NationStates Jolt Archive

1. 1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005

2. $300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

4. 4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq

5. $236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush

6. $333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.

7. 1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

9. 0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.

Well technically you can't, unless he's brutally axe murdered or impeached.

And anyway, Bush-Bashing is a little boring, but Blair-bashing is far more fun. Can't we do that?

If I have some coffee I might be able to post a coherent post...

the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq


Just being pedantic: if you multiply 0 by 4 you still get zero. I passed my maths GCSE based on that.

1. 1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005

2. $300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

4. 4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq

5. $236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush

6. $333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.

7. 1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

9. 0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.



What I want to know from everyone is, why is it "bashing" if its true?

What I want to know from everyone is, why is it "bashing" if its true?
Because people say it's taken out of context...after maintaining it's not true at all for a while.

What I want to know from everyone is, why is it "bashing" if its true?

Because the truth hasn't been approved by Karl Rove ;)

Because people say it's taken out of context...after maintaining it's not true at all for a while.


But those are simply numerical statistics.
They are either accurate, or not.

Black or white.

Theres no context to misconstrue, really is there?

If not, then what we have, is data.
This data shows that Bush has been a terrible leader.

Because the truth hasn't been approved by Karl Rove ;)


"Happiness is, whatever we say it is."
-The Neocons.

This data shows that Bush has been a terrible leader.
I agree, but let me try something unusual and make up the other side's argument before they get to... :D

Theres no context to misconstrue, really is there?
1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005
Do you know what they are doing there? Do you know that Saddam had links with terrorists (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)? How many Americans would've died in that time? Can you tell?
And by the way, were you happy with Saddam killing all those Iraqis?
Oh, and the favourite quote: "War is Hell!"

$300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005
Same here.

0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
That is simply not true (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213).

4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq
Would've happened anyways. Would you have us attack the DPRK? Do you know how many people would die in Seoul alone? It's much worse than anything in Iraq.

$236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush
President's don't create budgets and surpluses - circumstances do. Clinton didn't even start repairing the damage he did in his recession.

$333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.
Totally taken out of context! We have to fight the war on terror - wars cost money. Do you question the war on terror?

1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.
Libertarianism...Not President's fault...

5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.
same here

0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.
He didn't make any mistakes! You're bashing! :rolleyes:

0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
That is simply not true (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213).


Well done. Heh. I doubt if many of the true Bush apologists could do better.

What cracks me up about the point above is that for one to believe it, one would also have to believe that the Bush Administration is keeping such things hush hush as well. I mean, if they had been found, don't ya think that Rove would be having Bush repeat it over and over and over again?

Bush is a member of the liberal media! :eek:

Totally taken out of context! We have to fight the war on terror - wars cost money. Do you question the war on terror?

Then why doesn't he raise taxes?

I agree, but let me try something unusual and make up the other side's argument before they get to... :D


1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005
Do you know what they are doing there? Do you know that Saddam had links with terrorists (http://www.husseinandterror.com/)? How many Americans would've died in that time? Can you tell?
And by the way, were you happy with Saddam killing all those Iraqis?
Oh, and the favourite quote: "War is Hell!"

$300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005
Same here.

0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
That is simply not true (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213).

4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq
Would've happened anyways. Would you have us attack the DPRK? Do you know how many people would die in Seoul alone? It's much worse than anything in Iraq.

$236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush
President's don't create budgets and surpluses - circumstances do. Clinton didn't even start repairing the damage he did in his recession.

$333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.
Totally taken out of context! We have to fight the war on terror - wars cost money. Do you question the war on terror?

1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.
Libertarianism...Not President's fault...

5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.
same here

0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.
He didn't make any mistakes! You're bashing! :rolleyes:


Yah, I get where youre going with this.
We've all seen the oppositions arguments become weaker and weaker, the longer this adminstration continues.

However, I think many of them are even seeing that not only is the man NOT infallible, but maybe even, not very good at his job?
Whats his approval rating at, 39%?

Once they see that, it becomes just a little easier to believe that Bush not only isnt very good at his job, he just might even have a particular agenda, and not much concern for anyone except his corporate buddies in Enron, and Haliburton.

I think were going to see a Democratic candidate next election, provided they can summon a candidate with a set of balls.

Eh.. .Just because Bush wouldn't admit to "mistakes" during the second "town hall" debate, doesn't mean he thinks he's infallible or anything...

In the middle of an election, giving your opponent footholds = not a good idea. I seriously doubt Bush believes he's a divine being or something. Heh. ;)

Well done. Heh. I doubt if many of the true Bush apologists could do better.

What cracks me up about the point above is that for one to believe it, one would also have to believe that the Bush Administration is keeping such things hush hush as well. I mean, if they had been found, don't ya think that Rove would be having Bush repeat it over and over and over again?

Bush is a member of the liberal media! :eek:


Dont you think Fox News would trumpet it from the rooftops, with a "He Was Right......far right!" attitude?

Eh.. .Just because Bush wouldn't admit to "mistakes" during the second "town hall" debate, doesn't mean he thinks he's infallible or anything...

In the middle of an election, giving your opponent footholds = not a good idea. I seriously doubt Bush believes he's a divine being or something. Heh. ;)

No.

Only that one gave him his job.
Personally.

Then why doesn't he raise taxes?
:eek:

Taxes??? Taxes are evil - taxes fund socialism - taxes distort individual's choices - France has high taxes, see where it got them... etc

:eek:

Taxes??? Taxes are evil - taxes fund socialism - taxes distort individual's choices - France has high taxes, see where it got them... etc


My God, its like a republican Pod has taken you over!

Republican Body Snatchers!

Hehe, after I while you've heard everything, haven't you.

I just thought I'd save some time...now their argument is ridiculed before they've even had a chance at it. :D

Hehe, after I while you've heard everything, haven't you.

I just thought I'd save some time...now their argument is ridiculed before they've even had a chance at it. :D


Brilliant!

Lets have a Guiness.

0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
That is simply not true (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213).Number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq according to that opinion article: 0

edit: And then I noticed that Leonstein was just joking

:eek:

Taxes??? Taxes are evil - taxes fund socialism - taxes distort individual's choices - France has high taxes, see where it got them... etc

Yes, so let's not raise taxes but let's not reduce spending either! That way interest on our debt will mean the Democrats will HAVE to raise taxes when they eventually come back into power! Hahahahahahahaha!

(people do realize that debt = interest = even more money having to be raised by the government later. They realize this, right? Right?)

people do realize that debt = interest = even more money having to be raised by the government later. They realize this, right? Right?
Are you a Neo-Classical or a Lefty.......

Brilliant!
*bows*
Lets have a Guiness.
Let's!

Are you a Neo-Classical or a Lefty.......

I'm not big on labels. I'm definitely socially liberal though. As far as left-right goes...well, I guess I believe that government can be both smaller and yet still do more, or at least do what it does in a more streamlined/efficient/less wasteful way. I hate pork and I hate the influence of money and lobbyists on politicians. I believe in universal healthcare though. I do NOT believe in supply-side economics. Money doesn't trickle down, it gets hoarded.

I am left-handed though.

I was just thinking, cuz perversely it was the Right who came up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_equivalence
That was before "tax cuts worked for Bush" and "Budget Deficits mean nothing"...

I was just thinking, cuz perversely it was the Right who came up with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_equivalence
That was before "tax cuts worked for Bush" and "Budget Deficits mean nothing"...

Interesting, but the theory doesn't take interest into account, nor does it take into account a weakening dollar.

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq
Would it have been better for America if more weapons had been there?

Or how about you stop thinking in your insular, nationalist bubble and think about the world? Since 2001 both Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated from extremely oppressive dictatorships. Libya has renounced anti-western ways and North Korea has ended its nuclear weapons programme.

I think were going to see a Democratic candidate next election, provided they can summon a candidate with a set of balls.
You mean like Hilary Clinton? :p

You mean like Hilary Clinton? :p


Hmm..

If she were actually running?

No.

Figurative balls.

Hers may be literal.

Hilary has balls. Just bigger than Bush.

:eek:

Taxes??? Taxes are evil - taxes fund socialism - taxes distort individual's choices - France has high taxes, see where it got them... etc

Well, since you do pay taxes in the US does that make you a socialist country?

And besides, how do you propose to pay for the wonderful war on terror/public services without them? Government is not a bottomless pit of money.

Would it have been better for America if more weapons had been there?
It certainly would have given Bush more credibility. Instead the opposite is true.

Or how about you stop thinking in your insular, nationalist bubble and think about the world?
Okay, lets look at the world since the "War on Terrorism" started;

The number of Americans who believe the war in Iraq has made the United States less safe from terrorism (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/bush.terror/) spiked sharply after last week's terror attacks in London, according to the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

In the three years since the attacks on America, domestic security has become a primary concern throughout the world.
The most recent attack occurred last week (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3634890.stm). It is thought a suicide car bombing is responsible for the devastation at the Australian embassy in Jakarta.

Sir Ivor Roberts, Britain's Ambassador to Italy, declared last September that the "best recruiting sergeant for al-Qaeda" was none other than the U.S. President, George W. Bush (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1081392,00.html). With the American election entering its final furlongs, he added, "If anyone is ready to celebrate the eventual re-election of Bush, it is al-Qaeda."

And the World is Less Safe (http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates/091305.html)
"The State Department found that the number of "significant" international terrorist attacks in 2004 reached 655, three times the previous record of 175 in 2003. Terrorist incidents in Iraq also increased by a factor of nine-from 22 attacks in 2003 to 198 in 2004."

I could go on but the obvious is well........obvious. What "insular" bubble?

Since 2001 both Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated from extremely oppressive dictatorships.

RAWA condemns Karzai for supporting ‘warlords’ (http://www.rawa.org/kab-jan05/apr28-05p.htm)

The United States has supposedly created new “democracies” in Afghanistan and Iraq, but these endeavors give democracy a bad name (http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/647). Sure, the two countries have some ingredients of representative democracy, such as elected officials and a constitution. But both countries are still beset by grinding poverty, insurgencies, and entrenched militia forces that make the exercise of democracy either impractical or dangerous. Both countries have high numbers of foreign troops occupying their land and terrorizing the population while hunting “terrorists.” And both countries’ governments answer to their respective U.S. ambassador on most issues. In the midst of such a violent and coercive environment, Afghans are pressing ahead with the latest in a series of “democratic” exercises imposed by the United States: the first Afghan parliamentary elections in four decades will take place this Sunday, September 18. Even though many Afghans hope that the elections will empower them to end their troubles, the fear is that the elections will probably be as undemocratic in practice as every other U.S.-inflicted Afghan institution.

Libya has renounced anti-western ways
Libya may be working closer with the western world thanks to the UK, and dealings with Libya over the Lockerbie incident but has Libya "renounced anti-western ways"?

and North Korea has ended its nuclear weapons programme.

North Korea said Tuesday it would not dismantle its nuclear weapons program until the United States first provides an atomic energy reactor (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9375104/), casting doubt on its commitment to a breakthrough agreement reached at international arms talks.

The "War on Terrorism" has been a dismal failure, especially since the US invasion of Iraq and Cat Tribe's first post lays out the cost of this failure.

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Actually, we found a few tons... Of course, we were suppose to have found a few hundred tons...

1. 1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005

Soldiers do get killed in war.

2. $300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005

Cheap, but a lie. That figure includes wages and munitions, wages that would have been spent anyway and munitions that only have a limited shelf-life.

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

Don't blame Bush for that - blame Iraq.

4. 4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq

Maybe you can prove that figure?

5. $236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush

6. $333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.

7. 1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

He is NOT the only person who makes laws and impliments them.

9. 0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.

Has he made any?

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.

If you are a US citizen then you have a vote - use it as you will.

Then why doesn't he raise taxes?

Because, unless you are very careful, raising tax rates lowers the intake.

Just being pedantic: if you multiply 0 by 4 you still get zero. I passed my maths GCSE based on that.
Beat me to it :D

Just being pedantic: if you multiply 0 by 4 you still get zero. I passed my maths GCSE based on that.
well if we are going to be pendantic he meant that north korea has increased it's nuclear arsenal by four, not that it has four times more weapons of mass destruction than iraq.. meh..

He is NOT the only person who makes laws and impliments them.
Overwhelmingly Republican run Congress.

Overwhelmingly Republican run Congress.

Funny, I thought there were a large number of law making bodies in the USA.

Funny, I thought there were a large number of law making bodies in the USA.

Funny, I thought we knew that most of those law making bodies are local and state.

Funny, I thought we knew that most of those law making bodies are local and state.

So!

Funny, I thought there were a large number of law making bodies in the USA.
State and local authorities only make law for their states/municipalities, not the country.

There's only one national law making body -- Congress. It is currently dominated by one party. We get to start numbering that party's days before 2008, in the next rounds of Congressional elections.

Would it have been better for America if more weapons had been there?

Or how about you stop thinking in your insular, nationalist bubble and think about the world? Since 2001 both Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated from extremely oppressive dictatorships. Libya has renounced anti-western ways and North Korea has ended its nuclear weapons programme.
Having a government smashed to piece violently, with no replacement in hand to take over, thus creating a power vacuum and a chance for yet more extremists to move in, is not quite the same thing as being liberated.

Who gives a shit about Libya? Syria is a bigger problem.

Didn't the current North Korean issue start because the world found out they were lying about having ended their nuclear weapons program? What makes you think they're telling the truth now?

State and local authorities only make law for their states/municipalities, not the country.

So what? If they want change then they should get on with it. If poverty is a proble (one of the items mentioned) then it is at a local level that the work has to start.

There's only one national law making body -- Congress. It is currently dominated by one party. We get to start numbering that party's days before 2008, in the next rounds of Congressional elections.

And if people always wait for the top to change then there will be no change. People have to build from the roots up if they want to get things done.

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq


Don't blame Bush for that - blame Iraq.

Huh, what? Blame Iraq for having no WMDs? :confused:

I think I am missing something here.

Because people say it's taken out of context...after maintaining it's not true at all for a while.
FLORT!!

Eh.. .Just because Bush wouldn't admit to "mistakes" during the second "town hall" debate, doesn't mean he thinks he's infallible or anything...

In the middle of an election, giving your opponent footholds = not a good idea. I seriously doubt Bush believes he's a divine being or something. Heh. ;)
I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.
-- Dubya: Mouthpiece of God. Statement made during campaign visit to Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Jul. 9, 2004
Yeah, heh is right.
:mad:

My God, its like a republican Pod has taken you over!

Republican Body Snatchers!
It wouldn't surprise me if they worked their magic like those "butt-weasels" did from that Stephen King movie, Dreamcatcher
:eek:
*retch*

The law of the nature is simple and clear...
The best prevails.
The worst become extinct.
If the lion is too stupid...no meal today!
I don't understand why Americans still survives...
Did you ever wonder why almost the whole World hates you?
Who put and train Talibans in Afghanistan? USA (to fight Russian Army)
Who put Saddam Hussein in Iraq? USA (to fight Iran and take the oil)
Who put most of the Dictatorships in South America? USA (Argentina,Chile,etc...)
Who put (-insert any Crime Against Humanity-)? USA again, and again, and again, and again...

You vote for Bush TWICE! Amazing...

Do you want to stop terrorism? Stop to train them in your bases!
Do you want to look more likeable to muslims? Stop support Israel to occupy Palestine.It can be a start.
People spit on your face when you're in holidays? Stop to invade and bomb every country (with oil,of course!) you don't like.
And so on...
:headbang:

Yes, Bush made and continues to make mistakes.
No, I don't think that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, that things would have been any better. For one thing, I don't believe for a minute that Gore would have invaded Afghanistan (much less Iraq). While the invasion of Iraq may properly be classified as a mistake, invading Afghanistan was not.

I do believe that had Gore been President at 9-11, we would already have effectively surrendered.

Would it have been better for America if more weapons had been there?

.
Yeah it would have because then AT LEAST if there were any, the people whose job it is to KNOW those things (oooh-feeling that Rumsfeld quote coming on about knowing that we don't know what we don't know) can feel good about having a KEEN understanding about the NATURE OF THE THREAT.
For example, try tracking the soviet nuclear capabilities and specific threat after the disassembly of the Soviet Union into all the other states.

Yes, Bush made and continues to make mistakes.
No, I don't think that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, that things would have been any better. For one thing, I don't believe for a minute that Gore would have invaded Afghanistan (much less Iraq). While the invasion of Iraq may properly be classified as a mistake, invading Afghanistan was not.

I do believe that had Gore been President at 9-11, we would already have effectively surrendered.
Invading Afghanistan wasn't, but look how things are going there now!
Did you actually know that some of the money we're spending there is being paid to the f*cking Taliban to keep them from resurgency?

Totally taken out of context! We have to fight the war on terror - wars cost money. Do you question the war on terror?
This made me die a little inside.

Yes, Bush made and continues to make mistakes.
No, I don't think that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, that things would have been any better. For one thing, I don't believe for a minute that Gore would have invaded Afghanistan (much less Iraq). While the invasion of Iraq may properly be classified as a mistake, invading Afghanistan was not.

I do believe that had Gore been President at 9-11, we would already have effectively surrendered.


If you truly think America would have effectively surrenderred to anyone, forgive me, but you are a fool.

Any President, regardless of political leanings would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.
However, you may want to ask yourself why we still havent captured the man responsible,
It could be becuase Bush choose to invade Iraq, although they had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yes, Bush made and continues to make mistakes.
No, I don't think that had Gore been elected instead of Bush, that things would have been any better. For one thing, I don't believe for a minute that Gore would have invaded Afghanistan (much less Iraq). While the invasion of Iraq may properly be classified as a mistake, invading Afghanistan was not.

I do believe that had Gore been President at 9-11, we would already have effectively surrendered.

Mmmhmmm. The biggest military power in the world would have surrendered just because Gore was President. Sierra, you sometimes make good points, but this is not only ridiculous, but childish as well, and if this is what you really believe, then you are simply the most partisan hack I have ever seen, aside from the occasional trolling skinhead. "Effectively surrendering" after 9-11 would not have been an option for any politician, and probably would have gotten Gore impeached or at least politically marginalized.

At the very least, you could have tried to be funny and said something like, "Gore would have pledged to put terrorists in a lockbox," or something.

Anyway, I hope you realize that by saying something so patently ridiculous, you have seriously weakened your ability to have people listen to your points. Please do better in the future.

Interesting, but the theory doesn't take interest into account, nor does it take into account a weakening dollar.
It's full mathematical expression does....and I have to know it for my stupid exams! :(

This made me die a little inside.
:D

Huh, what? Blame Iraq for having no WMDs? :confused:

I think I am missing something here.

Yes. Maybe.

You see, as part of the terms of the ceasefire at the end on IW1 (Iraq war one) Saddam was forced to hand over a list of ALL his weapons. In the rush to hand over the paperwork he did not have time to "edit" the data. Remember that Iraq lived on paperwork -everything was well documented.

Now, when the data was sorted and a full list of Iraq's weapons was produced Iraq was required to hand over those in certain classes like Chemical, biological or mid/long range missiles.

A lot was handed over for destruction. A lot was not - including a lot of chemical and biological material. Iraq claimed to have destroyed some, though that was in itself against the terms of the ceasefire. However, some of their claims of destruction were not believable as it would have required equipment Iraq did not have.

This, and the legality of the war, is a subject I've studied very well - I even gave a lecture om the legality angle (the war was legal btw) last year.

I do believe that had Gore been President at 9-11, we would already have effectively surrendered.

Well that does full under the "what if" arena but hey look at the shrub. Sure we went in and kicked the crap out of the Taliban but we didn't finish the job. We are almost at the same spot as the Soviets. We control the cities and they control the country side.

Too bad there wasn't any oil, then the shrub might have stayed and finished the job.

Now, when the data was sorted and a full list of Iraq's weapons was produced Iraq was required to hand over those in certain classes like Chemical, biological or mid/long range missiles.

A lot was handed over for destruction. A lot was not - including a lot of chemical and biological material. Iraq claimed to have destroyed some, though that was in itself against the terms of the ceasefire. However, some of their claims of destruction were not believable as it would have required equipment Iraq did not have.
.

Ok then where did the stuff go? All Iraqis are going to keep quiet about it?

However, some of their claims of destruction were not believable as it would have required equipment Iraq did not have.

High explosives and inciendaries are not enough anymore?

1. 1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005

2. $300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

4. 4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq

5. $236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush

6. $333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.

7. 1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

9. 0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.


1. True, it's a damned shame.

2. That's Bush for you, a true-blue Republicrat -- Spends like a Democrat but cuts taxes like a Republican.

3. You and I both know the war was never really about WMDs. That being said, we have found evidence that he had the capability to re-start any weapons program he might want within a few years. Not that that's a reason to invade, but still.

4. Source for this? As far as I knew, we only knew they had them, not how many.

5. By no fault of Clinton, I assure you. It was the fact that he had a hostile congress to deal with, combined with the scrutiny he faced during the empeachment thing, that made it so he couldn't spend like he wanted to.

6. Yep, like I said. The man spends like money's going out of fashion.

7. Source for this? I have trouble believing a full 20% of American families are below the poverty line. Even if true, though, most of those below the poverty line still make at least substinance wages and many often make more, enough to afford things like TV and cable internet.

8. To be fair, presidents don't have a lot of control over the economy. It's the Fed that really gets the buck this time around.

9.

Questioner: "Mr President, if you were to list any mistakes you feel you might have made during your first term, what would they be?"

Bush: *Changes subject completely and doesn't answer the question at all*

1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

These aren't Bush's fault. He had no control over these problems, which are a direct result of the late 90's dot-com bust.

You could do the same thing with Clinton and the losses from the bursting of the dot com bubble ($2,000,000,000,000 lost in stock, along with millions of jobs), and the corporate scandals, so trying to get Bush on the economy is a false argument. The President has virutally no control over the economy.

1. 1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005

2. $300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

4. 4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq

5. $236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush

6. $333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.

7. 1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

9. 0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.


1. Actually an amazingly low number looking at any other conflict as intense as the one in iraq has gotten repeatedly. And at least they didn't die for nothing like the soldiers Clinton pulled out of Somalia, and look at where that shithole is today.

2.So? That's only a little more than the recent transportation bill, most of which was utterly unnecessary.

3. Not true, as there have been several containers of mustard and other small amounts of WMD found, but not an intact stockpile. Of course, since they knew about 6 months in advance that we were invading, that really isn't surprising, but to a mind lacking in imagination I can see why it would be.

4. Of course, the person who gave them the tech in the first place was Clinton, but we're just gonna ignore that little fact. Also, we don't actually know the number of nukes they had.

5. Actually, that was the projected surplus at the height of the dot-com bubble. By the time Bush took office the bubble had already begun to pop.

6. Not really that much considering the dot-com burst combined with 9-11 and the drain of major military operations. Of course, then the friggin idiot has to go and promise to rebuild New Orleans on the same damned spot even though that's a monumentally stupid idea without major changes which won't be made, so that's another $150 billion down the drain, but since that situation wouldn't really change from president to president there's not much that can be done.

7. Actually, it's at 18%, not 20%. And given that the increase is primarily in children than that means either more big families are being granted U.S. citizenship or people are having more children. Of course, the poverty rate in the US has not deviated a full percentage point below 13% ever since Johnson instituted his Great Society programs.

8. Why do I suspect this figure doesn't take into account the number of people that gained/regained their health insurance while Bush was in office. Technically I'm in the 5 million because I let my insurance lap, even though I had the funds to pay it.

9.*shrugs* How many does Clinton admit to?

These aren't Bush's fault. He had no control over these problems, which are a direct result of the late 90's dot-com bust.

You could do the same thing with Clinton and the losses from the bursting of the dot com bubble ($2,000,000,000,000 lost in stock, along with millions of jobs), and the corporate scandals, so trying to get Bush on the economy is a false argument. The President has virutally no control over the economy.

Ya know. If Presidents are as powerless as those on the Neo end of the Conservative spectrum would like us to believe, then why are they the first to trumpet his "successes" and why do they fight so hard have their guy elected?

Ya know. If Presidents are as powerless as those on the Neo end of the Conservative spectrum would like us to believe, then why are they the first to trumpet his "successes" and why do they fight so hard have their guy elected?

Because success has a thousand wannabe fathers and failure is an orphan, although the powers that be tend to appoint resources to finding a scapegoat of their liking. Commonly the one they don't like.

1. Actually an amazingly low number looking at any other conflict as intense as the one in iraq has gotten repeatedly. And at least they didn't die for nothing like the soldiers Clinton pulled out of Somalia, and look at where that shithole is today.

4. Of course, the person who gave them the tech in the first place was Clinton, but we're just gonna ignore that little fact. Also, we don't actually know the number of nukes they had.

9.*shrugs* How many does Clinton admit to?

Yeah, and high gas prices got ya down? Blame teh Clenis! :D

9.*shrugs* How many does Clinton admit to?

Wow. You will be mentioning Clinton for the next 20 years eh?

Well that's ok. Many of us will talk about the disaster known as the shrub so I guess it balances out.

Oh Clinton has admited to mistakes such as Rawanda.....

1. Actually an amazingly low number looking at any other conflict as intense as the one in iraq has gotten repeatedly. And at least they didn't die for nothing like the soldiers Clinton pulled out of Somalia, and look at where that shithole is today.

2.So? That's only a little more than the recent transportation bill, most of which was utterly unnecessary.

3. Not true, as there have been several containers of mustard and other small amounts of WMD found, but not an intact stockpile. Of course, since they knew about 6 months in advance that we were invading, that really isn't surprising, but to a mind lacking in imagination I can see why it would be.

4. Of course, the person who gave them the tech in the first place was Clinton, but we're just gonna ignore that little fact. Also, we don't actually know the number of nukes they had.

5. Actually, that was the projected surplus at the height of the dot-com bubble. By the time Bush took office the bubble had already begun to pop.

6. Not really that much considering the dot-com burst combined with 9-11 and the drain of major military operations. Of course, then the friggin idiot has to go and promise to rebuild New Orleans on the same damned spot even though that's a monumentally stupid idea without major changes which won't be made, so that's another $150 billion down the drain, but since that situation wouldn't really change from president to president there's not much that can be done.

7. Actually, it's at 18%, not 20%. And given that the increase is primarily in children than that means either more big families are being granted U.S. citizenship or people are having more children. Of course, the poverty rate in the US has not deviated a full percentage point below 13% ever since Johnson instituted his Great Society programs.

8. Why do I suspect this figure doesn't take into account the number of people that gained/regained their health insurance while Bush was in office. Technically I'm in the 5 million because I let my insurance lap, even though I had the funds to pay it.

9.*shrugs* How many does Clinton admit to?

Can you provide any proof of your claims?

I find them questionable.

Particularly #'s 3, and 4.

Munitions that once contained traces of mustard gas and such are not in any way "weapons of mass destruction", and to claim that such indeed have been found is fairly prepostrous when such news agencies would be all over such information.
No such devices have been found with any amount of chemicals worth noting.

As for 4, your dislike of Clinton is duly noted, but to imply that he sold weapons technology, particular nuclear weapons technology to a possibly hostile, rogue nation, is pretty severe, and if youre going to accuse him, I'd like to see some proof.
If not, then youre obviously just blowing smoke.

Wasn't it Reagan who originally sold WMD to Iraq? I know Rumsfeld was deep in it.

Wasn't it Reagan who originally sold WMD to Iraq? I know Rumsfeld was deep in it.
Everyone did. I'm not well versed in when the different US Presidencies started and finished, but I'd imagine that Reagan, Carter and maybe even Bush Sr. are good candidates. How much they'd have known about it themselves I don't know, but pretty much the entire Western world (companies and secret services) were busy getting Iraq to a level where it could keep Iran quiet (and for a while later it was the other way around too..).

Do I question the War on Terror? Of course! How do you fight an idea? With weapons? C'mon.

I know the US only teach US history, so let me entertain and enlighten you with a bit of European history. Over here, during the time of "enlightenment" (that was about when your George Washington was busy kicking some Brit butt, so it didn't arrive in the new world yet), our leaders wanted to stamp it out. Guess what? Didn't work. They arrested people, they shot people, they fought people, they did whatever they could. NO chance in hell.

People want to be what they want to be. I know the US are convinced that their way is the only true one. And they wonder endlessly why the hell those people they invade aren't thankful for being liberated. BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO. Leave them the heck alone!

Whether Bush or Gore, who cares? Does the delinquent care if he's shot or beheaded? If I can't choose freedom, I don't give a damn how I get killed.

As for 4, your dislike of Clinton is duly noted, but to imply that he sold weapons technology, particular nuclear weapons technology to a possibly hostile, rogue nation, is pretty severe, and if youre going to accuse him, I'd like to see some proof.
If not, then youre obviously just blowing smoke.
He gave them light-water nuke plants, which are the easiest nuke plants to get the mats for a nuclear bomb from. He could easily have given them nuke plants of a design so as to make it nearly impossible for them to use in their nuclear weaps program, but he didn't.

I agree, but let me try something unusual and make up the other side's argument before they get to... :D

Time to take stock after my attempt to kill off an argument before it happened.

a) It was ignored. Rather than observe what I wrote, people chose to essentially write the same thing again, just serious this time.

b) People thought I was serious. Goddammit.

And so we learn: Don't try anything fancy. Stick to baseless accusations and the occasional biased source grabbed off the first page google returns...

He gave them light-water nuke plants, which are the easiest nuke plants to get the mats for a nuclear bomb from. He could easily have given them nuke plants of a design so as to make it nearly impossible for them to use in their nuclear weaps program, but he didn't.


He gave them nuclear power plants, from wich, your implying, these weapons were made?

Not quite.

A Nuclear power plant cannot provide weapons grade plutonium.
They generally run on plutonium rods, not weapons grade materials.

However, you still didnt provide any kind of source for your argument, so Im inclined to believe that you may not really know what your talking about.
If what youre saying is true, and I cant verify that either way, it should be fairly easy to provide a reliable source of info for confirmation.

He gave them light-water nuke plants, which are the easiest nuke plants to get the mats for a nuclear bomb from.
Ahem...what?
Do you know what "mats for a nuclear bomb" are? Do you know how they are created? Do you know how much that has to do with LWRs?

What would you have done - gave them a breeder? :rolleyes:

He gave them nuclear power plants, from wich, your implying, these weapons were made?

Not quite.

A Nuclear power plant cannot provide weapons grade plutonium.
They generally run on plutonium rods, not weapons grade materials.

However, you still didnt provide any kind of source for your argument, so Im inclined to believe that you may not really know what your talking about.
If what youre saying is true, and I cant verify that either way, it should be fairly easy to provide a reliable source of info for confirmation.

There was a study done by the US in 1976, later discovered by SIPRI, that noted that it wasn't necessary to have weapons grade material to make a functional nuclear bomb. You only needed to design the drivers properly - and it would work with material as low as 50% enriched.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-2.html

4.2.3.2 Minimum Fissile Content

The contrasting approach to minimizing size is to make a small explosion in the most efficient way as possible. This means applying the same principles as high efficiency design, but simply reducing the amount of fissile material to reduce the yield. The mass of the implosion system, and the tamper/reflector in this case will result in greater overall mass and volume, even though the fissile material weight is reduced.

Using an advanced flying plate design it is possible to compress a 1 kg plutonium mass sufficiently to produce a yield in the 100 ton range. This design has an important implication on the type of fissile material that can be used. The high compression implies fast insertion times, while the low mass implies a low Pu-240 content. Taken together this means that a much higher Pu-240 content than normal weapon grade plutonium could be used in this type of design without affecting performance. In fact ordinary reactor grade plutonium would be as effective as weapon grade material for this use. Fusion boosting could produce yields exceeding 1 kt with this system.

There was a study done by the US in 1976, later discovered by SIPRI, that noted that it wasn't necessary to have weapons grade material to make a functional nuclear bomb. You only needed to design the drivers properly - and it would work with material as low as 50% enriched.
Your source talks about Plutonium - to my knowledge LWRs can't create Plutonium though, they can only be fuelled with it.
But assuming that they could've used Uranium 235, 50% enriched to make a bomb (I don't think the DPRK is that good with nuclear engineering...), what difference would it make to have a LWR that can turn 235 into toxic waste?
You'd still need some sort of enrichment facility.

Your source talks about Plutonium - to my knowledge LWRs can't create Plutonium though, they can only be fuelled with it.
But assuming that they could've used Uranium 235, 50% enriched to make a bomb (I don't think the DPRK is that good with nuclear engineering...), what difference would it make to have a LWR that can turn 235 into toxic waste?
You'd still need some sort of enrichment facility.

Don't know about North Korea, but US LWRs use plutonium (in fact, we're using a lot of diluted material from the former Soviet Union's arsenal right now).

Making roughly enriched plutonium isn't that hard - you don't even need a centrifuge to do it.

Don't know about North Korea, but US LWRs use plutonium (in fact, we're using a lot of diluted material from the former Soviet Union's arsenal right now).

Making roughly enriched plutonium isn't that hard - you don't even need a centrifuge to do it.

So how on earth is giving a light water reactor linked to making plutonium or for that matter, a working nuclear weapon? It would be like saying because somebody built an IC engine (internal combustion), he also created petrol.

So how on earth is giving a light water reactor linked to making plutonium or for that matter, a working nuclear weapon? It would be like saying because somebody built an IC engine (internal combustion), he also created petrol.

SIPRI noted that since most LWR fuel contains plutonium, and is at least 65 percent enriched "as is", you don't need to "make plutonium" in order to make a bomb.

You only have to take the fuel out of the reactor and use it.

Don't know about North Korea, but US LWRs use plutonium (in fact, we're using a lot of diluted material from the former Soviet Union's arsenal right now).

Making roughly enriched plutonium isn't that hard - you don't even need a centrifuge to do it.
Indeed. My issue (and Backwood's presumably) was with Ravenshrike accusing Clinton of giving them LWRs: "the easiest to make mats for nuclear weapons from".
That is clearly not true. If Clinton had given them Breeder Reactors, which break U-238 down into fissable materials on the side, then okay.
But if they only get an LWR, and they have to import the necessary Uranium/Plutonium to run it, then the risk is the same whether they have the reactor or not.

Nuclear Physics is not my specialty, merely a hobby I had when I was a little younger. I know how to turn Uranium into proper U-235 fuel (in theory), but I don't know much about Plutonium, other than that it is some nasty stuff. I'll take your word for it.

EDIT: I found a link!
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/dprk/final_cox.html

Don't know about North Korea, but US LWRs use plutonium (in fact, we're using a lot of diluted material from the former Soviet Union's arsenal right now).

Making roughly enriched plutonium isn't that hard - you don't even need a centrifuge to do it.

So, at best, if what you say is true, Korea can produce low-yield uranium.
Something akin to "yellow-cake".
Best used in dirty bombs, not nuclear armaments.

Still, I havent seen any proof that these plants you say Clinton provided for Korea, are capable of producing, or enriching weapons grade nuclear materials.

SIPRI noted that since most LWR fuel contains plutonium, and is at least 65 percent enriched "as is", you don't need to "make plutonium" in order to make a bomb.

You only have to take the fuel out of the reactor and use it.

And the Clinton administration provided the fuel to run this reactor or did NK import it on it's own?

So, at best, if what you say is true, Korea can produce low-yield uranium.
Something akin to "yellow-cake".
Best used in dirty bombs, not nuclear armaments.

Still, I havent seen any proof that these plants you say Clinton provided for Korea, are capable of producing, or enriching weapons grade nuclear materials.

I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I'm saying that if you provide them with a standard US light water reactor, the fuel in that reactor will be usable as nuclear weapons material without any modification other than machining to the proper shape, given a proper "flying plate" design.

Under the Clinton agreements, when we provide them with the LWR, we would also be providing them with the fuel. Exxon is one of the primary producers of fuel rods in the US - rods that fit US reactors and contain other alloys necessary to work properly.

I'm not saying anything of the sort.

I'm saying that if you provide them with a standard US light water reactor, the fuel in that reactor will be usable as nuclear weapons material without any modification other than machining to the proper shape, given a proper "flying plate" design.

Under the Clinton agreements, when we provide them with the LWR, we would also be providing them with the fuel. Exxon is one of the primary producers of fuel rods in the US - rods that fit US reactors and contain other alloys necessary to work properly.


So did Exxon, under the Clinton agreement, provide Korea with the nessecary fuel rods?

Are they, in fact, using Light Water Reactors, powered by materials that have been, in fact, used in nuclear weapons?

Under the Clinton agreements, when we provide them with the LWR, we would also be providing them with the fuel.
That being said, we're under Bush now, and Bush is giving them two LWRs in return for them stopping to build bombs (oh well, we'll see...)
And besides, did Clinton's reactors ever actually get built? I thought they only had graphite (MAGNOX) reactors at this point.

So did Exxon, under the Clinton agreement, provide Korea with the nessecary fuel rods?

Are they, in fact, using Light Water Reactors, powered by materials that have been, in fact, used in nuclear weapons?

Fuel rods made from nuclear weapons materials are diluted - you don't need 95 percent enrichment to run a reactor. But as was proven in the 1970s, you don't need "weapons grade" material to make a nuclear weapon. It just makes it possible to build a smaller, more efficient bomb - small is a priority if you want to put one in a suitcase. But if you have a rocket, a larger bomb only means a shorter range - and you can compensate by building a larger rocket.

Once a rocket can transport a payload of around a ton, it doesn't matter if you have access to weapons grade material or not. All you need is commercial fuel.

That being said, we're under Bush now, and Bush is giving them two LWRs in return for them stopping to build bombs (oh well, we'll see...)
And besides, did Clinton's reactors ever actually get built? I thought they only had graphite (MAGNOX) reactors at this point.

As far as the Bush administration goes, North Korea has to return to the NPT, which would mean handing over their current arsenal and nuclear material to the IAEA, and submit to constant inspection.

After which, the US provides LWR.

Do you actually believe, considering North Korea's recent statements, that they actually intend to take the first step?

Those reactors will never get to North Korea, because they won't give up their bombs.

Fuel rods made from nuclear weapons materials are diluted - you don't need 95 percent enrichment to run a reactor. But as was proven in the 1970s, you don't need "weapons grade" material to make a nuclear weapon. It just makes it possible to build a smaller, more efficient bomb - small is a priority if you want to put one in a suitcase. But if you have a rocket, a larger bomb only means a shorter range - and you can compensate by building a larger rocket.

Once a rocket can transport a payload of around a ton, it doesn't matter if you have access to weapons grade material or not. All you need is commercial fuel.


Thats informative, but it didnt answer either question.

So did Exxon, under the Clinton agreement, provide Korea with the nessecary fuel rods?

Are they, in fact, using Light Water Reactors, powered by materials that have been, in fact, used in nuclear weapons?

If the light water reactors were provided (I know they agreed to build them - but whether they were actually built is another question), then Exxon would have been the provider at the US end. Other countries, especially France, also market fuel rods.

Rods made from former nuclear weapons pits are in use in the US. They are indistiguishable in content from ordinary commerical rods - they have the same concentration of nuclear material.

So, if they have LWRs, and they were provided by the US, and if the fuel is US fuel, it's very possible.

But as I said - you do not need "weapons grade" material to make a weapon. It is completely irrelevant if the fuel in their reactors previously came from weapons.

What I want to know from everyone is, why is it "bashing" if its true?
It isn't true. I remember weapons being found. Of course, our liberal media only covered it for about 2 seconds, then it was yanked off the air. As far as the rest of these so called statistics, I'd like to see the source. Statistics are usually about as useful as wet toilet paper for actually proving anything. You can really twist them to support just about any view, providing you have all the information, and you do not give all the information to the people you are trying to sway.

It isn't true. I remember weapons being found. Of course, our liberal media only covered it for about 2 seconds, then it was yanked off the air. .


No you dont.

If you did, you could easily find a link to a news organization with some credibilty that would show this to be the case.

Have at it.

That should keep you busy for a while.

Those reactors will never get to North Korea, because they won't give up their bombs.
Nonetheless, according to my quick research just then, all reactors in the DPRK at this point in time are outdated designs that they more or less built themselves.
So nobody can blame Clinton for announcing that they might get US-LWRs anymore than they can blame Bush.

Nonetheless, according to my quick research just then, all reactors in the DPRK at this point in time are outdated designs that they more or less built themselves.
So nobody can blame Clinton for announcing that they might get US-LWRs anymore than they can blame Bush.

You'll notice, if you read the thread carefully, that someone else is blaming Clinton, not me. Please make sure you read the thread carefully.

I don't believe for a second, however, than any agreement with North Korea is worth pursuing. The moment they finished signing this most recent one, they immediately announced that they wouldn't go through with it "unless".

They have no intention of going through with the agreement.

If the light water reactors were provided (I know they agreed to build them - but whether they were actually built is another question), then Exxon would have been the provider at the US end. Other countries, especially France, also market fuel rods.

Rods made from former nuclear weapons pits are in use in the US. They are indistiguishable in content from ordinary commerical rods - they have the same concentration of nuclear material.

So, if they have LWRs, and they were provided by the US, and if the fuel is US fuel, it's very possible.

But as I said - you do not need "weapons grade" material to make a weapon. It is completely irrelevant if the fuel in their reactors previously came from weapons.

So the question comes down to wether or not Korea is using LWR's, provided under the Clinton admin.

Anyone know if this is the case?

So the question comes down to wether or not Korea is using LWR's, provided under the Clinton admin.

Anyone know if this is the case?

You'll have to argue that with someone else. I'm not the one "blaming Clinton" in this thread. I'm just pointing out that commercial reactors, with only a few exceptions, contain usable nuclear material for weapons.

You'll notice, if you read the thread carefully, that someone else is blaming Clinton, not me. Please make sure you read the thread carefully.
Sorry if that came across the wrong way. I didn't mean "you" as in you personally, I meant "you" as in the German "man", meaning anyone.
I was aware that it had been Ravenshrike who'd made the initial allegation. :)

You'll have to argue that with someone else. I'm not the one "blaming Clinton" in this thread. I'm just pointing out that commercial reactors, with only a few exceptions, contain usable nuclear material for weapons.

Yah, I know you werent the the one accusing Clinton, but you did provide some information on the use of LWR's in weapons making.

Even such, it doesnt appear the poster who did make the accusations, has much merit to them.

Yah, I know you werent the the one accusing Clinton, but you did provide some information on the use of LWR's in weapons making.

Even such, it doesnt appear the poster who did make the accusations, has much merit to them.

I don't believe for a second that any US President would have actually gone through with giving them working reactors.

And my reason is that North Korea would never have gone through with their end of the deal, making the US end of the deal a no go.

Sure, promise the North Koreans anything. You'll never have to give it to them, because they won't uphold their end.

No you dont.

If you did, you could easily find a link to a news organization with some credibilty that would show this to be the case.

Have at it.

That should keep you busy for a while.
You mean something like this? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html

What I want to know from everyone is, why is it "bashing" if its true?
It is only called 'bashing' by those who would support any bastard whom they elected and whom they would support to the very end. It's called the 'leader principle (Führer-prinzip). Those who believe that a democracy should reflect the will of the people - who believe that a democratic government should not use and abuse its people - who believe that no government should loot the national treasury to line the pockets of its corporate supporters, etc., they have every right to want to see the end of the Bush régime. Unfortunately, in a presidential republic like the USA, the parliamentary safeguards are lacking so that Bush can do whatever he wants with impunity during his tenure in office.

Ok then where did the stuff go? All Iraqis are going to keep quiet about it?

That is, of course, the great unanswered question. My personal belief is that 30% never existed - it was fraud within the Iraq munitions industry. Another 30 is still hidden in Iraq and the rest went to Syria.

High explosives and inciendaries are not enough anymore?

Not with some of the munitions involved. I was led to believe at the time that one of the agents listed even we cannot destroy without weeks of work in a chemical lab.

It is only called 'bashing' by those who would support any bastard whom they elected and whom they would support to the very end. It's called the 'leader principle (Führer-prinzip). Those who believe that a democracy should reflect the will of the people - who believe that a democratic government should not use and abuse its people - who believe that no government should loot the national treasury to line the pockets of its corporate supporters, etc., they have every right to want to see the end of the Bush régime. Unfortunately, in a presidential republic like the USA, the parliamentary safeguards are lacking so that Bush can do whatever he wants with impunity during his tenure in office.

In the US, it doesn't matter who is elected President - the corporations always win. Whether Clinton is President, or Bush is President - the corporations give money to BOTH sides.

You mean something like this? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
Yawn. Same old Fox News bullshit. It's interesting how the officials all told "Fox News" of their findings. They didnt tell a press conference, or the general public.. Just Fox. Strange.

Yawn. Same old Fox News bullshit. It's interesting how the officials all told "Fox News" of their findings. They didnt tell a press conference, or the general public.. Just Fox. Strange.

Well, here in the US, if you can't find actual news, you either have to get it direct from "officials", which means you have to kiss their ass, or you have to make it up out of whole cloth like USA Today and the New York Times were caught doing.

Yes, Fox News is biased. But don't believe for a fraction of a second that any other major news organization is free from bias.

Is it me or isn't sarin what Aum Shinrikyo used in the Tokyo subway attack?

In other words, it can't be that hard to make.

Is it me or isn't sarin what Aum Shinrikyo used in the Tokyo subway attack?

In other words, it can't be that hard to make.

There are many useful toxins that are easier to make. Sarin, though, is not terribly difficult to make. Just difficult to make well. They didn't get as concentrated a solution as they had hoped for.

Had it been very well made, no one would have escaped the subway.

Using toxins in a confined space increases the types of materials you can use. Some toxins are ineffective in open air because they never reach lethal concentrations, or have a smell which warns people away. People trapped in a skyscraper with windows that don't open, or in underground stations have nowhere to run to get air.

*Homer snoring*
Change the channel, Marge!

1. 1,841 -- the number of soldiers killed in Iraq as of August 12, 2005

2. $300 billion -- spent on the Iraq war as of August 12, 2005

3. 0 -- number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq

4. 4 -- the multiple by which North Korea has increased its nuclear weapons arsenal while George Bush led us into Iraq

5. $236 billion -- the surplus President Bill Clinton left George Bush

6. $333 billion -- the current deficit under George Bush.

7. 1 in 5 --the number of American children below the povertly line -- an increase of 13% since George Bush took office.

8. 5 million --the number of people who have lost their health insurance since George Bush took office.

9. 0 -- the number of mistakes George Bush admits to making in his first term.

They've done enough damage. Let's make their days numbered.

Here is some worse numbers
1 8,175 6 Month Toll of Iraqi Civilians by Insurgents
On the 30th June 2005
In an interview with CNN, Iraqi Interior Minister Baqir Jabbur said "terrorists" had killed 8,175 people and wounded another 12,000 since January 2005.

According to the U.S. Department of Defense, there have been 307 U.S. fatalities in combat during the same period.

2 $177.39 Amount Britney Spears paid for a steak for her Chihuahua, and the resturant chefs complained

Britney Spears ordered the prime cut of meat when she took Chihuahua Bitbit out for a gourmet meal at the Picasso restaurant in Las Vegas' Bellagio Hotel. .

However, top chef Julian Serrano - who usually only prepares food for the rich and famous - had no idea who he was cooking the steak for, and colleagues claim there is no way he would have prepared it if he had known. .

One said: "Julian is one of the top chefs in the US. The idea of him having to cook for a Chihuahua is ridiculous. Just as well no-one told him where his dish was destined. It was a total insult to his talent." .

3 1.95 tons Uranium removed from Iraq
07 July
WASHINGTON — In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium (search) and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb (search), the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (search) described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

The haul included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical and industrial purposes, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.

Much of the material "was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed," said Wilkes.

The statement provided only scant details about the material taken from Iraq, but said it included "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources" that "could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device," or dirty bomb.

Also ferried out of Iraq was 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, the department said.

So what? If they want change then they should get on with it. If poverty is a proble (one of the items mentioned) then it is at a local level that the work has to start.



And if people always wait for the top to change then there will be no change. People have to build from the roots up if they want to get things done.
Right. And changing things from the grassroots is why we have Congressional elections. :rolleyes:

(I was out for a while -- just getting caught up.)

If you truly think America would have effectively surrenderred to anyone, forgive me, but you are a fool.

Any President, regardless of political leanings would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11.
However, you may want to ask yourself why we still havent captured the man responsible,
It could be becuase Bush choose to invade Iraq, although they had nothing to do with 9/11.
Excellent point. It didn't take Bush long to go from a total commitment to bring in bin Ladin dead or alive to shrugging him off with remarks about how he doesn't know where he is and doesn't really care. :mad:

Excellent point. It didn't take Bush long to go from a total commitment to bring in bin Ladin dead or alive to shrugging him off with remarks about how he doesn't know where he is and doesn't really care. :mad:

It may be because the act of killing off 75 percent of the known al-Q membership was a more pressing matter. That, and given the diffuse nature of the organization, it is better to kill all of them than to kill any one particular leader.

Killing Bin Laden would, in effect, accomplish little except making him a martyr.

It may be because the act of killing off 75 percent of the known al-Q membership was a more pressing matter. That, and given the diffuse nature of the organization, it is better to kill all of them than to kill any one particular leader.

Killing Bin Laden would, in effect, accomplish little except making him a martyr.
bin Ladin is unimportant because he has no ability to recruit new al-Q membership? Or is it because we know from recent experience that once you break an organization it will never recover, regroup and come at you again? Then why are we fighting an insurgency in Iraq, fighting Taliban in Afghanistan, and dealing with al-Q instigated/inspired bombings in other countries?

And who said anything about killing bin Ladin? He would be far more valuable to the "war against terror" as a live prisoner, convicted under international law -- for his crimes against Muslims as well as "infidels."

bin Ladin is unimportant because he has no ability to recruit new al-Q membership? Or is it because we know from recent experience that once you break an organization it will never recover, regroup and come at you again? Then why are we fighting an insurgency in Iraq, fighting Taliban in Afghanistan, and dealing with al-Q instigated/inspired bombings in other countries?

And who said anything about killing bin Ladin? He would be far more valuable to the "war against terror" as a live prisoner, convicted under international law -- for his crimes against Muslims as well as "infidels."

Killing the members of the organization - all of them - is far more important.

The only reason we're not making the progress you so desperately seek is because we're not sufficiently ruthless.

If you believe that killing Bin Laden would stop the global insurgency at all, you're dreaming.

Killing the members of the organization - all of them - is far more important.

The only reason we're not making the progress you so desperately seek is because we're not sufficiently ruthless.

If you believe that killing Bin Laden would stop the global insurgency at all, you're dreaming.
I don't go around wishing I could kill people. That's the difference between me and a terrorist. Not the case with you, apparently, or with the Bush admin. Since you all think the same way the terrorists do, its no wonder you can't figure out how to stop terrorism. :headbang:

The military should stage a coup d'etat, oust Bush, and appoint Ron Paul as head of a provisional government.

I don't go around wishing I could kill people. That's the difference between me and a terrorist. Not the case with you, apparently, or with the Bush admin. Since you all think the same way the terrorists do, its no wonder you can't figure out how to stop terrorism. :headbang:

There you go confusing morality with logic again.

Winning is all about game theory. It has little to do with morality.

And it's obvious that the Bush administration does not think as I do, or we would never have gone to Iraq, and most of the Middle East would have been depopulated after 9-11. We would have been several years into the re-colonization of empty land.

The military should stage a coup d'etat, oust Bush, and appoint Ron Paul as head of a provisional government.
Uh, no, they shouldn't. But points for a less horrible attitude than some others here. :)

There you go confusing morality with logic again.

Winning is all about game theory. It has little to do with morality.

And it's obvious that the Bush administration does not think as I do, or we would never have gone to Iraq, and most of the Middle East would have been depopulated after 9-11. We would have been several years into the re-colonization of empty land.
Your statements are disgusting. This is the last time I will respond to anything you say, but I will keep track of you. It's important to know what one's enemies are doing.

Uh, no, they shouldn't. But points for a less horrible attitude than some others here. :)

It may be the only way to save the country, before Bush destroys it.

It may be the only way to save the country, before Bush destroys it.

That's what quite a few military officers used to say openly during the Clinton Administration.

That's what quite a few military officers used to say openly during the Clinton Administration.

We need a libertarian, constitutionalist government willing to roll back the government to the de-centralized, federalist, limited one the Founders intended.

We need a libertarian, constitutionalist government willing to roll back the government to the de-centralized, federalist, limited one the Founders intended.

Well, I can't argue with that. My cup of tea.

But, it wouldn't be easy. Too many people in the country are used to the government living their life for them and telling them what to do. It would be like unplugging them from the Matrix - they would actively resist being disconnected.

It may be the only way to save the country, before Bush destroys it.
Try to take a broader view. Bush himself is not destroying the country. The group calling themselves neo-conservatives, in connection with corporate money interests are destroying the country. They have been in operation, as a group, since Nixon, and have influence at all levels of government and in private enterprise. Bush is nothing but the spokesmodel du jour. Jailing him, though satisfying and appropriate, imo, will not affect neo-con activities. We must take a more holistic, long-term approach.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Violating the Constitution will accomplish nothing but to make your side as crooked and self-serving as theirs.

Try to take a broader view. Bush himself is not destroying the country. The group calling themselves neo-conservatives, in connection with corporate money interests are destroying the country. They have been in operation, as a group, since Nixon, and have influence at all levels of government and in private enterprise. Bush is nothing but the spokesmodel du jour. Jailing him, though satisfying and appropriate, imo, will not affect neo-con activities. We must take a more holistic, long-term approach.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Violating the Constitution will accomplish nothing but to make your side as crooked and self-serving as theirs.

I don't want him jailed. I want him to be deposed in a bloodless coup, and then forced to fade into obscurity. Him, and all other neoconservatives.