NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that the Bush administration is being criticized heavily, whether it is fair or not, will it survive?

Given that the enemies of US will probably double their efforts. Fundies are sure to see Katrina as divine assistance, pragmatists see a weakened an unfocused enemy. Things are sure to get difficult. Will Bush celebrate next christmas as president?

I really hope you're kidding

Now that the Bush administration is being criticized heavily, whether it is fair or not, will it survive?

Given that the enemies of US will probably double their efforts. Fundies are sure to see Katrina as divine assistance, pragmatists see a weakened an unfocused enemy. Things are sure to get difficult. Will Bush celebrate next christmas as president?yes he will unless some nutjob assassinates him.

Now that the Bush administration is being criticized heavily, whether it is fair or not, will it survive?

Given that the enemies of US will probably double their efforts. Fundies are sure to see Katrina as divine assistance, pragmatists see a weakened an unfocused enemy. Things are sure to get difficult. Will Bush celebrate next christmas as president?

In all likelihood yes, fail to see any means by which he can be compelled to leave office, and I sincerely doubt he would resign.

No one thinks impeachment is a possibility? I mean, they almost did it to Clinton . . .

Probably, because everyone's always criticizing him, and katrina is just another problem that the government has to deal with. The governments handled worse.....maybe.




:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

I don't see any impeachable offence, really...

No one thinks impeachment is a possibility? I mean, they almost did it to Clinton . . .

Upon what grounds could one impeach Bush?

He should have been gone long ago, but I'm sure the neocons will find a way to keep him in power until his 8 years are up. It's interesting to note that his approval rating is 10 points lower than Clinton's when he was impeached.

No one thinks impeachment is a possibility? I mean, they almost did it to Clinton . . .

No. Sadly, he won't get impeached unless he messes up MUCH worse than he has. Which really doesn't seem possible...I would hate to think what it would be like if he was any worse :eek:

No. Sadly, he won't get impeached unless he messes up MUCH worse than he has. Which really doesn't seem possible...I would hate to think what it would be like if he was any worse :eek:

He could nuke N.Korea....

I'km Scottish so i dunno what he system for impeachment is but could he not be impeached for being downright incompetent?

For all you Anti President Bush nations that blame him for everything, you can bet on it he will finish out his second term as President, and will now have the chance two appoint two supreme court justices.

I'km Scottish so i dunno what he system for impeachment is but could he not be impeached for being downright incompetent?

There were plenty of incompetent presidents and none of them were impeached. You need to have actually broken national law in order to be tried.

I love public polls, I would have made this thread with a public poll, if we are to vote, and share our diffrent views on Nationstates we should do it with a public poll.

I have seen many good threads that need a public poll with no poll at all.

He needs to take people's minds off the crisis. He needs a new war, and fast. :p

Upon what grounds could one impeach Bush?

Because he's continually lied to us about the war? He STARTED the war? Yes, 9/11 was horrible and the terrorists responsable should be held responsable but he used that as an excuse to continue the war his father started. He hid behind the excuse of looking for "weapons of mass destruction" yet hasn't it come to light that there's documents that ADMIT this was an excuse, neverminding the fact that not even the tiniest bits of evidence were found?

I'm honestly shocked he got re-elected as it is.

Yes, he found Suddam. Whoohoo. He's also brought an entire country into turmoil and insists to continue to "help" them along with becoming a democratic nation. More than half of the country obviously doesn't want that. He's forcing his beliefs on another people.

Then there's the fact that he insists on tossing away lives in a war that isn't needed. Getting the terrorists would be lovely, I agree, but they aren't even fighting the terrorists anymore. It's the common citizens who are fighting them. The ones who, understandably I think, want the foreigners out of their country.

And don't even get me started on how he allowed Rice to go to the Pope's funeral yet denied Carter the chance to pay his respects. All the living Presidents went, yet one was "asked" to stay so that Rice could attend. They have more than likely had dealings with the man and she's like as not not even seen him in person. That wasn't right.

Yes, he handled 9/11 remarkably well. Neverminding the fact that it possibly could have been prevented had the man listened to intelligence. But the country has steadily been getting worse since he's been in office. Should he be impeached? Hell yes. Will he? Probably not. Thank god there's only a 2 term limit.

Are those enough reasons for impeaching him? Personally, I'd rather have Clinton back. His personal life sucked, but it's just that: personal. We can only hope Hilary runs and actually becomes the first woman president.

Upon what grounds could one impeach Bush?

Well, sadly, negligence leading to the death of 100s, maybe 1000s, of your own citizens isn't seen as an impeachable offence.

Neither is starting an unjust war on based on lies, leading to the deaths of 1000s of foreign citizens.

Recieving a blowjob from an intern, on the other hand...

He should have been gone long ago, but I'm sure the neocons will find a way to keep him in power until his 8 years are up. It's interesting to note that his approval rating is 10 points lower than Clinton's when he was impeached.

Why don't they make him step back for medical reasons or somthn? He could take a lot of the blame with him...

Why don't they make him step back for medical reasons or somthn? He could take a lot of the blame with him...Unfortunatly, that would put Cheney in charge, and he's been in the Hospital more times than Bush...

Look, this is getting crazy. I'm not a Republican or anything, but I find it hard to blame Bush for a hurricane. As for impeachment over this hurricane and it's consiquences that the vast right wing conspericy concocted for political gain, you'll find it hard to convince any rational thinking human to see it your way.

Look, this is getting crazy. I'm not a Republican or anything, but I find it hard to blame Bush for a hurricane. As for impeachment over this hurricane and it's consiquences that the vast right wing conspericy concocted for political gain, you'll find it hard to convince any rational thinking human to see it your way.

Not trying to convince anyone. I think what I think. What I see is what is and will be. The entrails have spoken. (falls over)

Not trying to convince anyone. I think what I think. What I see is what is and will be. The entrails have spoken. (falls over)

And it scares me that people like you can vote.

And it scares me that people like you can vote.
Can I? Thanx, I didn't know! :p

Much and all as I'd like to see Bush gone post haste, there's nothing on this planet that'll drive him out of the White House. It'd take an army of Monica Lewinskys - Hell, it'd take an army of underage Boy Scouts, and miles of kinky footage of Bush with same, to get that man out of the White House.

And it scares me that people like you can vote.I like it when people like that can vote.



















Makes my coin tossing seem normal. :D

This site is really becoming a good argument for the deportation of the politicly insane.

i wish he would step down, buts its just not going to happen. He won't get can't get impeached unless he does something illegal, so our only hope is the next election

For the sake of the Bush haters and those that are uninformed, let's brush up on how impeachment works. The House of Representatives would have to pass an article(s) of impeachment, which would then be sent to the Senate for a trial. Now, even if the House were to pass articles of impeachment (very unlikely), with the Republican majority in the Senate, it would NEVER pass there.

So further debate on this topic is pointless. However, if you want to continue to bash the President for a storm, or for getting rid of a cruel dictator, or anything else that seems to be en vogue right now, have at it.

Upon what grounds could one impeach Bush?
The fact that he Knew Iraq didn't have any connection to Osama Bin Ladin and that they didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction. That he lied to the Entire world, he only used the parts of the CIA information that supported his war and the rest that would have proved him wrong was thrown away.

That he turned the Rules of Government upside down in the Terri case.

I see alot of things.

No one thinks impeachment is a possibility? I mean, they almost did it to Clinton . . .

Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted and forced to leave office. They did impeach him though. By sending the vote to the full Senate.

As for the impeachment talk, it's only from the far left. Not from from any credible source.

Clinton was impeached. He just wasn't convicted and forced to leave office. They did impeach him though. By sending the vote to the full Senate.

As for the impeachment talk, it's only from the far left. Not from from any credible source.

He was impeached because he lied under oath. That's a criminal offense.

If the Democrats take Congress next year and have a brain in their heads: Sometime in 2007. Otherwise, he'll stay.

Democrats would really love it to have to deal with President Cheney for the remainder of President Bush's term, just think of the two conservative Supreme Court Justices he would nominate and appoint.

No one thinks impeachment is a possibility? I mean, they almost did it to Clinton . . .
actually impeachment refers to the trial, Clinton was impeached he just wasn't removed from office

on a different note, Bush seems to be always under heavy scrutny, I don't think now is any different. Especially since what is going on in Louisianna isn't really his fault.

I don't see any impeachable offence, really...

You mean other than gross negligence and lying to the public?

No one thinks impeachment is a possibility? I mean, they almost did it to Clinton . . .

Nope nothing to impeach him on. He's done nothing impeachable.

He could nuke N.Korea....

He could actually do that. Part about it is, he doesn't even need the Congress's permission to do it.

Nope nothing to impeach him on. He's done nothing impeachable.


Exept be a facist, and criminally neglegent.

Why don't they make him step back for medical reasons or somthn? He could take a lot of the blame with him...

He doesn't have any medical conditions to prevent him from staying in office. He is healthy.

The fact that he Knew Iraq didn't have any connection to Osama Bin Ladin and that they didn't have weapons of Mass Destruction. That he lied to the Entire world, he only used the parts of the CIA information that supported his war and the rest that would have proved him wrong was thrown away.

That he turned the Rules of Government upside down in the Terri case.

I see alot of things.

Problem is, I see nothing impeachable in anything you just said. Not a damn thing.

Keep trying though. Maybe you'll hit on something but alas, i know you wont

You mean other than gross negligence and lying to the public?

So called negligence and alleged lying aren't high crimes or misdemeanors. :rolleyes:

He hasn't committed an impeachable offense. There are only two ways he's legally leaving early: He resigns, or his cabinet takes him out of play. Neither of those is likely.

So called negligence and alleged lying aren't high crimes or misdemeanors. :rolleyes:

I no longer care...

I'km Scottish so i dunno what he system for impeachment is but could he not be impeached for being downright incompetent?
He could be impeached for lying about the WMD evidence.

However, the legislature has to impeach, and since it's republican controlled, that won't happen.

He could be impeached for lying about the WMD evidence.

You have a problem here. You can't hang the WMD on Bush. For that you have to blame the CIA and that was done.

However, the legislature has to impeach, and since it's republican controlled, that won't happen.

Correct. Besides that, he's done nothing impeachable so it really is a moot point.

He could be impeached for lying about the WMD evidence.

However, the legislature has to impeach, and since it's republican controlled, that won't happen.

Unfortunate, no?

It should be noted however, that many Republicans are starting to get annoyed with Bush.

Will Bush keep presidenting? Of course!

Should he? Of course not!

He doesn't have any medical conditions to prevent him from staying in office. He is healthy.

Good for him. :rolleyes:

If you had to choose between (1)saving the Republican Party from drowning and (2) saving Bush from crucifixion; -which would you choose?

Well, sadly, negligence leading to the death of 100s, maybe 1000s, of your own citizens isn't seen as an impeachable offence.

Neither is starting an unjust war on based on lies, leading to the deaths of 1000s of foreign citizens.

Recieving a blowjob from an intern, on the other hand...

Lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offense, it's also a federal criminal offense. However he will serve his two terms because the Republicans control both houses so he'll never have to account for what he has done. That is why he refused to join the ICC no doubt.

Good for him. :rolleyes:

If you had to choose between (1)saving the Republican Party from drowning and (2) saving Bush from crucifixion; -which would you choose?

Option number 1!

If you had to choose between 1) saving the democratic party from drowning and 2) saving Bill Clinton, which would you choose?

Lying to Congress is not only an impeachable offense, it's also a federal criminal offense. However he will serve his two terms because the Republicans control both houses so he'll never have to account for what he has done. That is why he refused to join the ICC no doubt.

Actually no. If that was the case the Bill Clinton should've been impeached long before he was impeached since he lied to the Congress.

Lying to congress is not a federal offense unless you lie to a committee then you have a case since that is considered purgery.

And why do people like to bring out the ICC? Jeez. We are a soveriegn nation. Why do we need some foreign court telling us what to do. Be advised that the United States does not answer to a higher body of government.

Actually no. If that was the case the Bill Clinton should've been impeached long before he was impeached since he lied to the Congress.

Lying to congress is not a federal offense unless you lie to a committee then you have a case since that is considered purgery.

And why do people like to bring out the ICC? Jeez. We are a soveriegn nation. Why do we need some foreign court telling us what to do. Be advised that the United States does not answer to a higher body of government.

Go back to school Corneliu.. lying to Congress is a federal offense.. look it up. And no, I'm not doing the leg work for you. :p

Gee, why do I always have a soft spot for you Corneliu? LOL

Lying To Congress Is A Felony (http://www.topangaonline.com/wboard/messages/5717.html)

Nope nothing to impeach him on. He's done nothing impeachable.
Depends on whether he was aware of the Gonzales memos authorizing the use of torture. If he was, and if he did nothing to stop it, he is in violation of the Geneva Convention, which is binding law in the United States. As such, he would be impeachable.

Now that the Bush administration is being criticized heavily, whether it is fair or not, will it survive?

Given that the enemies of US will probably double their efforts. Fundies are sure to see Katrina as divine assistance, pragmatists see a weakened an unfocused enemy. Things are sure to get difficult. Will Bush celebrate next christmas as president?

Where are you from Quag, as you have no clue as to how the US works, do
you?

But to actually ANSWER the question:

No one is ever forced to, or can be forced to stop, "presidenting".

That is because, primarily but not entirely, there is no such thing
as "presidenting".


(( I'm all for making up words,.. but when I do it I EXPECT to get laughed at. ))


-The REAL Iakeo

Go back to school Corneliu.. lying to Congress is a federal offense.. look it up. And no, I'm not doing the leg work for you. :p

In that case then Bill Clinton should be brought up on impeachment charges for lying to us in regards to Iraqi WMD back in 1998! Operation Desert Fox was launched in regards of it. Bill Clinton should'ev been impeached in regards to the asprin factory bombing in Sudan. On top of that, it was a warcrime.

Lying to a Congressional Committee is lying yes! Other than that...... and no, Bush didn't lie to Congress. He had bad intel that he brought before Congress. That is not the same thing as lying.

There is a difference between the two.

Why don't you go back to school and figure that out.

Depends on whether he was aware of the Gonzales memos authorizing the use of torture. If he was, and if he did nothing to stop it, he is in violation of the Geneva Convention, which is binding law in the United States. As such, he would be impeachable.

And yet those that were involved with REAL TORTURE have been tossed out of the military and thrown in the brig with loss of all benefits and paygrades.

And yet those that were involved with REAL TORTURE have been tossed out of the military and thrown in the brig with loss of all benefits and paygrades.
At Abu Gharib. Not at Gitmo.

Gee, why do I always have a soft spot for you Corneliu? LOL

Lying To Congress Is A Felony (http://www.topangaonline.com/wboard/messages/5717.html)

Does no one realize that EVERYTHING any politician ever says has a built-
in "this can't be a lie" property in it?

Unless someone can tell me what the lying sentence is, to whom it was
directly addressed, and whether telling a lie to that particular person at that
particular time was a federal offense, I won't believe you've proved your
point.

Go for it..!!


-The REAL Iakeo

In that case then Bill Clinton should be brought up on impeachment charges for lying to us in regards to Iraqi WMD back in 1998! Operation Desert Fox was launched in regards of it. Bill Clinton should'ev been impeached in regards to the asprin factory bombing in Sudan. On top of that, it was a warcrime.

Lying to a Congressional Committee is lying yes! Other than that...... and no, Bush didn't lie to Congress. He had bad intel that he brought before Congress. That is not the same thing as lying.

There is a difference between the two.

Why don't you go back to school and figure that out.

What is it with Republicans and Clinton..lol get over it.. he's not in office, and for the record he did get impeached. He just wasn't thrown out of office. There is a difference.

You don't know that Bush didn't know he was lying, you assume it. However quite a bit of evidence as you well know has come out to strongly suggest he did in fact know. Colin Powell has all but said they all knew it was a lie. So believe whatever you like, if you can look at yourself in the mirror believing it, all the power to you. I guess.....

Oh, as for schooling... I have far more than you do, but we already know that, so sort of silly for you to say such a thing.

yes he will unless some nutjob assassinates him.

Most of the world is waiting for that day.

At Abu Gharib. Not at Gitmo.

Prove the torture at Gitmo. Oh yea...none is going on! They have their Koran, 3 square meals a day (something other than slop)

Prove the torture at Gitmo. Oh yea...none is going on! They have their Koran, 3 square meals a day (something other than slop)

Not according to the IRC.. :eek:

He doesn't have any medical conditions to prevent him from staying in office. He is healthy.

Mentally or physically?

What is it with Republicans and Clinton..lol get over it.. he's not in office, and for the record he did get impeached. He just wasn't thrown out of office. There is a difference.

Your talking about lying to Congress being a federal/impeachable offense. I was making a case that Clinton would've been impeached long before he was based on the lies he told to Congress. I have in no way changed the subject. I am under the impression that you don't like the fact that I have correlated the lies of Clinton to being impeachable under your definition.

You don't know that Bush didn't know he was lying, you assume it. However quite a bit of evidence as you well know has come out to strongly suggest he did in fact know. Colin Powell has all but said they all knew it was a lie. So believe whatever you like, if you can look at yourself in the mirror believing it, all the power to you. I guess.....

Steph, why don't you end your political hackery and actually come back to the real world. Why don't you settle on the fact that bad intelligence does not equal lying to Congress. All this fuss over bad intel! The Intelligence community got a shake up because of it. Even Bush himself was furious that he had bad intelligence so go blow it out of your tail pipe and leave the partisan hackery at the door.

Oh, as for schooling... I have far more than you do, but we already know that, so sort of silly for you to say such a thing.

:rolleyes: Apparently you need more since you lack and understanding of History.

Prove the torture at Gitmo. Oh yea...none is going on! They have their Koran, 3 square meals a day (something other than slop)
Technically, it doesn't matter if torture occured or not. Simply the authorization of torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention.

BTW, did you miss all the news reports about the ink torture?

:rolleyes: Apparently you need more since you lack and understanding of History.

Nah, I just think you need to grow up a little, then you won't be such a blind follower.. however many stay that way.. I hope for you, you don't.

Not according to the IRC.. :eek:

:eek: guess what? The IRC can't make that judgement. Besides that, the people we have were taught to say that they were tortured. I"m sorry but if it were true then we'd be seeing cases brought before the JAG about it and so far nothing! :eek:

Gitmo has been investigated and they have seen no signs of torture!

Nah, I just think you need to grow up a little, then you won't be such a blind follower.. however many stay that way.. I hope for you, you don't.

At least I have an understanding of History. I can tell by your posts that you don't. Allwell. At least I'm getting 2 degrees when I leave from this place.

I am sick and tried of everyone complaining about bush!!!I would want to see you complainers in the same sitution as he has in the past 5 years and nobody complains about Clinton the only thing he done is sit on his lazy ass and talk about non important things and have an affair with his wife Hilary!

[QUOTE=CthulhuFhtagn]Technically, it doesn't matter if torture occured or not. Simply the authorization of torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention.QUOTE]
If I may? According to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention a PoW can only be held indefinitely while the country holding him is at war with said PoW's country/nation of allegiance. Last time I checked the USA wasn't acctually at war with anyone... Or am I simply overlooking some minor little thing?

Ruling out assasination, there is currently no reason for an impeachment, and he can't step down, losing Repulicans' face value in front of the world. He knew it was a tough job when he ran, he can stick with it. As I said, there is currently nothing he has done that he can be impeached for.

yes he will unless some nutjob assassinates him.
They only assassinate good presidents.

[QUOTE=CthulhuFhtagn]Technically, it doesn't matter if torture occured or not. Simply the authorization of torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention.QUOTE]
If I may? According to Article 4 of the Geneva Convention a PoW can only be held indefinitely while the country holding him is at war with said PoW's country/nation of allegiance. Last time I checked the USA wasn't acctually at war with anyone... Or am I simply overlooking some minor little thing?

Yes, actually. We are at war with all terrorist ORGINIZATIONS and INDVIDUALS. As those at Gitmo are terrorists, belonging to ORGINIZATIONS or acting as INDIVIDUALS, we can therefore hold them indefinitly. After 9/11, Bush declared war on all TERRORISTS.

At least I have an understanding of History. I can tell by your posts that you don't. Allwell. At least I'm getting 2 degrees when I leave from this place.

NS is giving you two degrees? Well good for you..lmao.


Like I said, you just need to grow up a little more. At your age we all thought we knew everything, don't worry, it's not just you. We all went through the phase you're going through.

My understanding of history is just fine, it was my minor in university.. ;)

I am sick and tried of everyone complaining about bush!!!I would want to see you complainers in the same sitution as he has in the past 5 years and nobody complains about Clinton the only thing he done is sit on his lazy ass and talk about non important things and have an affair with his wife Hilary!

Mind you he was good for the economy, he didn't keep cutting soldiers wages, he was rather less corrupt (not completly uncorrupt, but less so than Bush et al), oh and he tended to wait for the UN's approval before invading places.

Clinton Ruled!

Republicans are just jealous cause they can't get a blow job to save their lives..hahaha lmao! :D

Mind you he was good for the economy, he didn't keep cutting soldiers wages, he was rather less corrupt (not completly uncorrupt, but less so than Bush et al), oh and he tended to wait for the UN's approval before invading places.

A nation doesn't have to wait for the UN for them to do anything. Each nation is soverign, and as such may act of their own accord. Thus far, there is no World Government, and there shant be for quite some time.

[QUOTE=Aylestone]

Yes, actually. We are at war with all terrorist ORGINIZATIONS and INDVIDUALS. As those at Gitmo are terrorists, belonging to ORGINIZATIONS or acting as INDIVIDUALS, we can therefore hold them indefinitly. After 9/11, Bush declared war on all TERRORISTS.

Define terrorist.

Someone once said "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".

NS is giving you two degrees? Well good for you..lmao.

My university actually. I'm studying Poli Sci and History here. Then I just possibly get my masters and maybe doctorates in both. Imagine that.

Like I said, you just need to grow up a little more. At your age we all thought we knew everything, don't worry, it's not just you. We all went through the phase you're going through.

You need to grow up too!

My understanding of history is just fine, it was my minor in university.. ;)

Ohh a minor! I'm getting a DEGREE!!!

Clinton Ruled!

Republicans are just jealous cause they can't get a blow job to save their lives..hahaha lmao! :D

Sex and politics don't go together......WAIT!! Didn't Clinton prove that??? ;)

A nation doesn't have to wait for the UN for them to do anything. Each nation is soverign, and as such may act of their own accord. Thus far, there is no World Government, and there shant be for quite some time.
It is accepted internationally that the UN should decide upon major international military action.
If countries just go off invading who they want, the UN will end up like the League of Nations.

A nation doesn't have to wait for the UN for them to do anything. Each nation is soverign, and as such may act of their own accord. Thus far, there is no World Government, and there shant be for quite some time.


Ah, sovereign yes, but a country is still bound by the treaties they are signatory members to. To which the USA violated several. So sovereign yes, unaccountable for their actions? no!

Bush may find himself in the same situation as Henry Kissinger, a prisoner in his own country. Henry Kissinger won't leave the USA, because he knows if he does he could be easily kidnapped and brought to trial for his war crimes.

It is accepted internationally that the UN should decide upon major international military action.
If countries just go off invading who they want, the UN will end up like the League of Nations.

Newsflash: It has already occured.

Of course he will stay his eight years. While I don't really like GWB because he is much too far to the left (yes, I said the left), there has been nothing to get him out of office. His policies are bad, but we have elected him twice (those of us in the United States) and yes he did win both elections fair and square. The left wing neo-cons may very well ruin the United States, but it is our fault for letting him win the Republican nomination and not putting up a true conservative.

Ohh a minor! I'm getting a DEGREE!!!
Calm down. I hold a Masters in Medieval History. Now, what period and countries are you studying?

Ah, sovereign yes, but a country is still bound by the treaties they are signatory members to. To which the USA violated several. So sovereign yes, unaccountable for their actions? no!

Wont argue there but how many treaties have other nations violated without oh.......consequences?

Get off of it Steph, we can play this shell game all night. Unfortunately, I don't have all night!

[QUOTE=Pschycotic Pschycos]

Define terrorist.

Someone once said "One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter".

Terrorist: One who utilizes the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjgate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy (2) The demorzlization and intimidation produced in this way.

--New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition--

They've shown us this by trying to bully our government by causing harm through force, AKA, force as a political weapon.

America in the War on Terrorism, on the other hand, is using force not in any of the said ways, but to arrest the activities of terrorists. This excludes the Iraq War, but no Afghanistan, where we went in after the Taliban (terrorist ORGINIZATION), or individual terrorists inside Iraq, but not related to the Iraqi old regime under Saddam.

My university actually. I'm studying Poli Sci and History here. Then I just possibly get my masters and maybe doctorates in both. Imagine that.



You need to grow up too!



Ohh a minor! I'm getting a DEGREE!!!

Well, I opted for a Master's Degree in Political Science and am one Dissertation from a Ph.D. But you must be right..hahaha! I'm also almost old enough to be your mother! So there! haha :p

Calm down. I hold a Masters in Medieval History. Now, what period and countries are you studying?

Right now I'm only working on my Bachelors degree.

Newsflash: It has already occured.
Apparently one country seems to belive itself above the law which it agreed to abound by. The UN is still the most powerful organisation in the world.

Newsflash: It has already occured.

(In refrence to UN comments) Thank you.

And where on the treaty of the UN does it say we must wait? This is not accusatory, just curiosity.

as a change from all the political hoohaa that i assume is all the posts before me i wonder,is president a verb?can you go and president?maybe its preside?

ok you can go back too your politcal stuff now

Well, I opted for a Master's Degree in Political Science and am one Dissertation from a Ph.D. But you must be right..hahaha! I'm also almost old enough to be your mother! So there! haha :p

How very childish of you. Unfortunately, your blind to the real world. I suggest you actually take your blindfold off an see what is really going on in the world of Politics.

You maybe getting a doctorates so what precisely are you going to do with it? Are you getting published? What is your dissertation on?

Apparently one country seems to belive itself above the law which it agreed to abound by. The UN is still the most powerful organisation in the world.

Question....do you know why?....Because we're in it. If we were to currently pull out, it would be powerless to do almost anything.

(In refrence to UN comments) Thank you.

And where on the treaty of the UN does it say we must wait? This is not accusatory, just curiosity.

As far as I know, it doesn't say we have to wait.

In regards to the UN Charter, did you know that the UN can be legally disbanded right now?

(In refrence to UN comments) Thank you.

And where on the treaty of the UN does it say we must wait? This is not accusatory, just curiosity.

It's against the UN charter to preemptively strike another nation. The USA is a signatory member of said charter. The list is longer but that is the most obvious that stands out.

He should have been gone long ago, but I'm sure the neocons will find a way to keep him in power until his 8 years are up. It's interesting to note that his approval rating is 10 points lower than Clinton's when he was impeached.

hey, who doesn't like the idea of a president gettin' it on in the oval office

lol

As far as I know, it doesn't say we have to wait.

In regards to the UN Charter, did you know that the UN can be legally disbanded right now?

Well than what the hell are we waiting for??!!??!!

My school has model UN, and I was joking that if I joined, my first proposal would be to disband the UN. :p

Apparently one country seems to belive itself above the law which it agreed to abound by. The UN is still the most powerful organisation in the world.

China invaded Vietnam
USSR invaded Afghanistan
Iraq invaded Kuwait
Tanzania invaded Uganda
North Korea invaded South Korea

Shall I go on or will this suffice since none of the above had UN permission!

[QUOTE=Aylestone]

Terrorist: One who utilizes the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjgate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy (2) The demorzlization and intimidation produced in this way.

--New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition--

They've shown us this by trying to bully our government by causing harm through force, AKA, force as a political weapon.

America in the War on Terrorism, on the other hand, is using force not in any of the said ways, but to arrest the activities of terrorists. This excludes the Iraq War, but no Afghanistan, where we went in after the Taliban (terrorist ORGINIZATION), or individual terrorists inside Iraq, but not related to the Iraqi old regime under Saddam.

Ok, in that case everyone arrested must have evidence against them right? If that is the case they should be tried (within one year of arrest) at some neutral location (eg the Hague) by a neutral judge appointed by the UN or other organisation. That would satisfy Human Rights, and it would mean that people are not locked up for years who may be innocent.

How very childish of you.

Hey, captain clueless..lol I did it on purpose, I figured if you wanted to play at that level of maturity, or rather lack of it, I'd join you. ;)

It's against the UN charter to preemptively strike another nation. The USA is a signatory member of said charter. The list is longer but that is the most obvious that stands out.

Let me see the actual clause, section, whatever it's called. I want to actually see it.

Well than what the hell are we waiting for??!!??!!

My school has model UN, and I was joking that if I joined, my first proposal would be to disband the UN. :p

LOL. Now that is funny. I don't know what we are waiting for. It is a nice tool to use but when it really comes to doing something.... they don't. They are not good at crisis management that is for sure.

[QUOTE=Pschycotic Pschycos]

Ok, in that case everyone arrested must have evidence against them right? If that is the case they should be tried (within one year of arrest) at some neutral location (eg the Hague) by a neutral judge appointed by the UN or other organisation. That would satisfy Human Rights, and it would mean that people are not locked up for years who may be innocent.

POWs aren't subject to trial (as in don't HAVE to be) until the war is over.

Also, human rights...they have shelter, food, water, clothing....yep, basic human rights.

China invaded Vietnam
USSR invaded Afghanistan
Iraq invaded Kuwait
Tanzania invaded Uganda
North Korea invaded South Korea

Shall I go on or will this suffice since none of the above had UN permission!
Fine, you have simply said that the US is no better than any of these regimes.

Fine, you have simply said that the US is no better than any of these regimes.

Nods!

Okay folks, I must go make dinner now.

Have a nice evening. :)

Nods!

Okay folks, I must go make dinner now.

Have a nice evening. :)

YOU TOO!!!!

I like seeing polite folks, even in the midst of a political debate. I've got math homework, but screw that! This is much more edumacational!

[QUOTE=Aylestone]

POWs aren't subject to trial (as in don't HAVE to be) until the war is over.

Also, human rights...they have shelter, food, water, clothing....yep, basic human rights.
Except freedom.
I don't take sides with terrorists, hell my own step-brother was killed on the 11th of September 2001, I lived in London during the Provo IRA bombings and shootings of 1974/5 (did anyone else see the rather good program the other week on Channal 4?). I just think that evidence should be produced if they are to be held for more than a specified time.

I've got math homework, but screw that! This is much more edumacational!
Well I don't know about that, this is just a josting match between two rather evenly matched opponants. Maths and homework on the other hand is slightly more important. Well that's what I tell my godchildren.

[QUOTE=Pschycotic Pschycos]
Except freedom.
I don't take sides with terrorists, hell my own step-brother was killed on the 11th of September 2001, I lived in London during the Provo IRA bombings and shootings of 1974/5 (did anyone else see the rather good program the other week on Channal 4?). I just think that evidence should be produced if they are to be held for more than a specified time.

I'm not taking sides with them, I'm just saying that they have basic human rights. Freedom is not a basic human right. It is on a second tier of human rights. Be careful how you use these words.

Damn, the one time I pay attention in World Cultures. Thank you boredom!!

Well I don't know about that, this is just a josting match between two rather evenly matched opponants. Maths and homework on the other hand is slightly more important. Well that's what I tell my godchildren.

I might actually use THIS stuff once in a while, esp debate skills that I'm learning. but after sitting through three straight days of class, asking "When the hell will I actually use this crap?" each day...that kind of isn't a good track record.

They are not good at crisis management that is for sure.
But, of course, you are?

Fine, you have simply said that the US is no better than any of these regimes.

Actually no we are better than those regimes since they attacked without warning. We at least gave full knowledge ahead of time as well as ultimatums before we attacked in accordance with International Law.

I don't think the majority of the American population has it in them to all of a sudden turn around and openly rebel against the government. I but they will sit back and just wait and wait for the next presidential race. Regardless if their rights are being taken away. I mean they didn't do shit when the Patroit Act came out.

Actually no we are better than those regimes since they attacked without warning. We at least gave full knowledge ahead of time as well as ultimatums before we attacked in accordance with International Law.

Very true.

But, of course, you are?

I know how to handle myself under pressure. I make a promise, I keep it. If I say I'm going to do something, I do it.

The UN doesn't do that. They make promises all the time but don't back them up. The UN doesn't do much of anything. They haven't stepped in when a crisis happens. They sit and debate and debate and nothing occurs.

They should stick with Humanitarian Aide. Its the only thing that they are halfway decent it. That is, if you can keep the aide workers away from the children.

I might actually use THIS stuff once in a while, esp debate skills that I'm learning. but after sitting through three straight days of class, asking "When the hell will I actually use this crap?" each day...that kind of isn't a good track record.
Well I suppose that is true enough. Oratory skills proved invaluable to me when at University, and debating skills are also useful in later life. I just wish I had paid more attention in school, all I ever was good at was History, Archaeology and Physics...

No. Sadly, he won't get impeached unless he messes up MUCH worse than he has. Which really doesn't seem possible...I would hate to think what it would be like if he was any worse :eek:

he could try to raise our taxes... that would be a horrible thing to do.

I don't think the majority of the American population has it in them to all of a sudden turn around and openly rebel against the government. I but they will sit back and just wait and wait for the next presidential race. Regardless if their rights are being taken away. I mean they didn't do shit when the Patroit Act came out.

most gun-owners are republicans. if anyone will ever be impeached/overthrown in my lifetime (forced to leave office) it will be a democrat.

I know how to handle myself under pressure. I make a promise, I keep it. If I say I'm going to do something, I do it.

The UN doesn't do that. They make promises all the time but don't back them up. The UN doesn't do much of anything. They haven't stepped in when a crisis happens. They sit and debate and debate and nothing occurs.

They should stick with Humanitarian Aide. Its the only thing that they are halfway decent it. That is, if you can keep the aide workers away from the children.
Well since I do not know you I can not argue the promisory point on the personal level. The UN on the other hand does do more good than you give them credit for.

Anyway, it's getting to the time when I need to go out and check the animals. I bid you all bonne nuit.

he could try to raise our taxes... that would be a horrible thing to do.

But that won't happen, he's already cut them, and with gas prices this high...

The Republicans contral all three branches of government. There's no way he'd be impeached, unless there's a drasctic shift in power in the mid-term elections.

He should get impeached he's trying to get rid of your freedom to privacy. But the public won't even attack that. I mean come on he has also foregotten about seperation of church and state. He wants there to be mandatory praying in schools. He also has started giving government funding to religous programs.(Such as a program to help kids on drugs by makeing them do nothing but read the bible and attend church survices.) Hell he wants to impose his beliefs on you the American public and yet YOU STILL DO NOTHING. OUR ECONOMY IS NOW SHIT. And all Clinton did was have some girl suck his dick and yet YOU WANT TO IMPEACH HIM. Come on the real enemy isn't over in Iraq. HE IS RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD!!!!

Originaly Posted By Cephali Psitticae: The Republicans contral all three branches of government. There's no way he'd be impeached, unless there's a drasctic shift in power in the mid-term elections.

Thus an example of a democraticly elected one party state.

Originaly Posted By Frangland: most gun-owners are republicans. if anyone will ever be impeached/overthrown in my lifetime (forced to leave office) it will be a democrat.

That is true.

Thus an example of a democraticly elected one party state.

Last time I checked, we had TWO political parties in this country. If we only had a one party state, the democratic party wouldn't exist nor the republican party if the situation was reversed.

And all Clinton did was have some girl suck his dick and yet YOU WANT TO IMPEACH HIM.

He WAS impeached. And convicted.

No cookie for you.

You don't know that Bush didn't know he was lying, you assume it. However quite a bit of evidence as you well know has come out to strongly suggest he did in fact know.

"Bush lied people died"...oh God not THIS tired old meme again?

Can't you DUmmies get NEW material?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Selective memory...tsk tsk.....

He WAS impeached. And convicted.

No cookie for you.

He wasn't convicted but yea! He was impeached. Half a cookie for you :D

Yes Saddam was a brutal dictator and I did support the war in Iraq. BUT I also think we should take something like, oh I don't know some Iraq oil. As compinsation for helping them rebuild THEIR country. You know take around 10-25% of Iraqs oil and clime it as US territory. After all TO THE VICTOR GOES THE SPOILS. I do think though that Bush has done a shitty job with domestic policies.

Also for all the librals out there welcome to war it is a horrible thing but some people will die sadly. It is inevitble.

I know Clinton was impeached.

He should get impeached he's trying to get rid of your freedom to privacy. But the public won't even attack that. I mean come on he has also foregotten about seperation of church and state. He wants there to be mandatory praying in schools. He also has started giving government funding to religous programs.(Such as a program to help kids on drugs by makeing them do nothing but read the bible and attend church survices.) Hell he wants to impose his beliefs on you the American public and yet YOU STILL DO NOTHING. OUR ECONOMY IS NOW SHIT. And all Clinton did was have some girl suck his dick and yet YOU WANT TO IMPEACH HIM. Come on the real enemy isn't over in Iraq. HE IS RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD!!!!

You sir are a imbecile. Bush does not want to make mandatory prayer in schools, he wants it legalized. He does not make kids "do nothing but read the bible and attend church survices" he has not taken away our freedom of privacy, he has encouraged safetey in airports and other places where caution is needed. And now, when N. Korea is building nuclear weapons, digging illegal tunnels under the DMZ, some wide enough to fit two trains side by side, the UN does nothing, France insults us, and the American people only argue about Bush. I bet some of you didn't know about N. Korea, or the immediate threat of WW3. But we don't care 'cause we're STUPID AMERICANS. We are uninformed, though we have the resources to know. Shut up.

He should get impeached he's trying to get rid of your freedom to privacy. But the public won't even attack that. I mean come on he has also foregotten about seperation of church and state. He wants there to be mandatory praying in schools. He also has started giving government funding to religous programs.(Such as a program to help kids on drugs by makeing them do nothing but read the bible and attend church survices.) Hell he wants to impose his beliefs on you the American public and yet YOU STILL DO NOTHING. OUR ECONOMY IS NOW SHIT. And all Clinton did was have some girl suck his dick and yet YOU WANT TO IMPEACH HIM. Come on the real enemy isn't over in Iraq. HE IS RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD!!!!

the economy is just fine... the Dow is bouncing back with investor confidence, he did about all he could do to help drop the cost of oil outside of outlawing SUVs or taking over Saudi Arabia.

you've probably never heard this fact, but here it is:

The president does not control the economy of the United States.

Clinton does not deserve credit for the economy of the 1990s, and Bush does not deserve blame for the tech bust (many tech stocks were overvalued in the 1990s... when people realized that, people started selling their shares... when people sell shares, the stock market goes down).

Look at what the Bush administration has had to endure in 5 less than 5 years:

9/11

New Orleans

Two worse events than anything George Sr. or Clinton ever had to deal with. I'd like to see how they would have handled them. (actually, no, if Clinton had been in office during 9/11, he'd have pardoned UBL and Saddam would still be in power... and terrorists would be emboldened to strike us again. Clinton had a shot to pull the trigger on UBL and didn't do it.)

I don't like MY money going toward some lazy-ass sumbitch who doesn't feel like working. In fact, probably a large percentage of the taxes I pay don't go toward helping me. But I'm not going to bitch about it. I sure won't bitch about kids on drugs getting clearned up at church or YMCA or wherever they can go to be with positive influences.

I'm not saying I am against the Iraq War and I do agree that Clinton would have done a shitty job if 9/11 happened under his regime. But I do want to know the sources of Fragland's and The Zanbato's info. Also I said I didn't like his DOMESTIC policies. I never said foreign. AND NEITHER WOULD I LIKE MY MONEY TO GO TO SOME LAZY BASTARD WHO WON'T WORK!!!
THAT IS WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN AND VOTED FOR BUSH AGAINST GORE AND KERRY!!!!!!

I'm not saying I am against the Iraq War and I do agree that Clinton would have done a shitty job if 9/11 happened under his regime. But I do want to know the sources of Fragland's and The Zanbato's info. Also I said I didn't like his DOMESTIC policies. I never said foreign. AND NEITHER WOULD I LIKE MY MONEY TO GO TO SOME LAZY BASTARD WHO WON'T WORK!!!
THAT IS WHY I AM A REPUBLICAN AND VOTED FOR BUSH AGAINST GORE AND KERRY!!!!!!

cool

as for the economy not being controlled by any president, these are the things that (mainly) control the health of our economy:

Businesses
Consumers
Investors


Now presidents (and Congress... lest we forget that they must pass the laws) may influence the economy through such means as tax cuts, trade policy, etc..

The fed may influence the economy by raising or lowering interest rates.

Raising interest rates is generally accepted as a device used when an economy is healthy.

Lowering interest rates is done when the economy needs a boost (EG, as what happened after the terror attacks hit the Dow hard).

Option number 1!

If you had to choose between 1) saving the democratic party from drowning and 2) saving Bill Clinton, which would you choose?


Number two.

Number two.

So much for the Democratic Party! No wonder they are drowning currently.

So much for the Democratic Party! No wonder they are drowning currently.

Are they? Well, I couldn't of saved them anyway...

cool

as for the economy not being controlled by any president, these are the things that (mainly) control the health of our economy:

Businesses
Consumers
Investors


Now presidents (and Congress... lest we forget that they must pass the laws) may influence the economy through such means as tax cuts, trade policy, etc..

The fed may influence the economy by raising or lowering interest rates.

Raising interest rates is generally accepted as a device used when an economy is healthy.

Lowering interest rates is done when the economy needs a boost (EG, as what happened after the terror attacks hit the Dow hard).

Good point Fragland. It is true that the people run the economy. For the most part. (Remeber we are capatilist.)

Were is your info The Zanbato.

Good point Fragland. It is true that the people run the economy. For the most part. (Remeber we are capatilist.)

Were is your info The Zanbato.

People run the economy blindly. Capitalist or not, there are always those who see, and should pull strings if things go wrong. A critical point to consider here; why is a good economy important? For the sake of it self?