one. The only positions that have trouble recruiting are the support troops. More support troops can be had by increasing pay or through privatization. And, with all that, it'll still be cheaper than using conscripts, who generally don't do very well. At least not as well as volunteers.

The combat units have seen an increase in volunteers. You should be thankful there are people who want to do this. The rest of us don't have the stomach for it.

Well doesn't you all forgotten that Bush have declared Iraq a sovereign country? Well personally I don't think Iraq is that, but if the top boss of the country leading the invasion/liberation of Iraq say that mean that Iraq could have the right to ask the americans leave anytime they want.

Also the question is not how long USA need to stay but how long they can stand before the Iraqies get more pissed of on them then the insurgents and also will Iraq be enough stable so that Iraq can be both peacfull and democratic? Of course USA can try to stay but USA would really really need the draft if a mayority of Iraqies want the american soldiers out of Iraq and don't see a peacfull solution for that to happen.

I believe pulling out is not going to happen. And to proove it, I am joining the military myself. I think it is a good thing to serve the country than for the country to serve you. I suggest others to join (noting that you do live in the USA and you are at least 18).

Good for you. I fully sorport you and wish you the best.

Well doesn't you all forgotten that Bush have declared Iraq a sovereign country? Well personally I don't think Iraq is that, but if the top boss of the country leading the invasion/liberation of Iraq say that mean that Iraq could have the right to ask the americans leave anytime they want.

100% Correct. They can ask us to leave at anytime. However, the Iraqi government also knows that we are still necessary to help with security. They know their infant army can't do that yet. The Foreign Minister is asking the UN to extend our mission there.

Also the question is not how long USA need to stay but how long they can stand before the Iraqies get more pissed of on them then the insurgents and also will Iraq be enough stable so that Iraq can be both peacfull and democratic? Of course USA can try to stay but USA would really really need the draft if a mayority of Iraqies want the american soldiers out of Iraq and don't see a peacfull solution for that to happen.

I think the Iraqi government would ask us to leave if this ever happened. If they want the country to stablize, I expect them to do this otherwise, they'll fall too if they don't.

Perhaps I am mearly a fool, but I'm wondering what the US generals on the ground think about this. What do the Pentagon officials think would be best for the US military presence there? Why do we see no evidence of military thought in this military desicion?

Strange how this military desicion is being made by civilians, seemingly entirely without military consultation. I suggest that at least SOME effort should be made to find out what the US command staff thinks.

Personally, I find this thread full of domestic political agendas and foriegn policy statements that consist more of ideals and rhetoric than actual policy. Perhaps some thought should be put into this very important issue before moving forward with it?

He. was. in. the. NATIONAL GUARD

How did he avoid military service?

Good little Bushevik. Playing the semantics game then bitching when Democrats do the same.

He didn't avoid military service per se, but he did avoid an active tour of duty in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard. And even they have trouble coming up with a solid record of Shrub serving duties.

The only thing he had in common with his daddy (a genuine War Hero pilot) was they both spent their times in uniform downing Kamikazes.

Bush:
Manipulated election numbers to get into office.

Never happened. You give the President a lot of power he does not have.

Killed an unprecedented amount of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq

The Iraq military, the Taliban, and insurgents, not the President, killed troops.

Racked up human rights violations galore in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib

President has never been to either of these places and it is not his policy to allow human rights abuse. Those in who do so have been and will be punished.

Ruined the economy of the U.S., Iraq and Afghanistan

What economy? Oil for food economy? Taliban economy? Neither of those countries had a viable economy. It will take time to build one.

Killed thousands of civilians at the hands of indiscriminate bombings

Bombing was the most accurate in any war. Civilian casualties were minimum compared to other wars.

Went against United Nations ruling in regards to actions in Iraq

The UN stated on numerous occasions that there would be sever consequences if Saddam did not comply. The President enforced those resolutions.

Hampered U.N. efforts for weapons inspection in Iraq

Get real. Inspections were not being done because Saddam hampered them.

Deceived the American public by saying that Iraq had an arsenal of WMDs that were of immediate threat to the U.S.

Did not deceive anyone. Told the American people what American and foreign intelligence was telling him and other world leaders.

Made the U.S. even more dependent than ever before on the Middle East [/QUOTE]

In what way? If you are referring to oil, remember who has prevented us from drilling in Anwar, off the coast of Calif., off the coast of Florida, and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Got the U.S. booted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission

????????

The only thing he had in common with his daddy (a genuine War Hero pilot) was they both spent their times in uniform downing Kamikazes.


Good point, now - back (sort of) on topic - if only George Senior had felt that pulling out of Barbara was an option then perhaps we wouldn't be having to have this endless debate on military service.


Except, of course, how flabbergasting I find it that so many young Republicans give such great lip service to the war, but yet still the military keeps missing recruitment targets. I mean, if it were so righteous you'd think they'd be flocking down to sign up.

Or, perhaps like Cheney during 'Nam, they just have "other priorities". Or maybe a solid case of Rush Limbaugh's anal cysts from the same period....


who knows.

But it IS odd isn't it?

He. was. in. the. NATIONAL GUARD

How did he avoid military service?
During that war the National Guard didn't see action, but you know that

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

Ihatevacations']During that war the National Guard didn't see action, but you know that

Some National Guard did see action during that war. Even if most did not see action, they still served in the military. By the way, not all active duty members saw action during that war. I served in Thailand and my wife never went overseas. So, what is your point?

Ihatevacations']During that war the National Guard didn't see action, but you know that

They most certainly did see action. Just because his unit wasn't called up doesn't make it so.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

They most certainly did see action. Just because his unit wasn't called up doesn't make it so.

Yes, a grand total of FIVE national guard tactical fighter squadrons were called to Vietnam in '68 in response to the Pueblo incident. Of course, not one single unit of the Texas Air National Guard ever saw service in Vietnam, and when Bush joined in '72 that single callup was loooooooooong since past.

In other words, there was zero expectation of seeing combat taking that route.

The Palestinians have certainly commited some heinous acts of terrorism, but then again what would you do if a bunch of foreigners kicked you out of your homes because they believed you were living in their Promised Land? Explain to me how the Israelis have acted any better?

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

Ok! I had enough!

1: It was the Arabs that asked the Palestinians to leave in 1948 so they can launch their attack on Israel. The war failed and Israel won it.
2: The Arabs did nothing to help the Palestinian Refugees, many of whom were asked to come back by the Israelis
3: The arabs fought 2 more wars and lost them both and in the process, lost more territory.

To your second point, yes it is horrifing. To bad the UN doesn't have the balls to condemn the terror attacks. Instead, Israel launches a reprisal attack and they get condemned for it.

Your right nothing changes, your still spouting hatred of the Palestinians. News Flash: Not all of them are terrorists.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Your grouping all palestinians under one word. If your describing terrorists, then say the Palestinian Terrorists.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Somewhat accurate but not entirely true.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

Surprisingly accurate

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

Since Arafat is dead, I suggest you just stick with the word ilk. To bad he turned down the offer of 95% of the land back. That would've solved alot of problems.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

Now that I got done feeding a damn troll (only because of his massive hatred) What does this hav to do with Pulling out of Iraq?

[QUOTE=Jabba Huts] Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.QUOTE]

Who fired the bullets Jabba? Israel has a shoot to kill policy for children and you're claiming the moral highgroundbecause of news cameras, somehow I find this hard to swallow

It's not a matter of flaming. Republicans have all been hard wired to respond to every criticism of any Republican with "Clinton did..."

For once I think you're right!

Note, Clinton didn't bring us into a rediculous war. He participated in a UN policing effort to stop a genocide, but that's nothing like what we're doing in Iraq.
Actually, the intervention in the Balkans was a NATO Operation, and it was not sanctioned by the UN. It was not really so different from Iraq. Just on a smaller scale.

Yes, a grand total of FIVE national guard tactical fighter squadrons were called to Vietnam in '68 in response to the Pueblo incident. Of course, not one single unit of the Texas Air National Guard ever saw service in Vietnam, and when Bush joined in '72 that single callup was loooooooooong since past.

In other words, there was zero expectation of seeing combat taking that route.

And this proves your case how?

Ok! I had enough!

Your grouping all palestinians under one word. If your describing terrorists, then say the Palestinian Terrorists.



What a weak ass wet Lib!
The problem is that the "quick-fix" mentality has repeatedly made the region's
situation become far more confused and generally worse. Ideas which seem sensible
and obvious to their often-ignorant, sometimes prejudiced creators merely try to
fit complex problems created by deliberately obstructive extremists into a
reality-distorting framework of neat plans, cool gimmicks, and external
responsibility for their problems.


The UN is corrupt-

(An American congressional panel will begin hearings this week into charges that Saddam Hussein bribed officials around the world with billions of dollars from the United Nations’ oil-for-food programme.

The timing of the hearing could not be worse for the UN, as the embarrassing charges of laxity will be aired as it prepares to return to Iraq after the 30 June handover to interim Iraqi authorities.

The fraud allegations that have surfaced so far are only the “tip of the iceberg”, said Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British adviser to the Iraq Governing Council, who will testify before Congress on Wednesday.)

Also the question is not how long USA need to stay but how long they can stand before the Iraqis get more pissed of on them then the insurgents
Maybe the Iraqis will be more angry with the Americans than the insurgents when the insurgents are no longer in their current position of killing greater numbers of Iraqi civilians.

The Iraq military, the Taliban, and insurgents, not the President, killed troops.
In addition, the number of troops killed is hardly "unprecedented". The total number killed in Bush's wars have been around 2,000. Compare that to 58,000 in Vietnam and 420,000 in World War 2.

if only George Senior had felt that pulling out of Barbara was an option then perhaps we wouldn't be having to have this endless debate on military service.
*shudder*

It's just wrong to put that mental image out on the internet. :eek:

Sorry but I'm tired of people saying that he dodged the draft when infact Bush didn't.
Whatever the facts of the matter, surely we can agree that Bill Clinton is no longer relevant or worth talking about. Much less arguing about.


So, to everyone else:

Stop ranting about Clinton!

And this proves your case how?


Wasn't trying to "prove a case", except to make the obvious statement that selecting the Air National Guard was a way of meeting your service requirement with a minimal risk of getting you ass shot off.

Which I'm not blaming him for, I'd have done the same damn thing if I had needed to and had people who could pull strings to get me line-jumped into something I barely qualified for.

But the point being that it was hardly a heroic answer to a call to arms in the nations defense either.

The Palestinians have certainly commited some heinous acts of terrorism, but then again what would you do if a bunch of foreigners kicked you out of your homes because they believed you were living in their Promised Land? Explain to me how the Israelis have acted any better?


George W. Bush went to the United Nations to address the general assembly. He implored the rest of the world to act responsibly and help in curtailing the Islamic fascists, who are now boldly killing school children in Russia, beheading construction workers in Iraq, bombing brazenly with suicide bombers the very fabric of society that is decent.

The civilized world is appalled at the brutality with which they execute their plans and then hide behind the religion calling it the holy war, as if the term jihad will exonerate them in front of God.

But there is very little protest from the moderate mainstream Muslims, who are silently watching their religion maligned and hijacked by fanatics. The United Nations is as guilty as the Muslim population in not reacting properly to this new menace that is triggering death and mayhem of innocent people all around the world. Now the new target of terrorism is the innocent children (Beslam and Baghdad) and most of the world is content in watching the horror.

For once I am actually in agreement with many liberals, although for different reasons. I think that we could have and should have gotten out by now. We are not using every weapon at our desposal. We have the most feared air force in the world; why don't we use it? The forces we have in Iraq are well enough trained, equiped, and manned to do the job, but we are handicapping them just as we did in Vietnam and putting them on trial for murder when they shoot the enemy.

I personally believe that we should carpet bomb every major problem city in Iraq. (The Sunni Triangle) Then, we roll over the rubble with Abrams tanks. Then, and only them do we send our boys in with targets on their backs. We give the people in each city we hit a 72 hour notice to leave or die. All that will remain behind would be the terrorists and the weapons. After that, we stick around for another month or so to make sure things die down. We help them rebuild the cities, but require them to use their oil to help pay for it. Hell, we liberated these people, the least they could do is help us pay the bill for it. Their cities would be alot pretier anyways. And as for destroying Muslim holy places; they can't be all that holy with people storing weapons in them, shooting out of them, and using the basements to behead civilians.

Either we are fighting a war on terrorism or we are not. Stop pussy-footing around. We need a new Patton. The terrorists think they can win because they see how weak we have become. If we show them that we mean business, they will back off.

I personally believe that we should carpet bomb every major problem city in Iraq. (The Sunni Triangle) Then...
This idea was put forward by Holy Paradise recently. It was discredited. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424751)

[QUOTE=Jabba Huts] Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.QUOTE]

Who fired the bullets Jabba? Israel has a shoot to kill policy for children and you're claiming the moral highgroundbecause of news cameras, somehow I find this hard to swallow

You are a Muslim propagandists.
Yasser Arafat, Mr. Terrorism, This despicable collection of refuse from the garbage pits of the Planet Earth dares to insult the nation of Israel. This graveyard of mostly weak nations run by dictators deserves no honor or obedience. It honors the low, the cruel, the inhumane, the fanatics, the barbarians AND the cowards. It is the epitome of everything that is wrong with international organizations. It has now evolved into the mouthpiece of Satan. No decent nation should be a member. Certainly not God's Land of Israel.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco).

The Nation of Israel, Fascist in policies with the neo-apartheid of discrimination against non-jews is to blame. I do not dislike Jews, but I do dislike the Nation of Israel, it's expansionist policies including the attempted invasions of Lebanon and Jordan have brought terror to the middle east. The US, associating themselves with Israel, continued to vote with South Africa in the apartheid era and the US continued to support dictators across the world in it's anti-communist crusade. Israel is a secondary nation, not of total importance because of it's reliance on the US, the US is the nation of full responsibility in the matter for if the US falls, Israel would soon.

Edit: Also, according to the agreement with God, he would protect the Jews, but they would not have their own land. Today, they have broken that pact which is why many Orthodox Jews do not support Israel.

What a weak ass wet Lib!

WOW!!!! Ask anyone here. They'll tell you that I am not a liberal. This is a first people. Take pictures. I was called a liberal! :D

The UN is corrupt-

Really? I haven't noticed[/sarcasm]

(An American congressional panel will begin hearings this week into charges that Saddam Hussein bribed officials around the world with billions of dollars from the United Nations’ oil-for-food programme.

We already know about Oil for Food scandle so....

The timing of the hearing could not be worse for the UN, as the embarrassing charges of laxity will be aired as it prepares to return to Iraq after the 30 June handover to interim Iraqi authorities.

THey already had a handover of power to the interim government. Someone here is totally out of date.

The Nation of Israel, Fascist in policies with the neo-apartheid of discrimination against non-jews is to blame. I do not dislike Jews, but I do dislike the Nation of Israel, it's expansionist policies including the attempted invasions of Lebanon and Jordan have brought terror to the middle east. The US, associating themselves with Israel, continued to vote with South Africa in the apartheid era and the US continued to support dictators across the world in it's anti-communist crusade. Israel is a secondary nation, not of total importance because of it's reliance on the US, the US is the nation of full responsibility in the matter for if the US falls, Israel would soon.

Take a close look at this present day map of the Middle East. You can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim (Iran is not considered Arab) nations completely engulf Israel. The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass of Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. (population) Did you know that there was never a country called Palestine? Did you know that there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people?

Check out any map of the Middle East and see for yourself. You will find Palestine listed as a region as it always has been, but definitely not a nation. We can locate the Mojave Desert on the map, but we still do not recognize it as our 51st state, let alone a country. Similarly, the region of Siberia is a region, not a state. In addition, the Sahara is a region not a state. Neither is Palestine a state. It never was a country, just a region.

Importantly, the Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic, Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area, he wrote that he found nothing but a wasteland.

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming termina

I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.

THe UN is a sad underground mafia. Even when the world sees the guilty in the UN, it is ignored! I am so sick of hearing how we need the UN. I say Drop them. They are nothing but anti-Semitic Jew-hating thugs.

Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in the war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited upon it.

Ah yes, the "embarrassment" of the odd bribe in intergovernmental affairs. Gosh, that is soooooooooooooooooooooo fucking rare.

Not saying that it ain't a bad thing, because it is and those involved should be held accountable as all criminals should be. It's just the false fucking moralizing that accompanies the rhetoric which which people are using it to support their pre-conceived position that the UN is entirely corrupt and should be done away with that I find humorous.


I mean, to draw a parallel let us assume that most people believe that most politicians are, to some extent, crooks. Because that is a fair fucking assessment of the popular view of them


So I just wonder which of you are going to extend this notion of "some possible acts of corruption make the whole organization suitable for the trash heap" to doing away with all of Congress if, for example, Delay gets nailed?

Or should we only extend that concept so far as getting rid of the Republican Party?

Israel has torn down houses of and forcefully moved Christians and Muslims. Their policies are horrible. The Jews themselves did displace people as the "nomads" had actually settled down and formed a society. Israel invaded Jordan and Lebanon and they only lost because of Arafat defeating them in Jordan with his forces and the Hizb allah defeating them in Lebanon. Play the anti-semitic card yourself because the Semite race includes Arabs and Jews. Saying the UN is a Jew-hating group is pathetic. Just because you don't support Israel doesn't mean you are hating on Jews. I think you're just mad that Israel has about 0 support in the world due to their aggressive policies and alliance with the Imperialist US. Distancing themselves from the US would do Israel a lot of good.

Israel has torn down houses of and forcefully moved Christians and Muslims. Their policies are horrible. The Jews themselves did displace people as the "nomads" had actually settled down and formed a society. Israel invaded Jordan and Lebanon and they only lost because of Arafat defeating them in Jordan with his forces and the Hizb allah defeating them in Lebanon. Play the anti-semitic card yourself because the Semite race includes Arabs and Jews. Saying the UN is a Jew-hating group is pathetic. Just because you don't support Israel doesn't mean you are hating on Jews. I think you're just mad that Israel has about 0 support in the world due to their aggressive policies and alliance with the Imperialist US. Distancing themselves from the US would do Israel a lot of good.

Why is it that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka (who had bigger grievances than the Palestinians) can agree to an end to terrorist attacks, but the Palestinians can't?

Oh and you should'nt hate Jews so much its wrong. I'm not Jewish by the way but I don't hate them.

Jews have an inherent right to defend themselves.

Why is it that the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka (who had bigger grievances than the Palestinians) can agree to an end to terrorist attacks, but the Palestinians can't?

Because the terrorists continue to derail the peace process.

Oh and you should'nt hate Jews so much its wrong. I'm not Jewish by the way but I don't hate them.

No one should hate anyone based on color of skin, sex, religion, or political affilation.

Jews have an inherent right to defend themselves.

Amen.

the sweet taste of selective hypocrisy

Ihatevacations']the sweet taste of selective hypocrisy

And you should know that!

I don't hate Jews, hell, some of my best friends are Jews. I think the Palestineans also have the right of self-defence. The Arabs and the Jews are brothers and should realize that. But, Israeli Fascism doesn't help people realize that.

I think the Palestineans also have the right of self-defence.

By blowing up civilians? Its one thing to go after military targets (Troops and bases and what not) But civilians are another matter.

The Arabs and the Jews are brothers and should realize that. But, Israeli Fascism doesn't help people realize that.

Heck, the Muslims, Jews, AND Christians are all brothers.

I don't hate Jews, hell, some of my best friends are Jews. I think the Palestineans also have the right of self-defence. The Arabs and the Jews are brothers and should realize that. But, Israeli Fascism doesn't help people realize that.

If America, France or England had Muslim terrorists crossing there boarder blowing people up every day do you not think they would want some sort of justice.

Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth... only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2½ times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands!. It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, 60 miles at its widest, and between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest! A very high-powered rifle could launch a projectile right across the country! This is particularly frightening when one considers that 65% of Israel's population is within this 9 mile wide section (Tel Aviv area). Yet Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist" and the "aggressor" against all Arab peoples. For those unfamiliar with the Arab interpretation of "aggressor," it means one who dares fight back against Arab aggression!! So even though Israel may have fought only defensive wars, the mere fact that she resisted total destruction is viewed as an "act of aggression." That's a case of wacky logic but, unfortunately, Israel doesn't have the luxury of picking her enemies!

Unlike Islam's Koran {Quran}, which commands Muslims to force the entire planet to submit to literal control by Islam, the Jewish Torah promises the children of Israel a modest and reasonable allotment of land. Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 times her size, 60 times her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist!"

By sticking up for the Palestinians you are saying its ok to blow people up. you are legitimizes terrorism.

Israel is one of the most open societies in the world. Out of a population of 6.7 million, about 1.3 million — 20 percent of the population — are non-Jews (approximately 1.1 million Muslims, 130,000 Christians and 100,000 Druze

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? according to Muslim holy laws a Muslim cannot persecute a Christian or Jew as they are people of the book and believers in Allah and by persecuting them, you persecute Allah.

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? according to Muslim holy laws a Muslim cannot persecute a Christian or Jew as they are people of the book and believers in Allah and by persecuting them, you persecute Allah.

PLEASE! You believe what they say. GOD! you really need help.

Please do not speak of Muslim laws or the Qur'an unless you have actually read and understood them. It is foolish to pretend you have. Oh and also, it condemns the forcing of conversion to Islam, saying one most accept it in their heart.

Please do not speak of Muslim laws or the Qur'an unless you have actually read and understood them. It is foolish to pretend you have. Oh and also, it condemns the forcing of conversion to Islam, saying one most accept it in their heart.

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all the ideas from the bible.

Which I'm not blaming him for, I'd have done the same damn thing if I had needed to and had people who could pull strings to get me line-jumped into something I barely qualified for.

And you know he was "barely qualified" and had someone pull strings for him because...?

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all the ideas from the bible.
:eek:
MODS!!!! I WANT MY MODS!!!

:eek:
MODS!!!! I WANT MY MODS!!!

Weak ass Lib!

I don't hate Jews, hell, some of my best friends are Jews.

Oh God, where have I heard this before? Let's see; I don't hate...some of my best friends are.... Isn't this how bigots usually respond?

Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all the ideas from the bible.

And here I was hoping The 700 Club was dead.

The Palestinians are to blame for all the middle east's problems.
Why are the [U.S.] still associated with this malignant cancer known
as the United Nations? They [UN] are anti-American; anti-Semitic; they
cheat, steal and lie (oil-for-food fiasco); they (Kofi) preach being
anti-gun with a stash of high-powered weapons hidden in the basement of
one of their buildings; they have a Human Rights Commission that
includes human rights violators, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Zimbabwe,
Congo, Libya, China, and Cuba, etc., etc....and now a credible book that
reveals that they are drug-abusing perverts, as well.

UN is not only irrelevant but on the verge of becoming termina


I no longer care if Arabs and Muslims get offended,some comments
are meant to be taken personally to show the un-acceptible action.


Islam and TERRORISM is one and the same thing. the Qur'an is a book
of Propaganda. Muhammad came 600 years after Jesus and pinched all
the ideas from the bible.

The bodies of bloodied children carried away from a scene in the Gaza Strip filled TV screens around
the world and brought about an immediate international condemnation of Israel. Some things never change.

The 'Palestinians' never seem to change their criminal tactics...using children again in their pernicious PR.

Israel's pursuit of terrorists has been met with Arafat's thugs shoving children in the streets among them
and rigging those streets with bombs to maximize their lies.

Israel entered the southern end of Gaza in an effort to uproot the terrorist infrastructure and demolish
weapons-smuggling tunnels running under the Israeli-Egyptian border into Gaza.

The 'Palestinians' hatred for the innocent is despicable. Arafat, and his ilk, consider children to be disposable
refuse, to be utilized at his will...and paraded before cameras and an international audience to gain support
against Israel.

It's worked in the past...so why change? And with a Jew-hating, compliant audience like Europe...it's a 'winning'
design every time.

Last I checked, Palestinians are decendents from Pheocians, who at one point ruled Judea and parts of Syria, as well as such far flung territories as Carthage. That said, Hebrews (not Jews, being Jewish is a faith definition), lived there at the same time, without fear of trouble from the pagan rulers.
When Britain promised a Jewish homeland to the Jews of Europe, the number of suicide bombings, sniper attacks, riots etc. increased in British Judea (a territory run by Britain after WWI) as some Jews attempted to take the land for themselves. At the same time, Palestinians were promised self determination, thus, we are lead to the problem of two peoples in control of one nation. Sorry for any minor inaccuratcies, it's been two years since I did this paper and I don't feel like digging it up.

That said, back on topic. I disagreed with the war in Iraq, but at this point it would not be prudent for Coalition soldiers to pull out en masse, yes, Americans can be cycled out, as long as they are replaced by others. This must continue until such a time as the military advisors of the coalition nations agree that it is safe to pull out, or that the Iraqi government asks them to. Either way, can't predict that date.

Weak ass Lib!
:rolleyes:

How about you spend a lot of time on the "Ask a Muslim" Thread. You might learn something.
Right now, you are an embarassment to yourself, your family, your education and your nation.

:rolleyes:

How about you spend a lot of time on the "Ask a Muslim" Thread. You might learn something.
Right now, you are an embarassment to yourself, your family, your education and your nation.

You are so pathetic, you're a joke.

- Expect to see the inevitable withdrawal befall whoever succeeds Bush. Unless his successor is a Republican, in which case expect troop withdrawal to be the task of the next Democratic president, if there ever is one.

- In the event Bush is made president-for-life, expect to never see a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Or any of the other places that Bush decides to annex, uh, I mean...'liberate'.

You are so pathetic, you're a joke.
How?
Tell me please, I would like to hear from a nationalist, right wing crackpot, who seems to have no comprehension of any topic he opens his mouth on as well as seemingly lacking manners of any kind, I would like to hear from you how that makes me a joke.

How?
Tell me please, I would like to hear from a nationalist, right wing crackpot.

Sticks and stones. Leonstein.

I have an idea!!!! How about Bush puts Saddam incharge of America and Bush becomes the new President of Iraq??? Uh....don't like that idea do you guys? Well, thats funny. So you don't want Saddam to be incharge of America but most of you would have had no trouble letting him remain the leader of Iraq? Well how about we put the Insurgents incharge of America and Bush is still made President of Iraq? Oh.....not a good idea either? And yet you don't have any trouble letting the insurgents take over Iraq? Ok, one final idea. How about we help the Iraqis build a Democratic country? I see.....that is bad too? After all, it is evil to force Democracy on someone, it justs like forcing a guy to have sex with Angelina Jolie which I know, being a guy, I would hate. Guys/Girls it is time to stop debating about pulling out of Iraq, it ain't gonna happen because it would be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, bad. The coalition will be in Iraq for at least another 5-10 years, but don't worry we are still in Germany and Japan 60 years later and they don't seem to be US controlled countries.


CURRAHEE!!!

He's not quite right. Removing our troops from Iraq is an option, but it's the "We're a bunch of hypocritical cowardly assholes" option.

In the event Bush is made president-for-life, expect to never see a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Or any of the other places that Bush decides to annex, uh, I mean...'liberate'.
Firstly, Bush won't be president for life. His term will end in January 2009. The state of IRaq is not annexation. Iraq is an independent country.

Good little Bushevik. Playing the semantics game then bitching when Democrats do the same.

He didn't avoid military service per se, but he did avoid an active tour of duty in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard. And even they have trouble coming up with a solid record of Shrub serving duties.

The only thing he had in common with his daddy (a genuine War Hero pilot) was they both spent their times in uniform downing Kamikazes.

Small point: being in the military didn't mean you automatically went to Viet Nam back then. (My father was in the Czechoslovakian Red Army until 1968, so I can't speak from personal experience.)

Anyway...
My friend's father had two brothers, all of which were in the military.
The one in the Army (his dad) was in SPAIN.
The one in the Air Force served in Korea, the other in the Air Force served in Germany.

Now, I'm not saying that Bush/Clinton did the right or wrong thing. I really don't care. But this sub-thread in this kind of pointless: not only has it been rehashed dozens of times in NS & in the media, but it's not the topic at hand...

PLEASE! You believe what they say. GOD! you really need help.

That is straight out of the Koran Jabba Huts.

And you know he was "barely qualified" and had someone pull strings for him because...?

The fact that he scored just a hair above the bare minimum to qualify for flight school and jumped ahead of a long waiting list is well documented through official military records - including the ones that GW himself released during that whole farsical battle of the records with Kerry last year. And support for the rest of the statement includes the public testimomy of such people as Ben Barnes, the former Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and Lieutenant Governor of Texas, who stated under oath that he had called the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, to recommend Bush for a pilot spot at the request of Bush family friend Sidney Adger

Former Texas legislator Jake Johnson has stated that before General Rose died, Rose told him that he had been responsible for Bush's acceptance into the Guard. And Yoshi Tsurumi, one of Bush's Harvard professors, claims that Bush told him that his "Dad's friends" got him into the Guard.


Both GW and his father have never denied that strings were pulled, but rather only dug their toes in the dirt and stated effectively "aw shucks, if Adger did intercede he didn't do it on OUR request!".





So, I guess the official story is that Dad's friends just decided to pull strings on their own.... which you can take or leave as you will.

Thank you, Mr. Bush, for stating the obvious.
...and for not tripping over your arse-licking forked tongue in the process, Mr. Bush.
:eek:

Firstly, Bush won't be president for life. His term will end in January 2009. The state of IRaq is not annexation. Iraq is an independent country.
Everyone here already read the "Repealing the 22nd Amendment" thread post?

*drum roll*

Bush for Life: GOP introduces new bill to Congress

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
-
...AND...

Bush For Life? Sponsored Legislation to Repeal 22nd Amendment on the Move

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/cha...&contentid=2303

The site with the blurb on the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...:H.J.RES.24.IH:

The Thomas link to the bill.

Dictatorship in the works? Personally, I can't see Bush winning another term with his current approval rating.


The Horizontally Challenged Citizenry of Straughn humbly shows appreciation from whom these quotes/links were lifted, and sorely hopes they were reprinted in the spirit/appreciation of the original postings.

I have an idea!!!! How about Bush puts Saddam incharge of America and Bush becomes the new President of Iraq??? Uh....don't like that idea do you guys? Well, thats funny. So you don't want Saddam to be incharge of America but most of you would have had no trouble letting him remain the leader of Iraq? Well how about we put the Insurgents incharge of America and Bush is still made President of Iraq? Oh.....not a good idea either? And yet you don't have any trouble letting the insurgents take over Iraq? Ok, one final idea. How about we help the Iraqis build a Democratic country? I see.....that is bad too? After all, it is evil to force Democracy on someone, it justs like forcing a guy to have sex with Angelina Jolie which I know, being a guy, I would hate. Guys/Girls it is time to stop debating about pulling out of Iraq, it ain't gonna happen because it would be very, very, very, very, very, very, very, bad. The coalition will be in Iraq for at least another 5-10 years, but don't worry we are still in Germany and Japan 60 years later and they don't seem to be US controlled countries.


CURRAHEE!!!

Um, not according to Ein Deutscher and Von Witzelben, they're not. According to those fine gents, the U.S is using Germany as a sock-puppet and American Troops are still enforcing the Occupation.

Everyone here already read the "Repealing the 22nd Amendment" thread post?

*drum roll*

Bush for Life: GOP introduces new bill to Congress

Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
-
...AND...

Bush For Life? Sponsored Legislation to Repeal 22nd Amendment on the Move

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/cha...&contentid=2303

The site with the blurb on the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query...:H.J.RES.24.IH:

The Thomas link to the bill.

Dictatorship in the works? Personally, I can't see Bush winning another term with his current approval rating.


The Horizontally Challenged Citizenry of Straughn humbly shows appreciation from whom these quotes/links were lifted, and sorely hopes they were reprinted in the spirit/appreciation of the original postings.

Attempts to repeal the 22nd came up under Clinton/Gore, as well. Newsflash: it ain't going to happen.

Um, not according to Ein Deutscher and Von Witzelben, they're not. According to those fine gents, the U.S is using Germany as a sock-puppet and American Troops are still enforcing the Occupation.

Which explains the thousands of German Jannisaries we've got in Iraq, as well as the non-existance of the EU. ;)

This idea was put forward by Holy Paradise recently. It was discredited. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424751)

*finally got my internet working again*

I would really say "discredited..." Anyways, his idea was a bit more extreme than mine. My plan gives them a chance to leave the cities first.

Perhaps we could start with one city. Stepping back for a moment...lets face it, the leaders of the Muslim community could stop the terrorists and insurgency if they wanted to. Back on task: We first threaten to bomb the first city actually. They will "call our bluff" and do nothing. We bomb the first problem city. Then we tell them that we will begin boming the second if the terrorism and insurgency does not cease. And so on. Therefore, we either stop terrorism their way, or it gets stopped our way with way more collateral (spelling?) damage. I understand that this is extreme, but how long have we been sending our boys around with targets on their backs?

I believe that bush's heart was in the right place with his plans for social security, but the people wouldn't take it. I think that social security is an on going issue, that cannot be taken care of in one presidential term. Iraq is something I worry about. Rather you believe in the war or not, we are over there and I think washington should be trying to save as many lives as possible first off of our troops and secondly of civilians. We cant erase the past we have to deal with what we have. Pulling out now would cause a lot of problems, just as staying in will cause a lot of problems. I agree with bush saying it wont be won over night, but what I am worried about is north korea. I hope and pray we get as many troops home unharmed as possible. Well thats my 2 cents. Peace out.

Has anyone else pointed out the sexual innuendo in this title? :D *streeeeaaakkk*

Which explains the thousands of German Jannisaries we've got in Iraq, as well as the non-existance of the EU. ;)

LOL!! Maybe we're getting cross=reality posts from SM Stirling's Draka universe!

LOL!! Maybe we're getting cross=reality posts from SM Stirling's Draka universe!

Glad someone got it. ;)

But seriously: it's still proof that the US isn't occupying Germany/Japan/Italy... :)

Has anyone else pointed out the sexual innuendo in this title? :D *streeeeaaakkk*

Republicans are Pro-Life. They don't use protection and they refuse to pull out until they leave behind a mess.

:D

Republicans are Pro-Life. They don't use protection and they refuse to pull out until they leave behind a mess.

:D

Being pro-life does not mean that they don't use protection. That was wrong on so many different levels...yet it was still funny. :p

Attempts to repeal the 22nd came up under Clinton/Gore, as well. Newsflash: it ain't going to happen.
Did they? Go ahead and post then. I'm not interested in your pseudo-prognosis, i'm interested in the links. Not that i disbelieve you or anything, it's just an age now where we can be *honest* ..... ;)
Links or something please?