NationStates Jolt Archive

He insulted the optomistic Democrats!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html?hp

He insulted the optomistic Democrats!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html?hp

That's why he's a bad person.

He insulted the optomistic Democrats!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html?hp

Enough already! I'm tired of people insulting Bush. Yes he's a bad president and a moron but insulting him isn't helping and it's getting anoying! Leave the stupid bastard alone!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

He insulted the optomistic Democrats!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html?hp


Eh, what's new? Democrat and liberal are dirty filthy words ya know??? After 5 yrs of democrat bashing, I'm use to it... Actually, I expect it now...

Enough already! I'm tired of people insulting Bush. Yes he's a bad president and a moron but insulting him isn't helping and it's getting anoying! Leave the stupid bastard alone!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Right, so we shouldn't ever say bad things about a person that we believe to be doing the wrong thing? ;)

Enough already! I'm tired of people insulting Bush. Yes he's a bad president and a moron but insulting him isn't helping and it's getting anoying! Leave the stupid bastard alone!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I with ya there, but its still fun... I mean, he can't possibly do anymore damage to this country than he's already done... It's smooth sailing from here on out folks....

I with ya there, but its still fun... I mean, he can't possibly do anymore damage to this country than he's already done... It's smooth sailing from here on out folks....

No no no Don't jinx it!!!!!!

The president acknowledged slow progress in restoring basic services in Iraq, but argued that those problems paled in comparison to the progress he said Iraq was making.

How slow?

Put it this way, the occupation started three years ago.

Now that's what I call so Goddamn slow I can only imagine the entire American military-industrial complex moving like Lee Majors in a re-run of the Six Million Dollar Man.

How slow?

Put it this way, the occupation started three years ago.

Now that's what I call so Goddamn slow I can only imagine the entire American military-industrial complex moving like Lee Majors in a re-run of the Six Million Dollar Man.

Takes less than a month to destroy Iraq and 3+ yrs to rebuild it...

No, Medellina, you should say such things as it is human.

But being a smart ass like you and mis-reading his post is something you shouldn't do.

Translation of what he said, for those Democrats who have their Reasoning Filter on,:

I am getting tired of people always insulting Bush.

Yes, he is a flipping moron and deserves to get his ass kicked, but do you REALLY think that these little posts will start some revolution that will change America for ever?

Do you HONESTLY think that posting on a European based Forum is going to convince Bush to step down from his Presidency.

Do you even possibly THINK at all?

Why can't you accept the fact that we have an idiot in charge, and let the next three years fly. Keep him in check, but stop it with these threads.

--

Sorry, actually that is what I had to say. Not what the other person said.

Watch, it'll be the same way in three years with some Democratic president who will ACTUALLY do something idiotic and you will be saying what I am saying and acting like YOUR President is a God, which btw I don't think Bush is MY God...I just think he is someone doing the right thing...just not in the right way.

You rabid anti-Bush folks make me laugh. I've never heard one of you coherently give a reason to hate our president. My mind remains open. As it has been for five years.

P.S. It's optimistic.

You rabid anti-Bush folks make me laugh. I've never heard one of you coherently give a reason to hate our president. My mind remains open. As it has been for five years.

P.S. It's optimistic.

Honestly: I just hate republicans...

You rabid anti-Bush folks make me laugh. I've never heard one of you coherently give a reason to hate our president. My mind remains open. As it has been for five years.

P.S. It's optimistic.
There's a difference between an open mind and being openly gullible.

edit: And you might look into procuring a hearing-aid.

You know, when Lincoln was fighting the Civil War, he was unpopular and was fighting an unpopular war. Now he is considered one of the best presidents and even has a memorial in washington.

Leave Bush alone. Other presidents have done worse and he is doing the best with the situation (even though he may have been the one who put himself in said situation.)

Has the draft come back yet? when it has get back to me.

[QUOTE=Eastern Coast Americathe optomistic Democrats!/QUOTE]

? *puzzled look*

:confused:

You know, when Lincoln was fighting the Civil War, he was unpopular and was fighting an unpopular war. Now he is considered one of the best presidents and even has a memorial in washington.
Okay, so let's see Bush emancipate homosexuals, and maybe History won't savage him during the 21st century.

You rabid anti-Bush folks make me laugh. I've never heard one of you coherently give a reason to hate our president. My mind remains open. As it has been for five years.


1/ managing to leave the USA diplomatically isolated _after_ an awful terrorist attack is an act of special stupidity.
2/ imprisoning people without trial.
3/ torturing suspects for answers.
4/ the war in Iraq.
5/ spying on his own citizens and eroding their civil liberties.
6/ leaving America as the most despised government on earth - when _Mugabe's_ still around - makes it very unpleasant for Americans to live or holiday abroad.

The list goes on, but my boredom threshold doesn't :)

the optomistic Democrats!

? *puzzled look*

:confused:

sorry first one got messed up and edit's not working

? *puzzled look*

:confused:

sorry first one got messed up and edit's not working

Oh. I should explain that.

we(I) think Bush is a stubborn idiot.
I would be a lot happier if he stated that we went to war with Iraq over oil. Then again, I probably played too much civ 3 and 4

No, Medellina, you should say such things as it is human.

But being a smart ass like you and mis-reading his post is something you shouldn't do.
It's more flattering to him than reading his posts accurately, dear.

Translation of what he said, for those Democrats who have their Reasoning Filter on,:
I have only recently heard of irony and want to show off. How dare these liberals think they're smarter than us neocons because they have Matt Groening!

I am getting tired of people always insulting Bush.
You shouldn't have voted the stupid **** into power, then.

Do you HONESTLY think that posting on a European based Forum is going to convince Bush to step down from his Presidency.
No, but it's a lot less likely to lead to the NSA tapping your phone than doing the same on an American forum. Ain't life grand?

Why can't you accept the fact that we have an idiot in charge, and let the next three years fly. Keep him in check, but stop it with these threads.
Keep him in check how? Congress can't.

Watch, it'll be the same way in three years with some Democratic president who will ACTUALLY do something idiotic and you will be saying what I am saying and acting like YOUR President is a God, which btw I don't think Bush is MY God...I just think he is someone doing the right thing...just not in the right way.
No, I'm quite happy to have a go at Democrats when they do something stupid.




Plurie: we don't feel that we need to until one of you little Republican catamites can offer a solid explanation of why he isn't a cheating lying fuckwit who shouldn't be trusted to run a piss up in a brewery, let alone a country.

Bush isn't why the world hates the US. It's the power of the US government and military. We're a superpower-the only one left. I will tell you something that's always been true:
When somebody needs you, you're that person's friend if, and only if, you help that person. Whatever you do will never be enough. You'll be hated for not doing more. You'll be liked for not doing less. If you want the world to like you, you better be a pretty strong pussy. After all, the world hates you if you stand up and think for yourself, and it also hates you if you can't provide. If you end up with more, you're automatically accused of profitting from bad circumstances. If you pick a side, the other side hates you. If you call neutrality, both sides hate you. If you side with the terrorists, you'll have a cruise missile up your ass. If you side with anyone who isn't a terrorist, al queida will be planning how to blow your ass to timbuktu. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't and you'll be public enemy #1 if you don't kiss ass. Isn't life grand?

Here's another piece of my wisdom:
Your friends will leave you if you're in need
Congress won't do shit so it can blame the president
If you're not a liberal/democrat, you're racist
at least that's what African American leaders insist
If you stick up for what is right, you'll be strong
but everyone else will say you're wrong
When it comes to school, don't get me started
because they only care if you're retarded
and that doesn't mean dyslexia
because the world will always hate America
you're damned if you do and damned if you don't
but you'll be even more screwed if you won't
kiss ass, so you better make the world glad
even though it will always be mad...
at you

Why do democrats hate Bush? Mainly because of politics. You see, if you're a Republican or an Independent, democrats will hate you if you have much power.

Bush isn't why the world hates the US. It's the power of the US government and military. We're a superpower-the only one left...

Funny how we -in the UK - generally liked you fine when Clinton was in power...?

Elgesh']Funny how we -in the UK - generally liked you fine when Clinton was in power...?

Ahhh, yes, the good ol'days, when we were friends.....

Ahhh, yes, the good ol'days, when we were friends.....
Aawww...! Well, we still like _you_, of course! :D

Elgesh']Aawww...! Well, we still like _you_, of course! :D

Always remember... Just because DC does it doesn't mean the rest of us like it.... Feel free to hate my government and the 61 million that kept them in power... But don't forget there are some sane people in this country...

Bush isn't why the world hates the US. It's the power of the US government and military. We're a superpower-the only one left. I will tell you something that's always been true:
When somebody needs you, you're that person's friend if, and only if, you help that person. Whatever you do will never be enough. You'll be hated for not doing more. You'll be liked for not doing less. If you want the world to like you, you better be a pretty strong pussy. After all, the world hates you if you stand up and think for yourself, and it also hates you if you can't provide. If you end up with more, you're automatically accused of profitting from bad circumstances. If you pick a side, the other side hates you. If you call neutrality, both sides hate you. If you side with the terrorists, you'll have a cruise missile up your ass. If you side with anyone who isn't a terrorist, al queida will be planning how to blow your ass to timbuktu. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't and you'll be public enemy #1 if you don't kiss ass. Isn't life grand?
If the American government feels that realpolitik is more than it can deal with, it should keep its nose out of everybody else's business. Until such time as that happens, shut up whining and live with the consequences.

I with ya there, but its still fun... I mean, he can't possibly do anymore damage to this country than he's already done... It's smooth sailing from here on out folks....

Well...


"Bush went on to attack the Democrats' policies.
Bush: 'Their agenda is to increase federal taxes, to build a wall around this country and to isolate America from the rest of the world.'
Hmm. So you're concerned the Democrats might do something that would damage America's standing in the world. Interesting...that you would think that's still possible."

I mean, he can't possibly do anymore damage to this country than he's already done...

That is optomistic.

Elgesh']Funny how we -in the UK - generally liked you fine when Clinton was in power...?

Of course half of the Americans started hating him due to some sex incident.

WHY THE HELL DOES THAT MATTER
-ahem-

Of course half of the Americans started hating him due to some sex incident.

WHY THE HELL DOES THAT MATTER
-ahem-

Actually, Clinton's approval rating during the impeachment proceedings was around 70%.

America: Boo Bush!
George W. Bush: Hey Cheney, what is it the people are saying? it sounds like '"boo Bush."
Dick Cheney: Uh.. no sir, they are saying.. uhh.. Boo-ush! Yeah, Boo-ush!
George W. Bush: Well then, boo-ush! Boo-ush!

Elgesh']1/ managing to leave the USA diplomatically isolated _after_ an awful terrorist attack is an act of special stupidity.
2/ imprisoning people without trial.
3/ torturing suspects for answers.
4/ the war in Iraq.
5/ spying on his own citizens and eroding their civil liberties.
6/ leaving America as the most despised government on earth - when _Mugabe's_ still around - makes it very unpleasant for Americans to live or holiday abroad.

The list goes on, but my boredom threshold doesn't :)

1) The "sympathy" after 9/11 wasn't genuine sympathy. It was pity. There's a big freakin' difference. Pity is when you're willing to look at a person/situation and say, "Isn't that a shame?", mainly because that's what anyone with a heart would have to do. Sympathy is when you actually feel affiliation with a person, and feel their pain. Pity is a mile wide and an inch deep. That's why a lot of the U.S. "allies" made such a 180 when U.S. interests in toppling Saddam Hussein didn't match their own. (I'm thinking specifically of Russia, France, and Germany.) Whatever "sympathy" those nations had were wiped out by the oil contracts that Iraq gave them pre-war. There were already 12 years of a violated ceasefire and U.N. resolutions -- ample justification for his toppling. The aforementioned powers just didn't want to be bothered, because it was more than they were willing to do. Meanwhile, who bore the lion's share of the duty guarding the no-fly zones and making sure sanctions were upheld? Americans, that's who.

As for Clinton: The Europeans liked Clinton because under Clinton the U.S. never exercised any real power. Sure, he lobbed a few cruise missiles, but when it came right down to it, he didn't have the stomach to do what needed to be done -- in Iraq, Somalia, or anywhere else, with the possible exception of Haiti. (You could give him credit for Yugoslavia, but how much credit does he deserve, given how bad it actually got before he did something?)

Bottom line: Under Clinton (and to a lesser extent, George Bush 41) sanctions were put on Iraq that lead directly to the death of 500,000 Iraqis. By the last count, 475,000 of these Iraqis would not have died if we'd just picked the war up where it left off when Hussein started screwing around.

Let me remind everyone: The sanctions were there because of Saddam's refusal to give up his weapons programs and submit to inspections. So the exact same conditions that lead to the war were in place for 12 years. The only difference is that the sanctions starved innocent Iraqis and crumbled the infrastructure. Ergo, Clinton has killed far more Iraqis than G.W. Bush could even dream of killing on a good day, because he didn't get it over with and resume the war.

Sometimes war isn't the worst of all possible outcomes.

1) The "sympathy" after 9/11 wasn't genuine sympathy. It was pity. There's a big freakin' difference. Pity is when you're willing to look at a person/situation and say, "Isn't that a shame?", mainly because that's what anyone with a heart would have to do. Sympathy is when you actually feel affiliation with a person, and feel their pain. Pity is a mile wide and an inch deep. That's why a lot of the U.S. "allies" made such a 180 when U.S. interests in toppling Saddam Hussein didn't match their own. (I'm thinking specifically of Russia, France, and Germany.) Whatever "sympathy" those nations had were wiped out by the oil contracts that Iraq gave them pre-war. There were already 12 years of a violated ceasefire and U.N. resolutions -- ample justification for his toppling. The aforementioned powers just didn't want to be bothered, because it was more than they were willing to do. Meanwhile, who bore the lion's share of the duty guarding the no-fly zones and making sure sanctions were upheld? Americans, that's who.

As for Clinton: The Europeans liked Clinton because under Clinton the U.S. never exercised any real power. Sure, he lobbed a few cruise missiles, but when it came right down to it, he didn't have the stomach to do what needed to be done -- in Iraq, Somalia, or anywhere else, with the possible exception of Haiti. (You could give him credit for Yugoslavia, but how much credit does he deserve, given how bad it actually got before he did something?)

Bottom line: Under Clinton (and to a lesser extent, George Bush 41) sanctions were put on Iraq that lead directly to the death of 500,000 Iraqis. By the last count, 475,000 of these Iraqis would not have died if we'd just picked the war up where it left off when Hussein started screwing around.

Let me remind everyone: The sanctions were there because of Saddam's refusal to give up his weapons programs and submit to inspections. So the exact same conditions that lead to the war were in place for 12 years. The only difference is that the sanctions starved innocent Iraqis and crumbled the infrastructure. Ergo, Clinton has killed far more Iraqis than G.W. Bush could even dream of killing on a good day, because he didn't get it over with and resume the war.

Sometimes war isn't the worst of all possible outcomes.

Blaming deaths in iraq on clinton, because the UN created sanctions on iraq, after george bush senior stopped the war?

Jesus christ in a handbasket.

Even to follow your logic, blame should rest on Saddam(Starting the gulf war in the first place), Kuwait(Assuming they really were slant drilling into iraq, etc, ergo starting the gulf war), the United Nations(Far after Saddam, because they created systems to get food to iraqi's, that saddam and the baathists exploited), then george bush senior, then Clinton(Although I could easily make the argument that clinton was no more to blame than any leader of any nation stronger than Iraq in 1991, after the war ended. Why would clinton have more duty than any other nation to start up a war again?)

I with ya there, but its still fun... I mean, he can't possibly do anymore damage to this country than he's already done... It's smooth sailing from here on out folks....

Can't he?

A lot of his supporters said that he'd make a good president because he'd run the country like a business. Well, no one thought to check how Bush runs businesses. It turns out that he buys functioning businesses then runs them badly, bankrupts them, then sells them for a profit.

He's doing a good job bankrupting the country, and he's even selling it for a profit to the Saudis, the Chinese, and anyone else who can afford a file cabinet full of T-Bills. All that's left is for him to replace the houses of congress with a boardroom and have himself declared CEO before allowing the board to declare a new one to replace him on the way out.

But if a future of rulership under the Saudis or the Chinese troubles you liberal anti-capitalists that resent the corporate future of the USA (conveniently pre-abreviated for the Dow Jones list) then just remember, after running a business into the ground and selling it for a profit, Bush's successors always turned the companies around and made them profitable again. ;)

Can't he?

A lot of his supporters said that he'd make a good president because he'd run the country like a business. Well, no one thought to check how Bush runs businesses. It turns out that he buys functioning businesses then runs them badly, bankrupts them, then sells them for a profit.

He's doing a good job bankrupting the country, and he's even selling it for a profit to the Saudis, the Chinese, and anyone else who can afford a file cabinet full of T-Bills. All that's left is for him to replace the houses of congress with a boardroom and have himself declared CEO before allowing the board to declare a new one to replace him on the way out.

But if a future of rulership under the Saudis or the Chinese troubles you liberal anti-capitalists that resent the corporate future of the USA (conveniently pre-abreviated for the Dow Jones list) then just remember, after running a business into the ground and selling it for a profit, Bush's successors always turned the companies around and made them profitable again. ;)

Every single company Bush has ever run has gone bankrupt... IF it weren't for his Saudi buddies, his companies would've never been bailed out... HEY there's an idea ask the Saudi's to help us out financially... Hell, we can rent out the Congress and the WH... errr wait, they already bought it...

Viva Bush,
President George W Bush and
President Jeb Bush 2008 .

Blaming deaths in iraq on clinton, because the UN created sanctions on iraq, after george bush senior stopped the war?

Jesus christ in a handbasket.

Even to follow your logic, blame should rest on Saddam(Starting the gulf war in the first place), Kuwait(Assuming they really were slant drilling into iraq, etc, ergo starting the gulf war), the United Nations(Far after Saddam, because they created systems to get food to iraqi's, that saddam and the baathists exploited), then george bush senior, then Clinton(Although I could easily make the argument that clinton was no more to blame than any leader of any nation stronger than Iraq in 1991, after the war ended. Why would clinton have more duty than any other nation to start up a war again?)

First, I don't think you can assume that the issue in the Gulf War was slant drilling. If it was slant drilling, a takeover of Kuwait wouldn't have been necessary. Just bomb the wells doing the drilling. No wells, no problem. Kuwait has oil in its own right (and no reason to pick a fight with Iraq). The United Nations does bear a lot of responsibility for the sanctions, but here's the thing: The U.S. has a veto vote in the U.N. You could argue that the other nations that make up the Big Five are equally responsible, but the U.S. at the time had both the vote and the military power to stop the sanctions and restart the war. Restarting the war in 1992 would have been a hell of a lot easier and less costly (to everyone involved) than restarting the war in 2003. And the U.S. should take the leading role in such situations, because it's the U.S. that exerts the most force as a nation in U.N. actions. (The other reason, of course, is that France, Russia, and Germany didn't have any reason to veto the sanctions, because they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.)

Like it or not (and I don't, always) the U.S. is the superpower at this point, so it falls to the U.S. to do the right thing. And in this case, the right thing would have been to go in as soon as the ceasefire conditions were broken.

Viva Bush,
President George W Bush and
President Jeb Bush 2008 .
Viva Fidel.

Viva Fidel.

Good one LOL

Viva Fidel.

Good one LOL.

Let's see.....we The Superpower needed to resume a war with a country led by a man we put in power to keep Iran in check because he was keeping the food that the UN said he could trade for oil to feed the Iraqi people? Wouldn't it have been easier to just lift the sanctions and let Iraq resume normal trade? There were no weapons programs, UN inspectors were on the ground there when we started bombing telling us as much, so that really wasn't even a concern. I just don't understand how you can say that invading a country and killing tens of thousands of its citizens is helping in any way. If WE need to police the world, why didn't we attack Germany or France for dealing with evil Saddam Hussein? Why didn't we try to impose sanctions on them? :confused:

Come on, my joke was classic Simpsons. You all suck.

>_>

Let's see.....we The Superpower needed to resume a war with a country led by a man we put in power to keep Iran in check because he was keeping the food that the UN said he could trade for oil to feed the Iraqi people? Wouldn't it have been easier to just lift the sanctions and let Iraq resume normal trade? There were no weapons programs, UN inspectors were on the ground there when we started bombing telling us as much, so that really wasn't even a concern. I just don't understand how you can say that invading a country and killing tens of thousands of its citizens is helping in any way. If WE need to police the world, why didn't we attack Germany or France for dealing with evil Saddam Hussein? Why didn't we try to impose sanctions on them? :confused:

You're right on at least one account: We did prop him up in the 80's, playing him against Iran. Part of Cold War politics, I guess. But that doesn't change the equation much. Regardless of the fact that we let him stay in power, he needed to go. The Gulf War proved that, if we hadn't gotten the hint before that.

If the sanctions were lifted, there wouldn't be any inspectors. And we knew perfectly well that Hussein had intentions of developing programs. The intent of the sanctions (partially, at least) was to keep materials away from Iraq that could be used to further these programs. (And it turned out the sanctions were porous.) If we had just let Iraq resume normal trade, it would have been the same situation we're having w/ Korea now. We know he had the weapons (that, admittedly, the U.S. and Russia gave him) after the Gulf War because he used them on the Kurds.

And the inspectors weren't saying there weren't any weapons. They were saying they couldn't find any weapons. (If you read the Kay report, they did in fact find programs.) The whole point of the inspection process was supposed to be that the Iraqi government accounted for the weapons, and then had them destroyed in a supervised way. That never happened. And the reason it never happened is because the regime didn't want to give up the ability to reconstitute a program once the sanctions were lifted, and they could resume normal trade. Why else skirt the inspections process? Hans Blix, even while saying he found no weapons, made the salient point very clearly: The inspections were never supposed to be a game of hide-and-go-seek.

As for attacking France and Germany (and Russia, don't forget): My assumption is that we didn't attack or put sanctions against them because we were trying to preserve good European relations. (If you think America is hated now, could you imagine if we had taken that route??)

There were really only 3 choices:

1) Sanctions

Cost in Iraqi lives: 500,000

2) War:

Cost in Iraqi lives:

~ 25,000

3) Leave Saddam in power without sanctions:

Cost in Iraqi lives: Uknowable, but certainly high, as there would have certainly been either:

a) another Gulf War, only this time with Iraq at full strength and with at least chemical weapons
b) War with Israel (with basically the whole Middle East against the whole West) = WWIV
c) War with Iran (with possibly millions dead from chemical and/or nuclear attacks, probably on both sides).

I just don't think there's a scenario where Saddam Hussein decides he's not Saladin after all, and he really doesn't hate Israel or want the riches in Kuwait.

Now, I'll admit that the 25,000 figure for the war, if it was fought in 1992 rather than 2003, might be optimistic. Because our technology wasn't as "smart" as it is now it could've been very much bloodier on their side, and it could've been bloodier on our side if the chemical attacks started in earnest (which probably would've happened, in an all-out war at that time. But nothing I've seen or read convinces me that the toll from a war back then would have been anywhere near the 500,000 lives lost that we saw during the sanctions.

Enough already! I'm tired of people insulting Bush. Yes he's a bad president and a moron but insulting him isn't helping and it's getting anoying! Leave the stupid bastard alone!:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:


This was my best laugh all day. Thanks! :)

The "sympathy" after 9/11 wasn't genuine sympathy. It was pity.
Proof please...who here remembers the services held by people for the victims all over Europe?

That's why a lot of the U.S. "allies" made such a 180 when U.S. interests in toppling Saddam Hussein didn't match their own. (I'm thinking specifically of Russia, France, and Germany.)
Yeah, because Afghanistan was so much in their interest?

Whatever "sympathy" those nations had were wiped out by the oil contracts that Iraq gave them pre-war.
Has anyone ever actually produced these "oil contracts" for my scrutiny? I don't think so.
Fact of the matter is that
a) Russia can certainly do without Iraqi Oil.
b) Western Europe gets most of its oil from the North Sea, followed by Russia, then followed by OPEC (the majority there from North Africa).

You're making shit up.

The aforementioned powers just didn't want to be bothered, because it was more than they were willing to do.
That's right. They were not willing to go to war on unproven grounds. If the reasons you mentioned were actually there, why would Bush even bother with the WMDs?
As it was, he ignored the ceasefire issue and went with the weapons. The only time they actually mentioned the ceasefire was in internal offical documents...not to their people, not to their Allies.

There were, and still are regimes a lot worse than Hussein out there. But you couldn't be bothered with those. Makes you think what you really wanted there, doesn't it?

And finally, regarding the number of Iraqis killed because of Clinton's inaction...wanna bet more people died in Africa because of Western inaction just last year?

As for attacking France and Germany (and Russia, don't forget): My assumption is that we didn't attack or put sanctions against them because we were trying to preserve good European relations. (If you think America is hated now, could you imagine if we had taken that route??)
You have a lot of confidence in US standing in the world, don't you.

The US putting sanctions on the EU would be their death sentence.

"who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil,
Not particularly true.
or because of Israel,
Not true.
or because we misled the American people."
Very, very valid point for Iraq critics.

I like how he throws in the two ridiculous ones with the reasonable one. Clever. :rolleyes:

Cost in Iraqi lives:

~ 25,000
FWIW, that is an absurdly low estimate.

Proof please...who here remembers the services held by people for the victims all over Europe?


Yeah, because Afghanistan was so much in their interest?



I did say Europe displayed pity, didn't I? There's a big difference between the people who show up at a relative's funeral to pay their respects and those who stay with you through the tough times.

And yes, the war in Afghanistan was in their interest. Ask yourself: Who did most of the fighting, and what was the worst that could happen if the Taliban were ousted? Compare that to Iraq. (See above.) It was a completely different situation, because the economic interest for the status quo wasn't nearly as high.



Has anyone ever actually produced these "oil contracts" for my scrutiny? I don't think so.




For your personal scrutiny? Of course not. I have to imagine that quite a few things happen, worldwide, without your personal approval, though. But, since you asked, here are some links:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/1212snub.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2670083.stm

http://english.pravda.ru/comp/2001/10/29/19482.html

http://www.freelists.org/archives/news/12-2002/msg00014.html

Etc., etc.




Fact of the matter is that
a) Russia can certainly do without Iraqi Oil.
b) Western Europe gets most of its oil from the North Sea, followed by Russia, then followed by OPEC (the majority there from North Africa).

You're making shit up.



'Fraid not. See above.



That's right. They were not willing to go to war on unproven grounds. If the reasons you mentioned were actually there, why would Bush even bother with the WMDs?
As it was, he ignored the ceasefire issue and went with the weapons. The only time they actually mentioned the ceasefire was in internal offical documents...not to their people, not to their Allies.



Again, the actual history differs from your memory. Here is an excerpt of Bush's Sept. 12, 2002 speech to the U.N.:

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge — be his deceptions, and by his cruelties — Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities — which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents — all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for — more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Notice the first sentence: "To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. " You can't get much more direct than that. He was being called on the carpet for being in violation of the ceasefire agreement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/12/national/main521781.shtml



There were, and still are regimes a lot worse than Hussein out there. But you couldn't be bothered with those. Makes you think what you really wanted there, doesn't it?


There certainly were worse regimes, and I wouldn't doubt that there are worse regimes now. That's irrelevant, though. The opportunity to take out a dictator and enemy doesn't equate to an obligation to take out all dictators, everywhere. (Chasing down someone who mugs an old lady doesn't obligate you to chase down all muggers, murderers, and rapists.)


And finally, regarding the number of Iraqis killed because of Clinton's inaction...wanna bet more people died in Africa because of Western inaction just last year?


I'm not going to sit here and argue that we're doing all we can for the people in Africa. I don't know enough about it. I do know, however, that we're now spending more on aid and AIDS in Africa than we spent under Clinton, so while more needs to be done, we're certainly doing better. We didn't actively try to make Africans suffer, or let them be chemically attacked. We did both of those things to avoid overthrowing Saddam.

I did say Europe displayed pity, didn't I? There's a big difference between the people who show up at a relative's funeral to pay their respects and those who stay with you through the tough times.
But they did. That's the point - they were serious enough to invoke the NATO clause that an attack on one country is an attack on the whole alliance, for the first time since NATO was started. Unanimously if memory serves.
That's pretty serious commitment right there.

Fact of the matter is that Iraq did not have anything to do with the 2001 attacks, and that the justifications given were not enough for the Allies to follow.
And instead of then working together to resolve it, the Americans made it pretty clear that everyone was supposed to listen, obey and fall in line. As sovereign countries, some nations made the decision not to go, and tried to prevent a war.

And yes, the war in Afghanistan was in their interest. Ask yourself: Who did most of the fighting, and what was the worst that could happen if the Taliban were ousted? Compare that to Iraq. (See above.) It was a completely different situation, because the economic interest for the status quo wasn't nearly as high.
Firstly, the Northern Alliance did most of the fighting.
Secondly, the worst that could have happened was a repeat of the debacle that was the Soviet Invasion. Also there was the risk of the nation simply falling apart, of suicide bombings and all the rest of it.
In Iraq, the prospects were pretty much the same, except that a war would be easier to win in the terrain that is Iraq and against an army that had already been defeated in the second Gulf War.

As for the economic status quo...be honest with yourself. There were sanctions, trading with Iraq was not easy. The ones that did were companies, not governments (although the distinction can be blurred in Russia's case). There is a lot more money to be made in Iraq now in reconstruction than there was by trading with Saddam.
Except that now it's primarily Americans making the dollars, and not foreigners. Maybe that makes all the difference?

For your personal scrutiny? Of course not. I have to imagine that quite a few things happen, worldwide, without your personal approval, though. But, since you asked, here are some links:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/1212snub.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2670083.stm
http://english.pravda.ru/comp/2001/10/29/19482.html
http://www.freelists.org/archives/news/12-2002/msg00014.html
Etc., etc.
Good. That tells me that there was a contract for a Russian oil company which was cancelled. Fair enough.
Not that that contract was big enough to justify the huge moanfest over the war, not that that necessarily proves anything, but fair enough.

And most importantly...what about France and Germany? What about all the other countries which chose not to go along? Did they all have oil contracts too?

'Fraid not. See above.
I'm afraid if you look at the numbers for Oil Imports into those countries, you'll find exactly that.

Again, the actual history differs from your memory. Here is an excerpt of Bush's Sept. 12, 2002 speech to the U.N.:

Notice the first sentence: "To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. " You can't get much more direct than that. He was being called on the carpet for being in violation of the ceasefire agreement.
Then I wonder why they didn't make that the main pillar of their argument. No one could have argued against it, could they?
But they decided to go for the WMDs. With WMDs, you can scare people into supporting the war. Not only that, Powell actually went to the UN and held a big talk on WMDs.

The WMDs were the mainstay of the case for invading Iraq. Most nations on the planet did not believe it, and they turned out right.
The goalposts have been moved many a time since then, but that central fact remains.

There certainly were worse regimes, and I wouldn't doubt that there are worse regimes now. That's irrelevant, though. The opportunity to take out a dictator and enemy doesn't equate to an obligation to take out all dictators, everywhere. (Chasing down someone who mugs an old lady doesn't obligate you to chase down all muggers, murderers, and rapists.)
What opportunity? You created the opportunity yourselves. You had the same opportunity to take out Saddam as you had to take out Kim Jong Il, or Robert Mugabe, or the Uzbek- or Belo-Russian Dictators.
There had to have been something specific about Saddam - so what was it?

We didn't actively try to make Africans suffer, or let them be chemically attacked. We did both of those things to avoid overthrowing Saddam.
No, it would have been refusal to help. You did not go to Saddam and tell him to do these things. You would've sat by and watched.
Which is exactly the same we are all guilty of with regards to the Third World. And - imagine that, we wouldn't even have to kill anyone to help the people there.

You rabid anti-Bush folks make me laugh. I've never heard one of you coherently give a reason to hate our president. My mind remains open. As it has been for five years.

P.S. It's optimistic.

Hmm... He started a war on false intelligence. He gave millionaires tax breaks. He increased state testing (I'm pretty sure). He gave executive orders to allow spying without warrants.

Oh, and he talks funny.

Of course, this is all coming from someone who's considering trying to have his political party registered as Cynic when he turns eighteen.

?
Has anyone ever actually produced these "oil contracts" for my scrutiny? I don't think so.
Fact of the matter is that
a) Russia can certainly do without Iraqi Oil.
b) Western Europe gets most of its oil from the North Sea, followed by Russia, then followed by OPEC (the majority there from North Africa).

You're making shit up.

yah, um here: from 2003
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/
now why would russia go and do that?
And gee, why was France in there too?
Woah, CNN must be making shit up too!
So, now what? Russia and france had no oil intrests in Iraq?
No you sir are making shit up!

so why was russia rushing to make up a new contract with Iraq?
Doesnt seem to make sense. And France... well...........

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879550/posts
Germany too had interests!
Wow!
Its amaizing what you can find when you just go and look!

yah, um here: from 2003
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/
now why would russia go and do that?
And gee, why was France in there too?
Woah, CNN must be making shit up too!
So, now what? Russia and france had no oil intrests in Iraq?
No you sir are making shit up!
Now I have to repeat myself?

Timeline:

December 2002
Oil Deal cancelled

January 2003
New Oil Deal made - Russian Oil Firm in, French Oil Firm out

March 2003
War

Now
Pretty much all contracts go to Allied Firms, primarily US

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,911943,00.html
and so on and so forth

Notice how by your logic, France should have been in favour of the war, since it didn't get the oil contract.

There were sanctions on Iraq. Deals by any oil company were severely restricted because investment could not be done in the normal way.

And most importantly, why doesn't anyone have a look at where Europe gets its oil from? It's not from the Middle East.

The whole theory about France, Germany and Russia not wanting to go for war because of business interests is an unproven allegation, started by editorials of various "patriotic" US newspapers and TV stations.
Never has there been any evidence produced of deals even remotely important enough to impact government decisions.
And finally...I thought France and Germany were socialist hell-holes? Why would they give a shit about big business?

Now I have to repeat myself?

Timeline:

December 2002
Oil Deal cancelled

January 2003
New Oil Deal made - Russian Oil Firm in, French Oil Firm out

March 2003
War

Now
Pretty much all contracts go to Allied Firms, primarily US

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,911943,00.html
and so on and so forth

Notice how by your logic, France should have been in favour of the war, since it didn't get the oil contract.

There were sanctions on Iraq. Deals by any oil company were severely restricted because investment could not be done in the normal way.

And most importantly, why doesn't anyone have a look at where Europe gets its oil from? It's not from the Middle East.

The whole theory about France, Germany and Russia not wanting to go for war because of business interests is an unproven allegation, started by editorials of various "patriotic" US newspapers and TV stations.
Never has there been any evidence produced of deals even remotely important enough to impact government decisions.
And finally...I thought France and Germany were socialist hell-holes? Why would they give a shit about big business?

so the oil for food program was a success in your opinion?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/879550/posts
Germany too had interests!
Wow!
Its amaizing what you can find when you just go and look!
Finally, an attempt at justification. From a right-wing Republican think-tank, no less.

Here's an idea:
Total value of Iraqi-German Trade according to your source: 1.43 billion (a billion of which is not explained..."third party" could mean anything)

Total value of German Trade with the world: 1.6 trillion.

So tell me...why would the German government bother again?

Oh, and I like this one...
From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.
Note the time frame.

so the oil for food program was a success in your opinion?
Of course not.
People died of all sorts of things because of the program. The US should have taken Saddam out the First Time.

But fact of the matter is that
a) Saddam didn't have the WMD arsenal everyone talked about.
b) Saddam was a bad guy, but by that logic there were places a lot worse that should have been dealt with first.
c) Saddam did violate terms of the ceasefire, the primary reason why I won't claim the invasion was illegal. But he's done that for years, and neither Clinton, nor Bush bothered with it until all of a sudden.

Whatever the reasons for the war were (personally I think it's simply an important idea of PNAC, a show of strength and a test run for forced democratisation - Iraq was simply an easy target: People already hated them, their army was already destroyed and Iraq is the perfect place for modern US military tactics), they were not the ones we were being given.

You have a lot of confidence in US standing in the world, don't you.

The US putting sanctions on the EU would be their death sentence.

I never said the U.S. would put sanctions on the E.U. -- but it looks like you answered your own question.

I did say Europe displayed pity, didn't I?
Hey dude, I've felt nothing but pity for Americans for five years now.

FWIW, that is an absurdly low estimate.

That estimate is the one cited by the only survey done on the issue, and is cited by peace activists:

http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=2005072012312066&mode=print0

That estimate is the one cited by the only survey done on the issue, and is cited by peace activists:

http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=2005072012312066&mode=print0


No there was a survey done by a scientist who risked his life by going into Iraq and surveying towns all over Iraq, using a widely recognized statistical method and came up with what he says is a conservatively low estimate of around 100,000.

I can't remember the name of the guy but if you want I will search it and get you a link.

Edit: heres the link http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596

Oy, vey. Look, we've been having this discussion, in more or less the same terms, practically since Bush came into power. Now, I don't like him. I think he's done some quite stupid things. But honestly, the reasons for both hating and approving of him have stayed the same for five years now. Yes, the war in Iraq was bad. Yes, we went from a surplus to a serious deficit in funds. Yes, people have died.

And yes, I think that Bush made an incorrect decision overall. But what I love seeing is the flame wars that keep going on because of comments people disagree with. Of course you're going to disagree! You're from different political parties, different countries, with different outlooks on life. If you can be calm about your arguments, then that's fine. But flame wars?

(Oh, and here's a little tidbit. America didn't get all that much oil from Iraq in the first place. Shocker, huh?)

Look, we've been having this discussion, in more or less the same terms, practically since Bush came into power.
Then you haven't been listening too closely, then.

No there was a survey done by a scientist who risked his life by going into Iraq and surveying towns all over Iraq, using a widely recognized statistical method and came up with what he says is a conservatively low estimate of around 100,000.

I can't remember the name of the guy but if you want I will search it and get you a link.

Edit: heres the link http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596

Thanks for the link. The problem I have with the figure is the methodology involved. This had three problems:

1) Extrapolation of numbers, rather than a head count
2) Small sample size
3) Random methodology
4) Reliance on the recollections of people, rather than direct evidence

The random methodology is particularly troubling. When you want to estimate deaths, one would imagine you would go where most of the deaths occured, rather than picking some random point. After all, wars are not random. People fight and die at strategic points or strongholds.

The survey also assumes a lack of subject bias. This might not be a good assumption, depending on who they're surveying. (The insurgent populations have an incentive to overestimate casualties.)

By contrast, a simple head count done by an observer who had nothing to gain from underestimating casualties (which one would assume the peace organization does not) would seem to me to be more reliable.

Even if you assume the 100,000 deaths is an accurate figure, there were 500% more deaths caused by sanctions than by the war, which would mean 5 out of 6 people dead now would have been alive if the war had been fought in the first place, without the sanctions.

I'd also like to say I don't consider this a "flame war", to the extent that most of us on this thread seem to be trading different perspectives on the information available to us, without resorting to ad hominem attacks or personal insults.

You rabid anti-Bush folks make me laugh. I've never heard one of you coherently give a reason to hate our president. My mind remains open. As it has been for five years.
If it's been open for 5 years, anything could have crawled inside.

He insulted the optimistic Democrats!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/politics/10cnd-prexy.html?hp
So really he's trying to dictate the parameters of any forthcoming debate and is accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being 'unamerican' and bringing 'comfort to our adversaries'.
What a great democracy Bush wants for the US.

he is a bad guy and he is an idiot but theirs one major porblem. No one does anything about it. Everyone in Iraq hates him so what do they do? Suicide bombers blow other Iraqis up. You don't see them going to America and blowing up Bush do you? They ought to. In North America no one does anything about it either. They go and assasinate Kennedy and STILL no one has shot at Bush. I think people need to act.

I think people need to act.
I think people need to be careful when posting things on internet forums, though. Even when it's via puppetry.

Don't you agree?

;)