NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?

Because people do not know history and will believe whatever they are told to believe because they do not want to offend those who told them something that is not true so they believe the untruth as to not offend.

He's leaning closer to Fascism than any major leader in the Western World for a long, long time. That's why the comparison.

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler?
Because they don't understand that unoriginal, extreme statements convince nobody.

There's no comparison. Hitler had much higher approval ratings.

Wasn't Hitler already an anti-Christ? Wll, at least according to Nostrodamus? Bush is by no means an evil lunatic. Afghanistan was a responce to 9-11 and Iraq was more about finishing family business(think Gearge Herburt Walter Bush Sr. and Gulf War I) than it was about oppression and oil. People just take politics way too seriously.

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?It's mainly because people have forgotten how bad Hitler really was.

He's leaning closer to Fascism than any major leader in the Western World for a long, long time. That's why the comparison.

Maybe in a handful of cases. Most people are probably just sheep.

To be honest, Bush can compare to Hitler in some ways. One of them being responsible for creating a near rabid atmosphere of nationalism in the beginning of his term, invasions based on flimsy excuses, expanded executive powers significantly, etc, etc.

Oh yes, he's also got a hard core number of supporters that would probably have done very well had he created the American version of the Waffen SS (the fanaticism).

What he hasn't done however, is opened up death camps. Yes, he's got those CIA black sites, but there isn't any indication that he's having whole ethnic groups rounded up and executed on mass scales.

So you could say that Bush is Hitler-lite :p

To be honest, Bush can compare to Hitler in some ways. One of them being responsible for creating a near rabid atmosphere of nationalism in the beginning of his term, invasions based on flimsy excuses, expanded executive powers significantly, etc, etc.

9/11 was a flimsy excuse for Afghanistan?

What he hasn't done however, is opened up death camps. Yes, he's got those CIA black sites, but there isn't any indication that he's having whole ethnic groups rounded up and executed on mass scales.

So you could say that Bush is Hitler-lite :p

:rolleyes:

To be honest, Bush can compare to Hitler in some ways. One of them being responsible for creating a near rabid atmosphere of nationalism in the beginning of his term, invasions based on flimsy excuses, expanded executive powers significantly, etc, etc.

What he hasn't done however, is opened up death camps. Yes, he's got those CIA black sites, but there isn't any indication that he's having whole ethnic groups rounded up and executed on mass scales.

So you could say that Bush is Hitler-lite :p

Well said.

Waging a war against a country for the actions of a INTERNATIONAL organisation?

it´s not entirely justified methinks?

[snip]
People just take politics way too seriously.

:eek:

So what should they take seriously then? TV, music, sport?

9/11 was a flimsy excuse for Afghanistan?



:rolleyes:

Well, a major proportion of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. You've also yet to catch Osama.


Oh, and roll your eyes all you want. There are comparisons to be made to Bush and Hitler, although Bush to fascism in general might be more accurate.

Waging a war against a country for the actions of a INTERNATIONAL organisation?

it´s not entirely justified methinks?

Despite the fact that they were harboring him and then wouldn't hand him over. Supported him at every turn. Allowed him to set up camps inside their nation....

Yeah I guess its wrong to compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler served in combat.

Well, a major proportion of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. You've also yet to catch Osama.


Oh, and roll your eyes all you want. There are comparisons to be made to Bush and Hitler, although Bush to fascism in general might be more accurate.

I could make comparisions between Loius XVI and Bill Clinton. That doesn't make Clinton Louis XVI

It's mainly because people have forgotten how bad Hitler really was.

yeah, hitler is just used as a generic placeholder bad guy. he's more mussolini than hitler, really.

If the political status quo does not represent a democratic rule, and that political status quo harbours the members of an international terrorist organization, of what legality is it to invade the country and kill not only the politicians who sided with the terrorists, but also many innocent civilians, normal people?

9/11 was a flimsy excuse for Afghanistan?

And what's the excuse for Iraq hmmm? And Iran now too if things keep the way they are going?


:rolleyes:

You talk about people being gullible. I'd reverse that and talk about ostriches. People who stick their heads in sand that is.

Are any of the points I've raised untrue? Do you deny that Bush encouraged and profitted off a strong sense of nationalism? Do you call it false when I say that Bush has expanded executive powers to levels unprecedented?

Do you dare?

EDIT: At least Hitler had the guts to bite the bullet when things turned badly on him. Bush will probably just retire to his ranch and brag about his fish.

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?

You are right, Bush is not even in the same universe as Hitler. It is a stupid argument and simply proves Godwin right.

Worst President in your generation? I guess if you were born in 2000. Worst would have the be a toss up between Carter and Clinton.

Waging a war against a country for the actions of a INTERNATIONAL organisation? it´s not entirely justified methinks?

Yes, it is. If you harbor a serial killer in your house and stop the police from arresting him, then you too can be arrested. If you harbor terrorists guilty for thousands of deaths in your country, then you can be invaded. Or should we just let Afghanistan be a breeding ground for terrorists, resulting in thousands of deaths?

12 million my ass. The Nazi bastards killed 20-25 million.

Compareing Bush to Hitler is just pure ignorance plain and simple.

Nuff Said.

If the political status quo does not represent a democratic rule, and that political status quo harbours the members of an international terrorist organization, of what legality is it to invade the country and kill not only the politicians who sided with the terrorists, but also many innocent civilians, normal people?

Innocence dies in war. It is an unfortunate truth. However we were right to go into Afghanistan and the world agreed with it

You are right, Bush is not even in the same universe as Hitler. It is a stupid argument and simply proves Godwin right.

Worst President in your generation? I guess if you were born in 2000. Worst would have the be a toss up between Carter and Clinton.

In this scenerio, I'd go with Carter.

If the political status quo does not represent a democratic rule, and that political status quo harbours the members of an international terrorist organization, of what legality is it to invade the country and kill not only the politicians who sided with the terrorists, but also many innocent civilians, normal people?Well, you also have to consider the fact that the legal government of Afghanistan started the offensive against the Taliban in anticipation of international military intervention.

And what's the excuse for Iraq hmmm? And Iran now too if things keep the way they are going?



You talk about people being gullible. I'd reverse that and talk about ostriches. People who stick their heads in sand that is.

Are any of the points I've raised untrue? Do you deny that Bush encouraged and profitted off a strong sense of nationalism? Do you call it false when I say that Bush has expanded executive powers to levels unprecedented?

Do you dare?

"Do you deny that Bush encouraged and profitted off a strong sense of nationalism?"

Next you will ask if a company has a right to make a profit. Of course he and every other President benefits from encouraging a strong sense of nationalism.

"Do you call it false when I say that Bush has expanded executive powers to levels unprecedented?"

Chuckle. No, but then again, martial law would be a better example and we do not have that right now. Every President "expands" Executive Powers. Whether it be in environmental garbage or through the War Powers. Chicken Little was paranoid. Are you?

And what's the excuse for Iraq hmmm? And Iran now too if things keep the way they are going?

I already stated them in more threads than I can count. As for Iran, I'm hoping that the UN actually takes care of the problem. I know that Britain and France have placed a resolution on the table so we shall see.

You talk about people being gullible. I'd reverse that and talk about ostriches. People who stick their heads in sand that is.

Sounds like the UN.

Are any of the points I've raised untrue? Do you deny that Bush encouraged and profitted off a strong sense of nationalism? Do you call it false when I say that Bush has expanded executive powers to levels unprecedented?

Do you dare?

1) Yes I raise some of the points you raised as untrue

2) Name me a president who hasnt

3) name me a President who hasn't expanded executive powers.

Do you dare?

Ein Reich!

Ein Volk!

Ein Shrubbery!

Yes, it is. If you harbor a serial killer in your house and stop the police from arresting him, then you too can be arrested. If you harbor terrorists guilty for thousands of deaths in your country, then you can be invaded. Or should we just let Afghanistan be a breeding ground for terrorists, resulting in thousands of deaths?

Afghanistan was, in a way, justified. Saudi-Arabia would have been that even more, but since it's such a good friend, that's not an option.

Iraq, however, isn't.

In this scenerio, I'd go with Carter.

I would agree, but it is a close call.

Afghanistan was, in a way, justified. Saudi-Arabia would have been that even more, but since it's such a good friend, that's not an option.

Iraq, however, isn't.

No. Afghanistan was not justified. We are at war with a certain people, not a certain nation.

Yeah I guess its wrong to compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler served in combat.

This is true. Hitler was also a psychopath with delusions. So your statement is true, despite it undermining your credibility.

I could make comparisions between Loius XVI and Bill Clinton. That doesn't make Clinton Louis XVI

No because Louis XVI was a better leader.

I would agree, but it is a close call.

yea true it is a close call but Carter was just a screw off and it cost him mightly in the 1980 election. Clinton at least was re-elected.

Bush doesnt know how to run a country he is too stupid its the gouvernment behind him

Hitler was avery clever and very evil man. He actually did germany alot of good if it werent for his anti-semitism and WW2. He brought many people out of unemployment created many jobs etc.

But there is no comparison at all people need to learn their history!! .:headbang:


READ the book "Dude wheres my country" then you will learn some very interesting things about bush

He's leaning closer to Fascism than any major leader in the Western World for a long, long time. That's why the comparison.

President Bush doesn't have any fascist leanings. However, some of this administrations policies have opened the door for an oppresive regime to come in and remove our civil liberties completely; all in the name of security.

:headbang:

No because Louis XVI was a better leader.

HAHA!! Good one!

*hands NSG a cookie*

No. Afghanistan was not justified. We are at war with a certain people, not a certain nation.

Oh Afghanistan was more than justified. Anyone who says differently is diluding themselves in fantasy.

Of COURSE Bush isn't Hitler.

Hitler was an effective leader. Regardless of his shameful and twisted ends, the means were impressive. He shredded crippling inflation and unemployment and revived a nation WWI had all but left comatose -- no mean feat. Yes, he was a mass-murdering fuckhead (thanks, Eddie Izzard), but as an actual leader of a nation, Bush is grossly inferior...though they do share one trait: getting into intractable wars.

Next you will ask if a company has a right to make a profit. Of course he and every other President benefits from encouraging a strong sense of nationalism.

This is closer to fascism than nationalism. When people go "If you don't support the government unquestioningly, you're a traitor", that's too close to fascism for comfort.


Chuckle. No, but then again, martial law would be a better example and we do not have that right now. Every President "expands" Executive Powers. Whether it be in environmental garbage or through the War Powers. Chicken Little was paranoid. Are you?

Well then, let me put it this way.

Do you agree with the government preventing you from travelling freely because of your choice of name? Even if you happen to be a 1 year old baby?

Do you agree with them tapping and monitoring any and every communication you make without warrants?

Do you support the right of the government to have you arrested with no charges, detain you at their pleasure for an indeterminate time lasting anywhere from 2 months to 2 decades and release you afterwards without having pressed any charges or giving compensation?

That's what has happened to several Americans already. For what? For things like having gone to Egypt 20 years ago on a business trip.

Has any president before Bush done any of these things?

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?

Many people compare Bush to Hitler because they are too stupid to think of something else. It is difficult to accurately compare Hitler with anyone, even people similar to him like Stalin or Mussolini.

Bush doesnt know how to run a country he is too stupid its the gouvernment behind him

Hitler was avery clever and very evil man. He actually did germany alot of good if it werent for his anti-semitism and WW2. He brought many people out of unemployment created many jobs etc.

But there is no comparison at all people need to learn their history!! .:headbang:

Yes people do need to learn their history. You were good until....

*points to the next quote*

READ the book "Dude wheres my country" then you will learn some very interesting things about bush

Invoking Michael Moore in a debate when he is constantly discredited ends your credibility.

No. Afghanistan was not justified. We are at war with a certain people, not a certain nation.

You're not at war at all. That word is used only to make people accept the use of armed forces, =keep them scared.
However, I still think that driving Al Qaeda from it's best and largest bases, killing many of its fighters, did help against terrorism. Atleast a bit.

Iraq, however, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, not before it got invaded. Now it offers more recruits, provides training (against moving targets!) and has got what it needs to keep going - a plenty of attention.

Iraq, however, isn't.

If Hitler kept to slaughtering Jews solely in Germany, would declaring war on Germany be justified? After all, he's killing millions of Jews, but he's doing it in his own country, so it's alright. Not stopping a genocidal monster is unjustified, not stopping him.

yea true it is a close call but Carter was just a screw off and it cost him mightly in the 1980 election. Clinton at least was re-elected.

Clinton was re-elected because he did nothing. The American people love anarchy. Problem was it hosed us.

Oh Afghanistan was more than justified. Anyone who says differently is diluding themselves in fantasy.

What did Afghanistan, as a nation, do? 9/11? No, that was done by a certain group of people, not all who are from Afghanistan.

Wasn't Hitler already an anti-Christ? Wll, at least according to Nostrodamus? Bush is by no means an evil lunatic. Afghanistan was a responce to 9-11 and Iraq was more about finishing family business(think Gearge Herburt Walter Bush Sr. and Gulf War I) than it was about oppression and oil. People just take politics way too seriously.
Wow. Only thing worse than this post is your sig. Who quotes themselves AND picks a really dumb quote to do it?

*applauds*

Oh Afghanistan was more than justified. Anyone who says differently is diluding themselves in fantasy.
I concur. If you harbor a known serial killer and keep him safe from the police, you should be punished. If you harbor a murderous extremist and help keep him safe, then if he does something that costs the lives of thousands of unarmed civillians in another country you are currently not at war with, then either turn him over or expect enemy tanks on your front lawn.

Innocence dies in war. It is an unfortunate truth. However we were right to go into Afghanistan and the world agreed with it

Bah Humbug, you went into afghanistan to settle a vendetta nothing more, the people you supplied with arms weren´t your buddies anymore and therefore they had to be shown who was boss.

The world agreed with it? That seems a little overstated. The "either your with us or against us" tactics had our little president shaking in his mother´s underwear, but I can assure you a lot of people were against that war.

What did Afghanistan, as a nation, do? 9/11? No, that was done by a certain group of people, not all who are from Afghanistan.

Afghanistan harbored organizations which sought to cause mass destruction in the Western world. Imagine if instead of plotting to crash planes into towers, they plotted to make a nuclear bomb. Could we invade them then? What if they used ICBMs to hit the US instead of planes? Would an invasion still be unjustified? Is aiding and abetting terrorists legal?

He's leaning closer to Fascism than any major leader in the Western World for a long, long time. That's why the comparison.

He really isn't. What has he done, besides domestic wiretapping and holding people at Guantanamo bay? Both of those offenses, by the way, are merely symptoms of Fascism rather than the signs of a Fascist government.

What did Afghanistan, as a nation, do? 9/11? No, that was done by a certain group of people, not all who are from Afghanistan.

Who were there with direct permission from the Taliban and who gave him the go ahead to establish his network there. They are just as guilty as the one's who pulled the trigger.

Then you should have taken on the taliban as an organisation, and not confused them with a nation...

If Hitler kept to slaughtering Jews solely in Germany, would declaring war on Germany be justified? After all, he's killing millions of Jews, but he's doing it in his own country, so it's alright. Not stopping a genocidal monster is unjustified, not stopping him.

If he had killed millions in his own country a decade ago, but is now unable to even fly a Messerschmit over Berlin without getting shot down, has no gas left and Volksturm is his only armed force... and knowing that attack against Germany would cause years of fighting, thousands and thousands of deaths, horrible suffer and perhaps the complete collapse of the country...

Yes. In that point it's unjustified to declare war on Germany.

Bah Humbug, you went into afghanistan to settle a vendetta nothing more, the people you supplied with arms weren´t your buddies anymore and therefore they had to be shown who was boss.

The world agreed with it? That seems a little overstated. The "either your with us or against us" tactics had our little president shaking in his mother´s underwear, but I can assure you a lot of people were against that war.

Then why is the UN and NATO in Afghanistan if they didn't agree with it? :roleyes:

Then you should have taken on the taliban as an organisation, and not confused them with a nation...

OH MY GOD!!!! The Taliban WAS THE GOVERNMENT!!!

Who were there with direct permission from the Taliban and who gave him the go ahead to establish his network there. They are just as guilty as the one's who pulled the trigger.

Who were those who made all this happen? Who ARE the Al Qaeda? The word starts with S and ends with an A.

I already stated them in more threads than I can count.

Your statements were flimsier than toilet paper. "Threat to America?", "Legal because we bombed them and they shot back?", "Saddam was a murderer?", "Spread freedom and democracy?"

All of them would be laughable if they did not have such bloody consequences.


Sounds like the UN.


Looking at your position, I would say it sounds like you. You've had your points destroyed time after time by people even more thorough than I am, and yet you always spout the same excuses over and over again like a broken record.

Always retreating to your excuses of "I know because of an unproven relation"


1) Yes I raise some of the points you raised as untrue


Then show me. Come on. If you can accuse, you can prove. If you can't prove, you have no case. What points have i raised that are untrue?


2) Name me a president who hasnt


3) name me a President who hasn't expanded executive powers.


By asking me these, you acknowledge that my points are true, thus your statement at 1 is nothing more than a blatant lie. Flip Flopper.

Could we invade them then? What if they used ICBMs to hit the US instead of planes?

What if they had a killer satellite in space that could sink a continent at the press of a button. Please, some sensibility in your scenarios. ICBMs are not things you can smuggle under your coat.

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?

The answer of course is ignorance. Some people really are that un-informed and some people want to take advantage of people that are that un-informed (like that German politician who used it in her campaign).

@OP: Same reason why the word "facism" is now shorthand for anything that slightly irks, annoys or inconviences someone.

What if they had a killer satellite in space that could sink a continent at the press of a button. Please, some sensibility in your scenarios. ICBMs are not things you can smuggle under your coat.

You obviously don't understand the function of a hypothetical scenario, do you? The terror attacks were implicitly state policy since they aided and abetted the terrorists who conducted the attacks. This obviously completely justifies the attack -- even a blind man could see that much.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is rather inaccurate, for several reasons.

1.) Hitler was not strictly a fascist; he was a Nazi, which includes elements of racism, something Bush has not done yet.

2.) Hitler was an extremely charismatic leader who managed to command his populace's undying support even when he was slaughtering them by the millions. George W. Bush, on the other hand, has attained some of the lowest approval ratings in recent years.

3.) Hitler didn't try to justify his invasions of sovereign nations.

A more accurate comparison would be Bush's ideology with fascism, as they bear many similar qualities (suppression of freedom of speech and due process; nationalism/blind patriotism; state control of the economy -- and before anyone says anything adverse about this, many members of Bush's cabinet have served on the boards of major companies and proof can be found somewhere out there; I'm too lazy to look for it right now).

Of COURSE Bush isn't Hitler.

Hitler was an effective leader. Regardless of his shameful and twisted ends, the means were impressive. He shredded crippling inflation and unemployment and revived a nation WWI had all but left comatose -- no mean feat. Yes, he was a mass-murdering fuckhead (thanks, Eddie Izzard), but as an actual leader of a nation, Bush is grossly inferior...though they do share one trait: getting into intractable wars.

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known. The most innefficient governments are Socialistic or Communistic in model.

Hitler was an effective leader, yes. He was also mad. Bush is an effective leader, or you woul dnot have anything to complain about. Hard pill for you to swallow but it is true. Clinton was an ineffectual leader. Which is why no one can name accomplishments he made, only foibles. The Democrats always fall back on the persecution complex to explain his ineffectualness. However, effectual leaders, despite massive critisism, always move forward knowing their time is limited to effect change. Which is why the restructuring of Iraq kills most liberals. It is proceding at a record pace comparative to history. Germany and Japan took 10-12 years. We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.

As to the continuation of comparing Bush to Hitler, is that all you have? If so, it simply proves the very point I am making. Come up with answers. Regurgitating the party line and making grossly stupid comparisons is not effectual leadership. In fact, it completely undermines any possibly good ideas you may have. You have to roll up your sleeves and pull it out of the mud before people will embrace it. You may not like what you see in Iraq, but frankly it is because "your puppet" <insert name of candidate here> is not in the White House with his finger on the pulse and his other finger in the air checking the breeze.

Politicians are creatures of our system. They do what the mob tells them to, and where the financiers tell them to go. No President is exempt. No politician is exempt. They learn to compromise on principle in the first term of any office. Why? Survival. The President, and others, are limited by term limits. This is why the second term of a President means no holds barred. They do what they think is right, despite public opinion. Why? Because they have no hope of re-election. The election cycle governs what the politician does.

So stop bashing and start thinking. The system needs to be revamped. You cannot put a mob rules system into play and not disagree with 1/2 of what happens. It just isn't possible. Iraq is one of the smartest things we have done. No one on the left likes it because they weren't in power when it happened. They all love Jack Kennedy. He started Viet Nam for America. LBJ continued it. Nixon inherited it. As did Ford. Carter allowed Iran to get away with the hostage crisis. Reagan inherited it. Reagan got us involved with Iran and the Contras. Bush inherited it. Bush got us involved in Iraq finally. Clinton inherited it. CLinton got us into big trouble by sitting on his laurels. Lip service to Bosnia. Allowing Americans to die in Haiti and Somalia. Telling the Arab world it is okay to attack and kill us, we are all talk. We got 9/11. Bush inherited it. Bush is handling the Iraq situation and proving the UN useless. The next President will inherit it. And the cycle continues.

So stop whining. We all have things to do to make this country better. Politicians do not do anything that does not directly profit them in some way. Understand that and the system becomes more palatable and change becomes more apparant.

To be honest, Bush can compare to Hitler in some ways. One of them being responsible for creating a near rabid atmosphere of nationalism in the beginning of his term, invasions based on flimsy excuses, expanded executive powers significantly, etc, etc.

Oh yes, he's also got a hard core number of supporters that would probably have done very well had he created the American version of the Waffen SS (the fanaticism).

What he hasn't done however, is opened up death camps. Yes, he's got those CIA black sites, but there isn't any indication that he's having whole ethnic groups rounded up and executed on mass scales.

So you could say that Bush is Hitler-lite :p

One, Members of the Totenkpof SS, The elite of the elite, had to denounce their religious faith, Bush's hard core supporters are Far right wing Religious nuts. Next 9-11 wasn't a flimsy excuse. If you listened to the Speech Bush made on 9-12, he said we would hunt down the COuntries who HARBORED TERRORISTS! Iraq harbored terorrists, Not Al Quida, but it is a war on Terrorism on a whole. Intel wasn't strong but we got the terrorist bastards in Iraq didn't we? Next, WMDs were a cover story: In the beginning Stage of the War, SF operators infiltrated Iraq along with the 3/4 Marines. More commonly known as "The Bull" for their extensive military record. A large movement of elite soldiers would need an excuse when secrecy was vital and people didn't need to know why SF were entering with a boatload of SEALS and Airplane of Green Berets and Hummer fulls of Force Recon Guys. So if you would open your mind to other views you would see Iraq would be a logical Target. Thanks to their crazed leader, Iran might be next to stabelize a conflict that will ensue in the Middle East if something isn't done.

yea true it is a close call but Carter was just a screw off and it cost him mightly in the 1980 election. Clinton at least was re-elected.
Boy, I guess Carter didn't have any point at all about the necessity for alternative energy sources and conservation.

Come on, you're just spouting Conservative dogma when you bash Carter. Was he a great president? No. Was he the worst? No.

I'll even grant you that Bush II isn't the worst either. My worst usually fluctuates between a few candidates like Buchanan, Wilson, Taylor, Hoover, A. Johnson, and perhaps presidents who caved to either mob mentality or yellow journalism (T. Roosevelt). Most presidents' huge mistakes are balanced by successes. I try to list as "worst" those whose cons far outweigh their pros.

You claim someone's discredited for referencing Michael Moore, so it's fair to ask who YOU read. Fess up, dittohead.;)

Waging a war against a country for the actions of a INTERNATIONAL organisation?

it´s not entirely justified methinks?
It is if that organization is enthusiasticly funded, supported and harboured by the country in question. If a terrorist organization funded and supported by country x murders the citizens of country y, that is an act of war as assuredly as sending a warship to shell country y's cities.

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known. The most innefficient governments are Socialistic or Communistic in model.

Hitler was an effective leader, yes. He was also mad. Bush is an effective leader, or you woul dnot have anything to complain about. Hard pill for you to swallow but it is true. Clinton was an ineffectual leader. Which is why no one can name accomplishments he made, only foibles. The Democrats always fall back on the persecution complex to explain his ineffectualness. However, effectual leaders, despite massive critisism, always move forward knowing their time is limited to effect change. Which is why the restructuring of Iraq kills most liberals. It is proceding at a record pace comparative to history. Germany and Japan took 10-12 years. We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.

As to the continuation of comparing Bush to Hitler, is that all you have? If so, it simply proves the very point I am making. Come up with answers. Regurgitating the party line and making grossly stupid comparisons is not effectual leadership. In fact, it completely undermines any possibly good ideas you may have. You have to roll up your sleeves and pull it out of the mud before people will embrace it. You may not like what you see in Iraq, but frankly it is because "your puppet" <insert name of candidate here> is not in the White House with his finger on the pulse and his other finger in the air checking the breeze.

Politicians are creatures of our system. They do what the mob tells them to, and where the financiers tell them to go. No President is exempt. No politician is exempt. They learn to compromise on principle in the first term of any office. Why? Survival. The President, and others, are limited by term limits. This is why the second term of a President means no holds barred. They do what they think is right, despite public opinion. Why? Because they have no hope of re-election. The election cycle governs what the politician does.

So stop bashing and start thinking. The system needs to be revamped. You cannot put a mob rules system into play and not disagree with 1/2 of what happens. It just isn't possible. Iraq is one of the smartest things we have done. No one on the left likes it because they weren't in power when it happened. They all love Jack Kennedy. He started Viet Nam for America. LBJ continued it. Nixon inherited it. As did Ford. Carter allowed Iran to get away with the hostage crisis. Reagan inherited it. Reagan got us involved with Iran and the Contras. Bush inherited it. Bush got us involved in Iraq finally. Clinton inherited it. CLinton got us into big trouble by sitting on his laurels. Lip service to Bosnia. Allowing Americans to die in Haiti and Somalia. Telling the Arab world it is okay to attack and kill us, we are all talk. We got 9/11. Bush inherited it. Bush is handling the Iraq situation and proving the UN useless. The next President will inherit it. And the cycle continues.

So stop whining. We all have things to do to make this country better. Politicians do not do anything that does not directly profit them in some way. Understand that and the system becomes more palatable and change becomes more apparant.
Oh no no no no no! On paper Socialism and Communism are the ideal Governments. Everybody wins. But people who worked hard for their pocessions don't want to give them to the gov't. Facism doesn't work. Propoganda works. People fell in love with hitler. Not the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Bah Humbug, you went into afghanistan to settle a vendetta nothing more, the people you supplied with arms weren´t your buddies anymore and therefore they had to be shown who was boss. That's not quite right. Bush was best friends with the Taliban. Deals with oil pipelines and all that. It was public pressure that forced him to attack a group that was governing a country illegally. The fact that the Taliban were supporting various terrorist organizations within their territory was well known.

*lengthy snip*
So, let me boil this load of demogogical horseshit down:

"You're wrong because I say so." Cool. Inventing your own reality, just like Bush. And you accuse me of party line wanking?:rolleyes:

Who were there with direct permission from the Taliban and who gave him the go ahead to establish his network there. They are just as guilty as the one's who pulled the trigger.
Do you have any proof that the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda?

[QUOTE=Naughty slave girls]We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.[QUOTE]
Hmmm... so the progress is astounding when car bombs are exploding virtually every day, the nation is degenerating into sectarian violence, and voter turnout is as low as in the USA? Not to mention the cells of terrorist groups that are springing up due to rampant anti-US sentiment? Please. At least Germany, Japan, and other such countries managed to rebuild in a remotely nonviolent and orderly manner.

It is if that organization is enthusiasticly funded, supported and harboured by the country in question. If a terrorist organization funded and supported by country x murders the citizens of country y, that is an act of war as assuredly as sending a warship to shell country y's cities.
But was it? I have yet to see any proof that Afghanistan was harbouring, funding, or supporting Al Qaeda. Then again, I don't live in the USA, so I probably don't know.

By asking me these, you acknowledge that my points are true, thus your statement at 1 is nothing more than a blatant lie. Flip Flopper.

Actually, your points are not true. FDR both benefitted from strong nationalism AND expanded executive priveleges/powers, and yet he is lauded as one of the greatest leaders of the twentieth century, and one of the best-loved and effective American Presidents. He was also a staunch Democrat. Go figure.

Andrew Jackson. Andrew Johnson. Theodore Roosevelt. Richard Nixon. Just a few examples of famous and largely effective Presidents who increased executive powers. And almost by definition, the leader of a nation, no matter what his political leanings, will always benefit from a strong sense of nationalism. Duh.

You obviously need a lesson in logic. He asks you to prove him wrong by citing a counterexample, and since apparently you cannot find one (mainly because he is correct), you claim that his asking somehow invalidates his point. Wrong.

So, let me boil this load of demogogical horseshit down:

"You're wrong because I say so." Cool. Inventing your own reality, just like Bush. And you accuse me of party line wanking?:rolleyes:

Perhaps intellectual discussion is not your forte.

Do you have any proof that the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda?

[QUOTE=Naughty slave girls]We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.[QUOTE]
Hmmm... so the progress is astounding when car bombs are exploding virtually every day, the nation is degenerating into sectarian violence, and voter turnout is as low as in the USA? Not to mention the cells of terrorist groups that are springing up due to rampant anti-US sentiment? Please. At least Germany, Japan, and other such countries managed to rebuild in a remotely nonviolent and orderly manner.

LOL

Yeah, just imagine all the engative press we avoinded in WWII. If they published every 10 seconds of what happened, WWII would have looked like a collossal American failure.

So, let me boil this load of demogogical horseshit down:

"You're wrong because I say so." Cool. Inventing your own reality, just like Bush. And you accuse me of party line wanking?:rolleyes:
Actually, it's slightly more complex than that... but meh.

One, Members of the Totenkpof SS, The elite of the elite, had to denounce their religious faith, Bush's hard core supporters are Far right wing Religious nuts.

Considering that Bush is a fairly right Wing Religious nut himself (intelligent design in science?), an equivalent SS would dovetail nicely with his beliefs.


Next 9-11 wasn't a flimsy excuse. If you listened to the Speech Bush made on 9-12, he said we would hunt down the COuntries who HARBORED TERRORISTS! Iraq harbored terorrists, Not Al Quida, but it is a war on Terrorism on a whole.

Then Bush would have invaded Pakistan, which India and our resident Indian, Arvayatha, keeps insisting that they are sponsoring terrorists. Also, I don't see the US doing much about it's homegrown terror groups.


Intel wasn't strong but we got the terrorist bastards in Iraq didn't we?


Who? Iraq didn't have any terrorists as far as independent organizations went. Saddam would have had them shot on sight. He didn't like paramilitary organizations operating in his country that didn't answer to him.


Next, WMDs were a cover story: In the beginning Stage of the War, SF operators infiltrated Iraq along with the 3/4 Marines. More commonly known as "The Bull" for their extensive military record. A large movement of elite soldiers would need an excuse when secrecy was vital and people didn't need to know why SF were entering with a boatload of SEALS and Airplane of Green Berets and Hummer fulls of Force Recon Guys. So if you would open your mind to other views you would see Iraq would be a logical Target. Thanks to their crazed leader, Iran might be next to stabelize a conflict that will ensue in the Middle East if something isn't done.

Got any proof of this? I still don't see any reasoning that would have justified an invasion of Iraq. Unless of course, you're using PNAC reasons.

Which in that case just makes you a power mongering bastard.

Do you have any proof that the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda?

[QUOTE=Naughty slave girls]We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.[QUOTE]
Hmmm... so the progress is astounding when car bombs are exploding virtually every day, the nation is degenerating into sectarian violence, and voter turnout is as low as in the USA? Not to mention the cells of terrorist groups that are springing up due to rampant anti-US sentiment? Please. At least Germany, Japan, and other such countries managed to rebuild in a remotely nonviolent and orderly manner.

Clinton was re-elected because he did nothing. The American people love anarchy. Problem was it hosed us.
*cough* the economy *cough*

Clinton was re-elected because people like their bullshit right out in the open where they can get a good strong whiff of it. Dole tried to say he was a plain and honest man, and Clinton, thorugh his actions and deflections announced to the nation and the world that he was completely and stunningly full of shit. He was honest about being full of shit. Same thing with Bush II. He's off his rocker and America loved him for it. He's a Conservative who's charged up the severest debt in national history and turned a $2 trillion surplus into a $3 trillion deficit. And my nation re-elected him because he kept the masses scared and presented himself as the stability factor. God, I hate politics sometimes.

A more accurate comparison would be Bush's ideology with fascism, as they bear many similar qualities (suppression of freedom of speech and due process; nationalism/blind patriotism; state control of the economy -- and before anyone says anything adverse about this, many members of Bush's cabinet have served on the boards of major companies and proof can be found somewhere out there; I'm too lazy to look for it right now).
Lets list it shal we?
1. Freedom of speech is not in question, he is made fun of more then anyone right now, he has done nothing to people who did say he is like Hitler.
2. Due process? do you mean Guantanamo (or however you spell it) bay?
they are prisoners of war, the Geneva conventions say we need to not kill/torture them. it says nothing of fair trials for foreign terrorists. Actually we could execute them as spies because they are not wearing uniforms, they should count themselves lucky for only being imprisoned.
3. He may be for state helping American companies, but that is part of government.
4. Bush's cabinet were executives in US companies...and what? would you like to get political science students with no real world experience? it is ridiculous to say working before being elected to office is a bad thing.

Yeah, just imagine all the engative press we avoinded in WWII. If they published every 10 seconds of what happened, WWII would have looked like a collossal American failure.
Sigh. You could actually answer the question. Or is that too much to ask?

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known. The most innefficient governments are Socialistic or Communistic in model.So what's your standard for determining efficiency? For someone that's been harking about how other peoples' credibility just went down the drain, that's a pretty bold statement to make.
Hitler was an effective leader, yes. He was also mad. Bush is an effective leader, or you woul dnot have anything to complain about. Hard pill for you to swallow but it is true.I dunno, I found the fact that he wanted to fund his tax cuts in the homeland by decreasing the amount of tax free money expats can earn rather complaint-worthy. Then again, maybe New Orleans has nothing to complain about either...
Which is why the restructuring of Iraq kills most liberals. It is proceding at a record pace comparative to history. Germany and Japan took 10-12 years. We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.One could also argue that a lot less lives were lost after WWII than during. Not exactly something you can say for Iraq. Yay for progress.

So stop bashing and start thinking. The system needs to be revamped. You cannot put a mob rules system into play and not disagree with 1/2 of what happens. It just isn't possible. Iraq is one of the smartest things we have done. No one on the left likes it because they weren't in power when it happened. So why exactly was Iraq so smart?

Do you have any proof that the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda?

From TIME Magazine April 8th, 2002:
The Bush Administration originally declared Operation Anaconda a victory after al-Qaeda and Taliban forces were battered in the fighting at Shah-i-Kot, near Khost.

They Fight together,they ride together

Perhaps intellectual discussion is not your forte.
You'd just proven that about yourself and I called you on it. You actually believe that your four-paragraph rant, taken straight out of the Conservative talking points and suffused with more typos and spelling errors than a seven-year-old's self portrait and autobiography done in crayon is "intellectual discussion"? Jeez, no wonder the country is fucked.

*cough* the economy *cough*

Clinton was re-elected because people like their bullshit right out in the open where they can get a good strong whiff of it. Dole tried to say he was a plain and honest man, and Clinton, thorugh his actions and deflections announced to the nation and the world that he was completely and stunningly full of shit. He was honest about being full of shit. Same thing with Bush II. He's off his rocker and America loved him for it. He's a Conservative who's charged up the severest debt in national history and turned a $2 trillion surplus into a $3 trillion deficit. And my nation re-elected him because he kept the masses scared and presented himself as the stability factor. God, I hate politics sometimes.

Yes, the economy was artificially inflated under Clinton because they changed the way they presented it. They did the old trick of counting liability as assets and lied to people who would believe it. The economy is supposed to be financed in long term bonds. Clinton changed it to short term and they come due when? Right after he leaves office. How convenient.

Yes Bush is running up a deficit. Because government is bloated. Damn near half of what it deos should be eliminated. Starting with social security and medicare. Worst idea in the last 100 years was government control in these areas.

Bush was re-elected on the security issue. However America is fickle. We will elect some lame brain soon that will screw us hard because of the bullshit religious agenga we are putting up with currently to deal with the security of the nation. There will be a huge backlash. Unfortunately we will end up sacrificing lives and safety for it.

But was it? I have yet to see any proof that Afghanistan was harbouring, funding, or supporting Al Qaeda. Then again, I don't live in the USA, so I probably don't know.
Neither do I, but that doesn't mean I'm going stick my head in the sand and ignore the obvious plain truth.

Then you should have taken on the taliban as an organisation, and not confused them with a nation...
The Taliban was the Afghani government! That's like saying World War II should have been fought against Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party, not the nation of Germany.


Iraq, however, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda,
You're right, they probably didn't provide support for Al Qaeda. They did, however, provide funding, training and support for Hamas, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, the Palestine Liberation Front, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization.

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known.

haha

1. Freedom of speech is not in question, he is made fun of more then anyone right now, he has done nothing to people who did say he is like Hitler.
1.) So why is he wiretapping the homes of US citizens? Such a measure seems needlessly invasive of privacy for a dubious end.

2. Due process? do you mean guantanamo (or however you spell it) bay?
they are prisoners of war, the geneva conventions say we need to not kill/tourture them. it says nothing of fair trials for foreghn terrorists.
2.) Prisoners of war. So New York City taxicab drivers with Arabic sounding names are prisoners of war and/or terrorists and thus deserve to be detained for two years without even learning what their crime is. I see.

3. He may be for state halping American companies, but that is part of government.
3.) Hmmm.. so all the companies that contributed to Bush's campaign and got breaks from environmental regulations in return is part of government? I didn't know that. No, seriously, no sarcasm intended.

4. bush's cabinet were executives in US companies...and what? would you like to get political science students with no real world experience? it is ridiculous to say working before being elected to office is a bad thing.
4.) True. But the fact that they retain significant holdings in those companies while being in positions of authority smells of corruption.

Again, not being a resident of the US, I know mostly from what I hear on the wireless or read in the paper... the media may not be accurate.

Yes, the economy was artificially inflated under Clinton because they changed the way they presented it. They did the old trick of counting liability as assets and lied to people who would believe it. The economy is supposed to be financed in long term bonds. Clinton changed it to short term and they come due when? Right after he leaves office. How convenient.

Yes Bush is running up a deficit. Because government is bloated. Damn near half of what it deos should be eliminated. Starting with social security and medicare. Worst idea in the last 100 years was government control in these areas.

Bush was re-elected on the security issue. However America is fickle. We will elect some lame brain soon that will screw us hard because of the bullshit religious agenga we are putting up with currently to deal with the security of the nation. There will be a huge backlash. Unfortunately we will end up sacrificing lives and safety for it.
Artificially inflated? Have you lost the walnut you call a mind? The inflated bit came right at the end of the growth period and largely because of Conservative greed-suckers like Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Adelphia, and on and on.

Non alligned States:

Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist commander. A terrorist commander who is the leader of Al Quida in Iraq. I would say he counts as terrorist in the country.

Lets list it shal we?
1. Freedom of speech is not in question, he is made fun of more then anyone right now, he has done nothing to people who did say he is like Hitler.
2. Due process? do you mean Guantanamo (or however you spell it) bay?
they are prisoners of war, the Geneva conventions say we need to not kill/torture them. it says nothing of fair trials for foreign terrorists. Actually we could execute them as spies because they are not wearing uniforms, they should count themselves lucky for only being imprisoned.
3. He may be for state helping American companies, but that is part of government.
4. Bush's cabinet were executives in US companies...and what? would you like to get political science students with no real world experience? it is ridiculous to say working before being elected to office is a bad thing.

1: Correct
2: Due Process is for citizens. We do not impose our way of life on other countries. Those in Guantanamo Bay are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. The Geneva convention applies to prisoner of war.
3: All state based assistance should cease. COmpanies and individuals. It is not the purpose of government.
4: The cbainet is made up of real world people. The liberal hate the fact that it is not based in acedemia. I refer to an earlier post when someone said that Socialism and Communism work on paper. In reality and historically proven to be false. I can Algebraically prove 1=2. Is that a truth or is it BS. You make the call.

So why exactly was Iraq so smart?
well, we hear horror stoies when dozens of americans are killed in Faluja, yes I am very sad about that, I'm affiliated with the army (ROTC) and am very sad that my brothers in arms and killed, but would you rather trade a few soldiers for the 200 dead terrorists or the 12 to 3,000 we payed when they attacked us at home.

Sigh. You could actually answer the question. Or is that too much to ask?

I did answer it. You just disagreed with the answer.

The Taliban was the Afghani government! That's like saying World War II should have been fought against Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist German Workers Party, not the nation of Germany. Nope. They weren't officially recognized as the government by anyone but Pakistan or Iran, as far as I can remember.
You're right, they probably didn't provide support for Al Qaeda. They did, however, provide funding, training and support for Hamas, the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, the Palestine Liberation Front, the Kurdistan Workers Party and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq Organization.Am I the only one that remembers how they admitted that Osama bin Laden is a welcome guest in Afghanistan? Not very surprising, since the Taliban and the American backed Osama bin Laden worked together to kick the Russians out.

Do you have any proof that the Taliban were working with Al-Qaeda?

From TIME Magazine April 8th, 2002:
The Bush Administration originally declared Operation Anaconda a victory after al-Qaeda and Taliban forces were battered in the fighting at Shah-i-Kot, near Khost.

They Fight together,they ride together
Technically, that just says that they were routed.... not that they were fighting together. It could have been two separate battles. [/nitpick]

2: Due Process is for citizens. We do not impose our way of life on other countries. Those in Guantanamo Bay are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war. The Geneva convention applies to prisoner of war.
See my post above. Some of those detained in Guantanamo for years were US citizens who were arrested due to their Middle Eastern origin or prior affiliations with suspected terrorist groups.
4: The cbainet is made up of real world people. The liberal hate the fact that it is not based in acedemia. I refer to an earlier post when someone said that Socialism and Communism work on paper. In reality and historically proven to be false. I can Algebraically prove 1=2. Is that a truth or is it BS. You make the call.
Ok, show me the algebraic proof that 1 = 2. I can assure you it will have at least one error in that, as I know of no way that such a thing can be done.

And if you cannot prove it and were using it as a hypothetical argument, why don't you use one you can actually prove for a change?

Am I the only one that remembers how they admitted that Osama bin Laden is a welcome guest in Afghanistan? Not very surprising, since the Taliban and the American backed Osama bin Laden worked together to kick the Russians out.
True... the US did provide funding for the Taliban during the Cold War. And the Taliban was only one of dozens of factions in Afghanistan IIRC; it disintegrated into multilateral civil war following the Soviet withdrawal.

I can Algebraically prove 1=2

haha

I decided to highlight one aspect. When i get home from school, I'll dig up some more for you. There is all sorts of the Northern alliance fighting both at the same time. By the way. They were together. The time archive doesn't show pictures. But one shows the after math showing both parties dead. Side by Side.

well, we hear horror stoies when dozens of americans are killed in Faluja, yes I am very sad about that, I'm affiliated with the army (ROTC) and am very sad that my brothers in arms and killed, but would you rather trade a few soldiers for the 200 dead terrorists or the 12 to 3,000 we payed when they attacked us at home.How do you suggest those 200 terrorists might have made it to America? All that Bush did was manage to put Americans in harms way. I highly doubt Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization would have the funds to get more than a few people into America with the equipment and/or training needed. And that's assuming no one gets caught.
In reality, very few of those that are fighting in Iraq today would have ever had the chance to get close enough to an American, let alone kill him.

You'd just proven that about yourself and I called you on it. You actually believe that your four-paragraph rant, taken straight out of the Conservative talking points and suffused with more typos and spelling errors than a seven-year-old's self portrait and autobiography done in crayon is "intellectual discussion"? Jeez, no wonder the country is fucked.

Well first off I am not a conservative. You would have understood that had you actually read my posts.

Second, the last bastion of idiocy is criticizing someone on spelling in a discussion forum.

And lastly, insulting me as a person and not responding to the content of the post is juvenile.

So I guess this country is fucked because people like you have not taken the time to understand the topics before making edits and comments on them. Yes that is a slap but it is done to show you that you need to analyze first before lashing out on someone. Your post ignored every point I made to summarize it in a childish manner.

Thanks for your response, have a nice life.

1.) So why is he wiretapping the homes of US citizens? Such a measure seems needlessly invasive of privacy for a dubious end.

2.) Prisoners of war. So New York City taxicab drivers with Arabic sounding names are prisoners of war and/or terrorists and thus deserve to be detained for two years without even learning what their crime is. I see.

3.) Hmmm.. so all the companies that contributed to Bush's campaign and got breaks from environmental regulations in return is part of government? I didn't know that. No, seriously, no sarcasm intended.

4.) True. But the fact that they retain significant holdings in those companies while being in positions of authority smells of corruption.

Again, not being a resident of the US, I know mostly from what I hear on the wireless or read in the paper... the media may not be accurate.
1. I fully agree that wiretapping needs to end in the US exept with a warrent of course
2. I see, so where was this taxi cab driver taken?
3. That is a diffrent issue then the cabinate members, that is imoral and I don't agree with that either, but members of the gov having been in the world is not wrong, I'm not talking about lobbying/kickback, that is not what was said.
4. Can you tell me who has a position of athority still?

Am I the only one who has noticed that in less than six pages, this thread degenerated from an argument over the similarities, or lack thereof, between Bush and Hitler into an argument over the justification of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the policies of the Bush administration, most of it along party-line divisions. Doesn't anybody debate anything on this forum anymore besides Conservative vs. Liberal bullshit.

Fuck the Conservatives. Fuck the Liberals. They're all wrong, and I'm right.

I'm off to seethe about this in another thread.

Non alligned States:

Al-Zarqawi is a terrorist commander. A terrorist commander who is the leader of Al Quida in Iraq. I would say he counts as terrorist in the country.That's cute. Invade a country, destroy the police state that kept a Jordanian terrorist out and claim he's the reason you came in the first place.

How do you suggest those 200 terrorists might have made it to America? All that Bush did was manage to put Americans in harms way. I highly doubt Al Qaeda or any similar terrorist organization would have the funds to get more than a few people into America with the equipment and/or training needed. And that's assuming no one gets caught.
In reality, very few of those that are fighting in Iraq today would have ever had the chance to get close enough to an American, let alone kill him.
do I even need to respond? I live in Texas! there is most likly a child of an illegal immagrent in all my classes, I've crossed illegaly from a state park over and back! its not hard at all.

That's cute. Invade a country, destroy the police state that kept a Jordanian terrorist out and claim he's the reason you came in the first place.
why would we do that? why not point out the faciast leader who killed thousend of his own who ruled with an iron fist at the time?

Nope. They weren't officially recognized as the government by anyone but Pakistan or Iran, as far as I can remember.
'
Irrelevent -- they were the de facto government.


Am I the only one that remembers how they admitted that Osama bin Laden is a welcome guest in Afghanistan? Not very surprising, since the Taliban and the American backed Osama bin Laden worked together to kick the Russians out.
The Taliban did not come into existence until the fall of the Communist Afghani government, and there's no evidence whatsoever that the CIA actually worked with Osama bin Laden himself. Yes, some members of the US-backed Muijahdeen did go on to join the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, and that's unfortunate. But you know, until recently, most countries in the world weren't democratic, and it has, historically, often been necessary to work with less-than-perfect allies to defend the cause of freedom.

The free world worked with the Soviets against the Nazis, the Islamic fundamentalists against the Soviets, and now secular dictators against the Islamic fundamentalists. This isn't a rejection of the ultimate superiority of democratic governance, merely a realization that one cannot always be choosy about whom one works with -- especially when so many democracies decide they don't want to share in the heavy lifting.

Technically, that just says that they were routed.... not that they were fighting together. It could have been two separate battles. [/nitpick]

See my post above. Some of those detained in Guantanamo for years were US citizens who were arrested due to their Middle Eastern origin or prior affiliations with suspected terrorist groups.

Ok, show me the algebraic proof that 1 = 2. I can assure you it will have at least one error in that, as I know of no way that such a thing can be done.

And if you cannot prove it and were using it as a hypothetical argument, why don't you use one you can actually prove for a change?

let a = b

a² = ab
Multiply both sides by a
a² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2ab
Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides
2(a² - ab) = a² - ab
Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1
Divide both sides by (a² - ab)

Now,anyone who has taken algebra can follow this proof. Is there an error? Yes. Can you find it? Maybe.

The proof is, I just showed you 1 = 2. Some will believe it. Logically there is no error here. So you can tell me Clinton made a booming economy. Probably even have 100 ways to interpret it and prove your point. Is it true? No! But don't let that stop you.

Bush might not be as bad as Hitler, but he is still rather bad

but Hitler is by no means the end of the pole. Even quite recent history knows worse examples than him (stalin ftw)

do I even need to respond? I live in Texas! there is most likly a child of an illegal immagrent in all my classes, I've crossed illegaly from a state park over and back! its not hard at all.Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Texas border on Mexico and not the Middle East? Even if it's that easy to get into the US by entering Canada or Mexico, it isn't necessarily that easy to get to either of those from the Middle East, for a whole lot of reasons.

tbh the concpet is a bit extreme however he has as good as started a war against a religion ( kinda what hitler did though bush is doin it far more subtley and no where near as harshly or evily)

however they are completely different.. for one hitler was very clever

Well, you also have to consider the fact that the legal government of Afghanistan started the offensive against the Taliban in anticipation of international military intervention.

Y'u what? The government of afghanistan at the time was The Taliban... There were opponents (Northern Alliance and others) but they were not the government of Afghanistan. Not even an ousted legal one. They were an alliance of warlords who disliked the Taliban and wanted to rule... what the hell are you on about?

let a = b

a² = ab
Multiply both sides by a
a² + a² - 2ab = ab + a² - 2ab
Add (a² - 2ab) to both sides
2(a² - ab) = a² - ab
Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1
Divide both sides by (a² - ab)

Now,anyone who has taken algebra can follow this proof. Is there an error? Yes. Can you find it? Maybe.

The proof is, I just showed you 1 = 2. Some will believe it. Logically there is no error here. So you can tell me Clinton made a booming economy. Probably even have 100 ways to interpret it and prove your point. Is it true? No! But don't let that stop you.

there is so much wrong with you equation that I don't know where to start

perhaps this: dividing something with the factor 0 renders all equations void and useless

Is there an error? Yes.
...
Logically there is no error here.

haha

there is so much wrong with you equation that I don't know where to start

perhaps this: dividing something with the factor 0 renders all equations void and useless

Actually the only thing wrong with this proof is if you divide by zero. "So much wrong"? Come on. Admit it. It is a small concession and no one will blame you.

Y'u what? The government of afghanistan at the time was The Taliban... There were opponents (Northern Alliance and others) but they were not the government of Afghanistan. Not even an ousted legal one. They were an alliance of warlords who disliked the Taliban and wanted to rule... what the hell are you on about?Weird. The US embassy staff-person that we met with for the Hague Model United Nations said something completely different about who was the legally recognized government of Afghanistan. In 2000.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Texas border on Mexico and not the Middle East? Even if it's that easy to get into the US by entering Canada or Mexico, it isn't necessarily that easy to get to either of those from the Middle East, for a whole lot of reasons.
yes, it dose indeed border mexico, but its still possible to get in, but the point is that it is draining the resources they might have to get 10 terrorists into the united states, any way you cut it, the ratio is better over there.

tbh the concpet is a bit extreme however he has as good as started a war against a religion ( kinda what hitler did though bush is doin it far more subtley and no where near as harshly or evily)
Hence the close working relationships with Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Turkey, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE and Egypt, and hence granting Major non-NATO ally status to Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco and Pakistan in the last five years...oh, wait, you're full of crap.

yes, it dose indeed border mexico, but its still possible to get in, but the point is that it is draining the resources they might have to get 10 terrorists into the united states, any way you cut it, the ratio is better over there.And while they're at it, they actually are killing Americans. Probably more than any possible terror attacks since then would have cost.

Hence the close working relationships with Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Turkey, Jordan, Yemen, Oman, the UAE and Egypt, and hence granting Major non-NATO ally status to Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco and Pakistan in the last five years...oh, wait, you're full of crap.


oh wait whats that iraq and saddam used to be our ally, but wait didnt we turn on him

tbh the concpet is a bit extreme however he has as good as started a war against a religion ( kinda what hitler did though bush is doin it far more subtley and no where near as harshly or evily)

however they are completely different.. for one hitler was very clever
not a religion a sect of extremests, same as he would any group of Christians who mass mudered 3000 people.

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known. The most innefficient governments are Socialistic or Communistic in model.

What? The Nazi Government was probably the most inefficient load of crap that existed. Multiple organisations all responsible for overlapping areas of policy, and all running in competition to each other rather than co-operating and chaos in many areas.

Arms procurement gives a good example. The army, airforce, SS and other offices were all responsible for research and development of new weapons, and they all competed rather than shared information and resources, and tried to create impressive but impractical designs which would get official support, rather than practical, efficient, but boring designs.

oh wait whats that iraq and saddam used to be our ally, but wait didnt we turn on him
your right, he turned on us, what the hell are you talking about anyway? we didn't give him resources to fight the communists and then say thanks and invade, he said thanks, created a police state and invaded a current ally. but thanks for pointing that out.

not a religion a sect of extremests, same as he would any group of Christians who mass mudered 3000 people.

has he turned on all them militias in africa ( most of whom are all very religious christians ) who go around doin loads of dodgy stuff like child soldiers and killing people and driving from homes etc.

What? The Nazi Government was probably the most inefficient load of crap that existed. Multiple organisations all responsible for overlapping areas of policy, and all running in competition to each other rather than co-operating and chaos in many areas.

Arms procurement gives a good example. The army, airforce, SS and other offices were all responsible for research and development of new weapons, and they all competed rather than shared information and resources, and tried to create impressive but impractical designs which would get official support, rather than practical, efficient, but boring designs.
I think he has been flamed enough for that comment but you are exactly correct.

Wasn't Hitler already an anti-Christ? Wll, at least according to Nostrodamus? Bush is by no means an evil lunatic. Afghanistan was a responce to 9-11 and Iraq was more about finishing family business(think Gearge Herburt Walter Bush Sr. and Gulf War I) than it was about oppression and oil. People just take politics way too seriously.
Its walker, not walter bush.

I already stated them in more threads than I can count. As for Iran, I'm hoping that the UN actually takes care of the problem. I know that Britain and France have placed a resolution on the table so we shall see.



Sounds like the UN.



1) Yes I raise some of the points you raised as untrue NO, you simply stated an adverse postion.

2) Name me a president who hasnt Oh you mean one who hasn't said "with us or against us?" Take your pick. Or do you mean one who, through compelling evidence, told some incy winsy lies about the war in Iraq? Who said "I never could have known the levies would break" when he was shown on Fing video being told exactly that. I guess "Brownie" didn't do such a bad job after all since he was the one telling dubya. I correct the oringinal poster in saying one whon has used stunning nationalism as a basis for attacking other nations.

3) name me a President who hasn't expanded executive powers. After Nixon was run out of town for doing much of what Bush does now, executive power shrunk largely. So I'll name Carter, Ford, et. al. Did any of them complete 750 signing statements basically saying they could ignore the laws congress (the legislative branch) had passed?

Did any of them leak the name of a covert CIA agent working on WMD in Iran in order to silence a critic? Did they put that person and every contact they have in extreme jeapordy? Bush will be remembered for two things: secrecy and doubling the national debt in a little over 5 years. History has already begun to judge him unkindly, but you %32 won't be moved. Face it, without 9/11 George W Bush never gets re-elected in 2004. Without 9/11 he never would have had the power to drag us into the quagmire of Iraq. As for the person who said we take politics too seriously....Maybe we should all read more comic books and rag mags. Damn right we take it seriously as more people should do. My family has been defending this country, myself included for over a 100 years. :sniper:


Do you dare?

Yes, I do

Weird. The US embassy staff-person that we met with for the Hague Model United Nations said something completely different about who was the legally recognized government of Afghanistan. In 2000.

There may have been a legally recognised government (one from before Soviet intervention maybe?), but I cant imagine it actually having a remaining presence in Afghanistan by the time the attack occured. Afghanistan has largely been in anarchy and chaos since the Soviets left... except when the Taliban ruled.

has he turned on all them militias in africa ( most of whom are all very religious christians ) who go around doin loads of dodgy stuff like child soldiers and killing people and driving from homes etc.
they are Christians? well this is a new idea, site me one group that are christians, and if we could we would, but the american people wont stick it through for th ones who killed 3000 in america, there is no way theyed stand for saving lives anywhere elts, you are a prime exaple actually.

Its walker, not walter bush.

too bad really. how about from now on we refer to him as 'wally' anyways?

Comparing Bush to Hitler isn't accurate, IMO. Comparing him to Mussolini or Salazar would be more appropriate.

Comparing Bush to Hitler isn't accurate, IMO. Comparing him to Mussolini or Salazar would be more appropriate.
how exactly?

oh wait whats that iraq and saddam used to be our ally, but wait didnt we turn on him


LOL


Sure we did. Now, if you had a really good friend, you supported them and helped them. Then you find out they are kidnapping young girls, tortured them, raping them, and killing them in his basement. Would you keep supporting him?

not a religion a sect of extremests, same as he would any group of Christians who mass mudered 3000 people.

Oh lets not forget the inquisition. The crusades. (Especially the children's crusade) Missionaries who killed the local populace as barbarians if they refused to convert to xtianity. Salem witch trials. Oh yes, those ppl.

they are Christians? well this is a new idea, site me one group that are christians, and if we could we would, but the american people wont stick it through for th ones who killed 3000 in america, there is no way theyed stand for saving lives anywhere elts, you are a prime exaple actually.


yes its tru, now tbh i didnt believe it either but it is, and i would find you names of a group but its lots of effort to look for a name of a group.

you are a prime exaple actually
hmmm im not sure i understood that bit, what did it mean was it an insult or a comment:confused:

kidnapping young girls, tortured them, raping them, and killing them in his basement

im sorry but since when was saddam a sadistical murderer( scrap that comment), or are you assuming all nasty people happen to be evil paedophiles

This is closer to fascism than nationalism. When people go "If you don't support the government unquestioningly, you're a traitor", that's too close to fascism for comfort.



Well then, let me put it this way.

Do you agree with the government preventing you from travelling freely because of your choice of name? Even if you happen to be a 1 year old baby?

Do you agree with them tapping and monitoring any and every communication you make without warrants?

Do you support the right of the government to have you arrested with no charges, detain you at their pleasure for an indeterminate time lasting anywhere from 2 months to 2 decades and release you afterwards without having pressed any charges or giving compensation?

That's what has happened to several Americans already. For what? For things like having gone to Egypt 20 years ago on a business trip.

Has any president before Bush done any of these things?

umm, do you realise how we treated American citizens who were of Japanese descent during WWII? or even some (although far fewer, Germans), was W. Bush the president during WWII to have done that? I don't think so

Oh lets not forget the inquisition. The crusades. (Especially the children's crusade) Missionaries who killed the local populace as barbarians if they refused to convert to xtianity. Salem witch trials. Oh yes, those ppl.
I think it would be pretty hard to get at the inquisitors at this point, you can't point out parts of history that we are ashamed of and say I should have been a few hundred years ago and stop them. In a hundred years when Islam is the most charitable organization in the world per capta I wont tell them they are bad for 9/11, especially the ones who where never there, or alive.

LOL


Sure we did. Now, if you had a really good friend, you supported them and helped them. Then you find out they are kidnapping young girls, tortured them, raping them, and killing them in his basement. Would you keep supporting him?Not really, but then again, I remember seeing footage of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him at a time when all of Saddam's crimes were well known.

There may have been a legally recognised government (one from before Soviet intervention maybe?), but I cant imagine it actually having a remaining presence in Afghanistan by the time the attack occured. Afghanistan has largely been in anarchy and chaos since the Soviets left... except when the Taliban ruled.Indeed it has been, but the Northern Alliance was pretty much grouped around the recognized Rabaani government. We were quite surprised to hear that the Taliban who were running the show were in fact not the legal government of Afghanistan. It makes quite a difference on a legality issue.

oh wait whats that iraq and saddam used to be our ally, but wait didnt we turn on him
When Saddam invaded Kuwait, and attacked Saudi Arabia, American soldiers fought and died to protect those Muslim countries! It was Saddam who "turned" on the United States (and their other Muslim) allies.

So thank you for reinforcing my point.

Oh lets not forget the inquisition. The crusades. (Especially the children's crusade) Missionaries who killed the local populace as barbarians if they refused to convert to xtianity. Salem witch trials. Oh yes, those ppl.

ummm, I gotta ask if you realise that all of those events were Catholic, not Christian, and happened very, very long before Bsuh was president? 'Cause you don't seem to eralise this

Not really, but then again, I remember seeing footage of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him at a time when all of Saddam's crimes were well known.

You know, I saw Carter shake hands with Arafat too.

It makes quite a difference on a legality issue.
No it doesn't.

yes its tru, now tbh i didnt believe it either but it is, and i would find you names of a group but its lots of effort to look for a name of a group.


hmmm im not sure i understood that bit, what did it mean was it an insult or a comment:confused:



im sorry but since when was saddam a sadistical murderer( scrap that comment), or are you assuming all nasty people happen to be evil paedophiles
that is very unfortunate and you could call them blasphemers all you want, but I suspect they are not supported by any US church.

I'm saying you are a prime example of a person (are you American?) who wont support an attempt to save thousends of lives by invading Iraq, and I doubt you would support US presence in Africa.
OK then if and thats a big if, Saddam didn't rape anyone, his sons did, he is no savory indiviual, and even if he didn't rape anyone, then gassing members of his country, most simalar to Baptists murdering a village of Methodists, is bad enough.

I think it would be pretty hard to get at the inquisitors at this point, you can't point out parts of history that we are ashamed of and say I should have been a few hundred years ago and stop them. In a hundred years when Islam is the most charitable organization in the world per capta I wont tell them they are bad for 9/11, especially the ones who where never there, or alive.

Amen

yes its tru, now tbh i didnt believe it either but it is, and i would find you names of a group but its lots of effort to look for a name of a group.


hmmm im not sure i understood that bit, what did it mean was it an insult or a comment:confused:



im sorry but since when was saddam a sadistical murderer( scrap that comment), or are you assuming all nasty people happen to be evil paedophiles

I think gassing the Kurds was sadistic retribution. Rape rooms. Torture. Yeah pretty much he was as bad as Hitler.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, and attacked Saudi Arabia, American soldiers fought and died to protect those Muslim countries! It was Saddam who "turned" on the United States (and their other Muslim) allies

so when he attacked two of youre biggest oil exporters and the country whos royal family owns huge segments of youre economy, so tbh it was protecting youre own interests more

ummm, I gotta ask if you realise that all of those events were Catholic, not Christian, and happened very, very long before Bsuh was president? 'Cause you don't seem to eralise this

Oh but I do. Catholics are xtain. I suppose you missed the memo.

You know, I saw Carter shake hands with Arafat too.And which peace talks was Saddam into when Rummy shook hands?
Just like Bush != Hitler, Arafat != Saddam.

Not really, but then again, I remember seeing footage of Rumsfeld shaking hands with him at a time when all of Saddam's crimes were well known.
yes but we also shook hands with Stallin, he is a forign dignatary, shakeing hands is not proof the Rummy would go and shoot some political disenters with Saddam.

so when he attacked two of youre biggest oil exporters and the country whos royal family owns huge segments of youre economy, so tbh it was protecting youre own interests more

Partly. No one does anything that does not in some way bolster your interests. Even those who claim to do things for humanitarian reasons still get "something" out of it.

No it doesn't.Really? So helping a legitimate government oust a rebel faction that controls the country is on the same legal stance as just invading a country to get rid of the dictator?

No it doesn't.

wow, waht a well-suppoorted, and reasonable argument, not offering support for a viewpoint must surely be the way to get people to agree with you!

pwned

so when he attacked two of youre biggest oil exporters and the country whos royal family owns huge segments of youre economy, so tbh it was protecting youre own interests more
First of all, I'm not an American, and second of all, whatever motivated the United States to initiate Operation Desert Storm is irrelevent -- that they did is all that matters to this discussion: the United States intervened on behalf of two of its Muslim allies. American servicemen died for the freedom of Kuwait and the security of Saudi Arabia.

Res ipsa loquitur.

And which peace talks was Saddam into when Rummy shook hands?
Just like Bush != Hitler, Arafat != Saddam.

So you prove your own point moot. Therefore Rumsfield != Consprirator just because he shook hands as a dignitary.

yes but we also shook hands with Stallin, he is a forign dignatary, shakeing hands is not proof the Rummy would go and shoot some political disenters with Saddam.And where did I say that he would have? Not that shaking hands with Stalin is ok...

that is very unfortunate and you could call them blasphemers all you want, but I suspect they are not supported by any US church.

well tbh the taliban and alquieda is not supported by any mosque in america

I'm saying you are a prime example of a person (are you American?) who wont support an attempt to save thousends of lives by invading Iraq, and I doubt you would support US presence in Africa.
OK then if and thats a big if, Saddam didn't rape anyone, his sons did, he is no savory indiviual, and even if he didn't rape anyone, then gassing members of his country, most simalar to Baptists murdering a village of Methodists, is bad enough.

nae my good man im not american
and tbh i think i would support us guys in africa as the people there are in far worse conditions, africa is rife with corrupt dictatatorships and the rest.
and tbh the gassing loads of people is no worse than what robert mugabe ( zimbabwe "president") is doin to his people.

i would have supported the war in iraq had it been to help the people but if you think back we went to war to find WMD not to overthrow saddam, however bush and the media have managed to flip this round so as to draw attention away from the mistake of going

the United States intervened on behalf of two of its Muslim allies but as i just said they didnt, they went to preserve their oil and economy

umm, do you realise how we treated American citizens who were of Japanese descent during WWII? or even some (although far fewer, Germans), was W. Bush the president during WWII to have done that? I don't think so

Yes, I realize as much. I also am reminded of the native Americans and their treatment at the US government. Fair enough. So Bush isn't worse than that on that particular score. He's not better either.

So you prove your own point moot. Therefore Rumsfield != Consprirator just because he shook hands as a dignitary.Nice strawman argument. Maybe you should go back and read what the handshake thing was a reply to in the first place.

Well i gotta say i dont think that Bush and Hitler are really very alike in any other sense that they cheated there first elections and that they are anti-communist and anti-musilim (although Hitler hated all religions not just Jewsb although them in particular). Bush is more of an imperialist, as Hitler but Hitler wanted living space where as Bush wants oil and regions perfect for buisness.

Bush is "in command" of a totally corrupt government a one where the right is always the winner (which may i say is happening in the UK, if n e Brits have noticed). It seems to me that the Bush family are more buisness representatives than politicians and they just can not be particularly botherd in doing anything but enjoying the perks of there jobs where as Hitler did take alot of time off he did devote alot of his time to work. Also Bush was voted into power fairly this time (Hitler never was). The idea that the USA is turning into a police state does sound like NAZI Germany and the fact that a parcentage of Americans are afraid of alot of muslims or people who look like muslims does seem to me more like "The politics of fear" than sense. I have to admit I personally should add a note on the Iraq war and why it was thought, i personally think the reason the USA went to war was mailny because there was little reason not too because they will make alot of gains buisness wise and also prevent anouther nation yurning to communism (as well as other gains) and I agree that the USA wanted to spread democracy I just dont think it is good for Iraq at this time, remember it is not always the answer.

anyhu i have to go for a committee meeting
bye xxx
Christopher France (politics student from the UK in case u were wondering)

Really? So helping a legitimate government oust a rebel faction that controls the country is on the same legal stance as just invading a country to get rid of the dictator?
The invasion of Afghanistan had the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, making it entirely legal under international law, and President Bush committed U.S. military personnel to Operation Enduring Freedom acting with his constitutional authority as the commander-in-chief of the United States military, with the full authorization of the United States Congress as required by the War Powers Resolution.

The war was absolutely legal in every conceivable respect.

Oh but I do. Catholics are xtain. I suppose you missed the memo.

ok, so not only does my timeline disprove your point, but I would like to point out that Catholiscism is built on religion, and dogma... i.e. not Christian, no where in the Bible does it support Catholic hierarchy, nor the papcy, and the fact that much of Catholisiscm is based off of Pagan religions for the sake of converting them easily does tend to diminish its actual Chrisitianity

and no, no attack meant to Catholics in general, merely the system that is not Biblically supported that states it is the only one possible dogmatic way to Heaven

how exactly?

Bush doesn't have the racism or anti-Semitism of Hitler, but his domestic and economic policies are strongly reminiscent of the two men I named.

Nice strawman argument. Maybe you should go back and read what the handshake thing was a reply to in the first place.

I guess I viewed yours as a straw man. Kind of a childish argument...who shook hands and who did not.

I will let you read your own posts and move on.

Clinton was re-elected because he did nothing. The American people love anarchy. Problem was it hosed us.

How can you be serious with this? Nothing of what you said remotely resembles the truth. We love anarchy? Did nothing? Clinton had more Republican tendencies than any other Democrat. He was a free market capitalist, a largely republican idea of which I am fond. I'm tired of the whole Clinton did nothing crowd and their short-winded zingers. The man lies over a blowjob and suddenly he's the worst man on Earth. Forget declining poverty,increased healthcare coverage, increased productivity, biggest economic expansion in history, largest :sniper: increase in GDP, etc. Please compare GDP from 1970-present and then talk to me about nothing. Statistics are available at (Beareau of Labor Statistics) BLS.com. I doubt you'll do the research as it requires some heavy liftin from your brain and not your mouth.

I guess I viewed yours as a straw man. Kind of a childish argument...who shook hands and who did not.

I will let you read your own posts and move on.

sorry, but your defence of your argument is reversal? that is another strawman argument... you did not actually offer any support for your claim at all, he did... yet his is strawman? why? because he legitimately attacked your argument and you can do nothing better than "I'm rubber and your glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"?

The invasion of Afghanistan had the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, making it entirely legal under international law, and President Bush committed U.S. military personnel to Operation Enduring Freedom acting with his constitutional authority as the commander-in-chief of the United States military, with the full authorization of the United States Congress as required by the War Powers Resolution.

The war was absolutely legal in every conceivable respect.And I deny this where exactly?

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known. The most innefficient governments are Socialistic or Communistic in model.

Hitler was an effective leader, yes. He was also mad. Bush is an effective leader, or you woul dnot have anything to complain about. Hard pill for you to swallow but it is true. Clinton was an ineffectual leader. Which is why no one can name accomplishments he made, only foibles. The Democrats always fall back on the persecution complex to explain his ineffectualness. However, effectual leaders, despite massive critisism, always move forward knowing their time is limited to effect change. Which is why the restructuring of Iraq kills most liberals. It is proceding at a record pace comparative to history. Germany and Japan took 10-12 years. We have been in Iraq a very short time and the progress is astounding. Therefore it must be ridiculed and denegrated for the liberals to make it appear they have answers. In reality, they have butkus.

As to the continuation of comparing Bush to Hitler, is that all you have? If so, it simply proves the very point I am making. Come up with answers. Regurgitating the party line and making grossly stupid comparisons is not effectual leadership. In fact, it completely undermines any possibly good ideas you may have. You have to roll up your sleeves and pull it out of the mud before people will embrace it. You may not like what you see in Iraq, but frankly it is because "your puppet" <insert name of candidate here> is not in the White House with his finger on the pulse and his other finger in the air checking the breeze.

Politicians are creatures of our system. They do what the mob tells them to, and where the financiers tell them to go. No President is exempt. No politician is exempt. They learn to compromise on principle in the first term of any office. Why? Survival. The President, and others, are limited by term limits. This is why the second term of a President means no holds barred. They do what they think is right, despite public opinion. Why? Because they have no hope of re-election. The election cycle governs what the politician does.

So stop bashing and start thinking. The system needs to be revamped. You cannot put a mob rules system into play and not disagree with 1/2 of what happens. It just isn't possible. Iraq is one of the smartest things we have done. No one on the left likes it because they weren't in power when it happened. They all love Jack Kennedy. He started Viet Nam for America. LBJ continued it. Nixon inherited it. As did Ford. Carter allowed Iran to get away with the hostage crisis. Reagan inherited it. Reagan got us involved with Iran and the Contras. Bush inherited it. Bush got us involved in Iraq finally. Clinton inherited it. CLinton got us into big trouble by sitting on his laurels. Lip service to Bosnia. Allowing Americans to die in Haiti and Somalia. Telling the Arab world it is okay to attack and kill us, we are all talk. We got 9/11. Bush inherited it. Bush is handling the Iraq situation and proving the UN useless. The next President will inherit it. And the cycle continues.

So stop whining. We all have things to do to make this country better. Politicians do not do anything that does not directly profit them in some way. Understand that and the system becomes more palatable and change becomes more apparant.

The Clinton Presidency: A Historic Era of Progress and Prosperity


Longest economic expansion in American history
The President’s strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.


More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.


Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.


Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.


Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.


Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.


Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.


Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton’s comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.


100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.


Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.


Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.


Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. People on welfare today are five times more likely to be working than in 1992.


Higher incomes at all levels
After falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family’s income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation, since 1993. African American family income increased even more, rising by nearly $7,000 since 1993. After years of stagnant income growth among average and lower income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit growth since 1993. The bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent.


Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Since Congress passed President Clinton’s Economic Plan in 1993, the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent last year — the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. There are now 7 million fewer people in poverty than in 1993. The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent, the poverty rates for single mothers, African Americans and the elderly have dropped to their lowest levels on record, and Hispanic poverty dropped to its lowest level since 1979.


Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
In his 1995 State of the Union Address, President Clinton challenged Americans to join together in a national campaign against teen pregnancy. The birth rate for teens aged 15-19 declined every year of the Clinton Presidency, from 60.7 per 1,000 teens in 1992 to a record low of 49.6 in 1999.


Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
The Clinton Administration expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care. Today, a record high 82 percent of all mothers receive prenatal care. The infant mortality rate has dropped from 8.5 deaths per 1,000 in 1992 to 7.2 deaths per 1,000 in 1998, the lowest rate ever recorded.


Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union
Efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union.


Protected millions of acres of American land
President Clinton has protected more land in the lower 48 states than any other president. He has protected 5 new national parks, designated 11 new national monuments and expanded two others and proposed protections for 60 million acres of roadless areas in America’s national forests.


Paid off $360 billion of the national debt
Between 1998-2000, the national debt was reduced by $363 billion — the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. We are now on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009.


Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Thanks in large part to the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, and President Clinton’s call to save the surplus for debt reduction, Social Security, and Medicare solvency, America has put its fiscal house in order. The deficit was $290 billion in 1993 and expected to grow to $455 billion by this year. Instead, we have a projected surplus of $237 billion.


Lowest government spending in three decades
Under President Clinton federal government spending as a share of the economy has decreased from 22.2 percent in 1992 to a projected 18.5 percent in 2000, the lowest since 1966.


Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
President Clinton enacted targeted tax cuts such as the Earned Income Tax Credit expansion, $500 child tax credit, and the HOPE Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Tax Credits. Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family have dropped to their lowest level in 35 years.


More families own stock than ever before
The number of families owning stock in the United States increased by 40 percent since 1992.


Most diverse cabinet in American history
The President has appointed more African Americans, women and Hispanics to the Cabinet than any other President in history. He appointed the first female Attorney General, the first female Secretary of State and the first Asian American cabinet secretary ever.

sorry, but your defence of your argument is reversal? that is another strawman argument... you did not actually offer any support for your claim at all, he did... yet his is strawman? why? because he legitimately attacked your argument and you can do nothing better than "I'm rubber and your glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"?

yes, well said.

pettiness killed the cat

Boy, I guess Carter didn't have any point at all about the necessity for alternative energy sources and conservation.

Come on, you're just spouting Conservative dogma when you bash Carter. Was he a great president? No. Was he the worst? No.

-snip-

I voted for Carter against Reagan. I was a registered Democrat at the time, and believed all the Democrat propaganda.

Carter was quite ineffectual. Talking about the need for things does not get us the things, ever. Deeds not words. I am sorry that I cast a vote for him in the first election in which I was old enough to participate.

Then I opened my eyes and ears, and the truth was that the things my party was telling me about Reagan were untrue. I heard his words, and then the Democrats' responses, and their supposed regurgitation of Reagan's words were falsehoods and fabrications.

Trying to make Bush into Hitler is also a fabrication, and a poor strategy. Where is the Fascism?

from Dictionary.com:
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Bush is a dictator? The advocates of "stringent socioeconomic controls" and " suppression of the opposition" seem to be his opponents (taxing and regulating and enforcing political correctness, hate crimes aka thought crimes, suppress those who offend, etc).

Where is the belligerent nationalism? Why is it bad to be patriotic, to favor one's own nation? Is that the new definition of "belligerent nationalism?"

:rolleyes:

Yeah I guess its wrong to compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler served in combat.
Plus, Hitler had the mustache, and gave inspiring speeches.

Why is it that whenever I see a Anti-Bush rally, that they're comparing him to Hitler? Now don't get me wrong, I hate the guy too, I think he's the worst President of my generation. However he's no Hitler. I mean he didn't round up several millions people and gas 12 millions of them. He didn't start a Fourth Reich, and on and on. So why the comparison between a C average President to probably someone who was one step away from being the Anti-Christ?


I think a better analogy is Bush to Emperor Nero. Both inherited the title. Both allowed their nations to virtual collapse. Both were insane/or defective mentally (but at least Bush didn't kill his mom). Both allowed tragic situations to happen that ultimatly brought down their rule.(Rome fires/New Orleans).

Similar is also Rome in the 3rd centery and America today. Both were/are near collapse brought by corrupt governments and near anarchy. America is just declining at a faster rate.

Where is the Fascism?

from Dictionary.com:
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.Well, the bold parts are the ones that Bush's government and the general tendency of America's politics qualify for. Centralization of authority: Now while there still is a division of power, it's been obvious that the Republican party has a de facto majority in all three branches. It was pretty much the President's decision to go into Iraq and Congress followed suit.
Suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship: Terror? Yes. Not directly by the government, but I remember what it was like before Farenheit 911 came out. No one really had the courage to say anything. "That's my Bush" got taken off the air. Moore might be an idiot, but at least he had the guts to get up and say something. That "You're with us or you're against us!" and the general feeling that you'd be called a traitor if you opposed the President was de facto Terror. Not institutionalized or methodological terror, but it was there.
Now censorship is also there to a degree. I'm sure I remember hearing the argument "Don't say this in the name of national security" rather often. As above, it wasn't institutionalized, but small arrows point in the general direction.
Belligerent nationalism: From what I hear, this is all a war against people that hate our way of life. We were all supposed to be whipped up into a frenzy and defend the Freedom we hold so dear by attacking Iraq. That is indeed belligerent nationalism.

Does this mean that the US and Bush are fascist? No. It doesn't. But I personally think that the US and our President are much too close to it than is healthy for a republic.

Where is the Fascism?

it's in the accusations of 'treason' and 'traitor' against all who don't loudly proclaim the glory of dear leader. it's in the spying on political enemies, the suspension of habeas corpus, the cheerleading for torture. it's in the secret torture and murder camps in old gulag facilities. it's in the naked law breaking by the law enforcers. it's in the abandonment of facts and logic in favor of official party positions. it's in the brazen propaganda calling itself journalism. it's in the baffling authoritarian personality cult. it's in the claims that everyone and everything "hates america", and in the invitation of people calling for genocide and nuclear war to speak at high profile party events. it's in the threats of violence against dissenters and "undesireables" by informally organized modern blackshirts. it's in the staged pro-government rallies and in the "free speech zones". it's in the constant glorification of war and violence and in the militarification of a civillian leader. it's in the talk of moral and political decay and the need for renewal under the strong leadership of the party, which is identified with "the country". it's in the imperial adventures and the exercise of power as good in themselves. and that's just for starters.

To be honest, Bush can compare to Hitler in some ways. One of them being responsible for creating a near rabid atmosphere of nationalism in the beginning of his term, invasions based on flimsy excuses, expanded executive powers significantly, etc, etc.

Oh yes, he's also got a hard core number of supporters that would probably have done very well had he created the American version of the Waffen SS (the fanaticism).

What he hasn't done however, is opened up death camps. Yes, he's got those CIA black sites, but there isn't any indication that he's having whole ethnic groups rounded up and executed on mass scales.

So you could say that Bush is Hitler-lite :p

Hmmm... Then EVERYONE can be compaired to Hitler. Your a biped, a male, a mammal, and at times you are intolerant towards x social or ethnic group (we all are).

In the end it is a small minded comparison that does nothing for anyone cause except belittle one of the greatest mass murders in human history. I'm really getting sick of the "x is like Hitler" game, it seems to be becoming more and more common. Escpecially now that the people who actually knew what Hitler did are dying off. There are valid Hitler compairisons, sure. Stalin was like Hitler, or even that Milosovic asshat was like Hitler, but George Bush isn't, in any way shape or form (with exceptions of the above physiological traits).

Hitler did form the most efficient government the planet had ever known. The most innefficient governments are Socialistic or Communistic in model.

Bush is an effective leader, or you woul dnot have anything to complain about.

Iraq is one of the smartest things we have done. No one on the left likes it because they weren't in power when it happened. They all love Jack Kennedy. He started Viet Nam for America.

Politicians do not do anything that does not directly profit them in some way.

Communism may be a very inefficient economic model, but socialism isn't. It's actually working much better than what the US is doing.

If he was an effective leader, I would have nothing to complain about. I have a lot to complain about and I don't even live in the US - hence, he is not an effective leader. Non-efficient leaders are the ones people complain about.

Last time I checked, Iraq isn't good for anyone, not even Iraq, although they may benefit.

But, who on the "left" liked Vietnam? To my knowledge, the French communist party at the time took every oppurtunity to say how they shouldn't be there and how the US wasn't even bothering to help their allies, etc... I don't think the left liked Vietnam at all.

And if politicians were just slightly more altruistic we might get some better societies. People aren't politicians all their lives and can afford some eight years of altruism in a position where they aren't lacking in anything.

But, who on the "left" liked Vietnam? To my knowledge, the French communist party at the time took every oppurtunity to say how they shouldn't be there and how the US wasn't even bothering to help their allies, etc... I don't think the left liked Vietnam at all.

And the British labour party, when in government, refused to supply troops to America, and not soley because it didnt serve British national interests.

Now, the centre right wimps that largely pass for the "left" in the States may have supported it, but not any true left wing party or government.

The invasion of Afghanistan had the authorization of the United Nations Security Council, making it entirely legal under international law, and President Bush committed U.S. military personnel to Operation Enduring Freedom acting with his constitutional authority as the commander-in-chief of the United States military, with the full authorization of the United States Congress as required by the War Powers Resolution.

The war was absolutely legal in every conceivable respect.

They had a hall pass?

Bush doesn't have the racism or anti-Semitism of Hitler, but his domestic and economic policies are strongly reminiscent of the two men I named.

Does Clinton remind you of Stalin and Castro?

Comparing Bush to Hitler isn't accurate, IMO. Comparing him to Mussolini or Salazar would be more appropriate.

indeed, there's more than enough authoritarians to go around. the bush/hitler thing is just lazy.

How can you be serious with this? Nothing of what you said remotely resembles the truth. We love anarchy? Did nothing? Clinton had more Republican tendencies than any other Democrat. He was a free market capitalist, a largely republican idea of which I am fond. I'm tired of the whole Clinton did nothing crowd and their short-winded zingers. The man lies over a blowjob and suddenly he's the worst man on Earth. Forget declining poverty,increased healthcare coverage, increased productivity, biggest economic expansion in history, largest :sniper: increase in GDP, etc. Please compare GDP from 1970-present and then talk to me about nothing. Statistics are available at (Beareau of Labor Statistics) BLS.com. I doubt you'll do the research as it requires some heavy liftin from your brain and not your mouth.

Oh the simplistest deflection of the blow job theory. Would you get over his sex life? The man will screw anything in his path. So what. His domestic and international policies sucked eggs.

As to my research, any I do you will find some clever way to disguise it in a blow job I am sure. If you go to the sites that interpret the data, such as you propose, you will find many comparisons to support either side.

Now, don't hurt your brain over this. It requires thought so be careful.

sorry, but your defence of your argument is reversal? that is another strawman argument... you did not actually offer any support for your claim at all, he did... yet his is strawman? why? because he legitimately attacked your argument and you can do nothing better than "I'm rubber and your glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you"?

No but if you would like to defend his original spew I am all ears.

but as i just said they didnt, they went to preserve their oil and economy
No, you ignored what I said: the motives of the United States and its allies in preserving the security of Saudi Arabia and the sovereignty of Kuwait are irrelevent. Regardless of why we did as we did ('we' as in the free world, and in my case, Canada in particular), that is what we did.

William J. Clinton, an accessory and enabler of the 9/11 terrorist attacks,

while US president for 8 years, .....[Free Republic]


Issued Executive Order 12866 and the change in the Federal Law relieving the FAA of their original responsibility for safety.

Decimated the budget for 'human' intelligence, including the infiltration of terrorist groups by informers.

Incited the Muslims with unannounced and unjustified attacks on an aspirin factory in Sudan, with civilian fatalities - (day before impeachment vote).

Ordered ineffective 'surgical' strikes at Bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan - (day before impeachment vote).

Intentionally failed to confront Iraq over its complicity in the embassy and WTC bombing and other attacks:

Covered-up Iraqi involvement in 1993 WTC Bombing and TWA 800 and OKC Bombing

Made the CIA and DOJ roles into a political joke

Launched bombing raids against civilians against so-called "terrorist training camps" supposedly under bin Laden's control in Afghanistan

Launched bombing raids against civilians against a purported "chemical weapons factory" in Sudan that almost certainly was no such thing.

Launched bombing raids against civilians :on the same day as Monica Lewinsky's grand jury testimony that she had engaged in sex with the president.

Ordered bombings in Iraq the day before Congress was scheduled to vote on his impeachment.

Waged war for no compelling reason in the Balkans, and slaughtered civilians with the unprovoked bombings.

Announced a "War on Terrorism," yet prevented American intelligence from acquiring the kinds of assets it needed to do the job

Provided China with intelligence to pass on to Afghanistan

Rejected military strike on bin Laden during final days in office, after receiving intelligence on his whereabouts

Offered to reduce the sentences of 16 members of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, commonly known by its Spanish initials, FALN, on the condition they renounce violence. The group was involved in more than 100 bombings in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s. Hillary Clinton was then running for senatress in NY, with its large Puerto Rican population.

Made a "solemn promise" at Norfolk, Va. to the families, friends and shipmates of the USS Cole to avenge their deaths.

Sold Bin Ladin the communications equipment that couldn't be tapped
Supported the Taliban militia in Afghanistan; claimed by Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher: UPI / author Joe Warminsky / October 20, 1999.

New York Times: the FBI had detailed plans and advanced warnings for over five months for the bombings of the embassies and the World Trade Center and nothing adequate was done to try to stop the bombings.

DOJ and FBI handling of an Egyptian, Ali Mohammed, who worked directly for Bin Laden and the CIA and the FBI and the Green Berets and was involved in Arab terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Ali first worked training Green Berets, then worked for the CIA before becoming an FBI operative out of Sacramento, California from 1992 to 1996. Ali was indicted in New York in late 1998 for helping Bin Laden do the bombings of the World Trade Center and the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He was also indicted for setting up and training Bin Laden terrorist cells in the US. When arrested he had manuals for how to hide explosives in public buildings. He is suspected of helping Bin Laden by writing terrorist training manuals for Bin Laden.

DOJ was concerned how the DOJ could keep the public from knowing about the involvement of Middle Eastern men in the OKC bombing.

Details for last 2 counts in : [October 19, 2000] Gore and Clinton and Some of Their Associates Linked to Terrorist Groups?

Disbanded with security checks for incoming personnel by giving hundreds of people permenant "temporary passes". After a year there were still over 300. This prompted the House Commitee on Intelligence to threaten the FBI director to get him to ensure the security of documents in the White House (it is one of his duties) in late 1993, or early 1994. A copy of the letter was published by the WSJ

Clinton's senior people gave waivers for background investigations and access to CIA documents to fundraisers that were installed in administration positions.

Squashed security procedures to allow himself easier access to interns
Banned the CIA from using as informants anyone associated with human rights abuses or terrorism, and banned the recruitment of Chinese below the senior embassy official level.

Immediately diverted much of the intelligence budget to domestic surveillance, upon taking office. This accelerated after the OKC bombing.
Appointed, and left in place, people such as Hazel O'Leary who went on a declassification binge of technical documents. There are quotes suggesting that she was trying to declassify as much as she could before she was stopped.

Appointed people like Deutch who showed no particular interest in actual security, giving access to a laptop to uncleared people with classified work materials on it.

Repeatedly interfered with espionage cases that involved campaign contributors.

Mismanaged a haphazard opportunistic foreign policy, where foreign policy was conducted primarily for his own benefit, not the nation's or even his own party.

Used attacks to distract from personal political troubles.
Set up campaigns which used up immense resources, to prosecute incited wars, in a manner that was ineffective and demonstrated an exceptionally weak stomach for tolerance of casualties.

Encouraged policies which encouraged groups like the Palestinians to act falsely, thereby raising tensions on both sides, and reducing the chance of a stable peace.

And I deny this where exactly?
You've just been prattling on about how the fact that the Taliban was not the legitimate government of Afghanstan "changed the legality" of the war: if you did not mean to say that the war was not legal because it was grounded upon deposing the (illegitimate) Afghani government which had been complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks, exactly what did you mean to say?

But, who on the "left" liked Vietnam? To my knowledge, the French communist party at the time took every oppurtunity to say how they shouldn't be there and how the US wasn't even bothering to help their allies, etc...
French Communists trying to prevent the free world from defending South Vietnam from Communist subjugation? No kidding! Who would have thought it?

Two words I rarely wish to read.

Free Republic

who didn't see that one coming?