PDA

View Full Version : George BUSH



Detective
12-21-2005, 12:38 AM
For all those who criticize the American president, George BUSH, please read the following article.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=1421748

Sonar
12-21-2005, 09:49 AM
All of this recent negativity about George Bush is mostly the result of liberals such as Howard Dean with their power struggle agenda.
Their goal is to re-gain political power is the US at any cost.
Just as Arnold Schwartznegger is being attacked by the liberals in California for allowing a convicted murderer to be executed last week.
As far as I am concerned, any American that does not support the president during a time of war is a traitor.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

ham
12-21-2005, 10:36 AM
so, what?
i can invade Uganda and have any government i want put in place & look a savior.
Don't take my words...the French have been doing it in their former african colonies for decades (see Congo-Kinshasa, Tchad, Mauritania, Central African Republic etc ).
Nothing different from the nazis ( on a side note, Petain who all consider a traitor was voted full powers by pre-war french parliament still in place, not some straw man government ala Najibullah ).
Recently, an american president perjured in front of their parliament for some cooky oral sex affair...nothing happened...i even read comments along the lines of: Give him a break! he isn't lying about the vietnam war!
Now another president lied about mass destruction weapons (the whole UN France-Russia-China VS USA contention was this: they said there [u]absolutely were these weapons</u>. Others say they weren't. UN inspection etc proved nothing could be found ) and that was the ground to start a war...yet nothing happens...simpletons are just happy and never bother to inquire why do you still get dozens of daily terrorist acts and why it all hasn't stopped with Afghanistan's fall...no wait...Milosevic...no wait...
or perhaps the answer is "rugheads themselves are...", at which point occupying oil- or opium- rich countries does no good but to the coded bank accounts of some crooks.

Back in time, under Najibullah's USSR-ridden regime, women could wear skirts & go to school. I still remember the bitching from USSR's leaders claiming at the UN american-funded terrorism ( aka talibans etc ) was a disgrace, to which the USA responded for all they knew, talibans were "freedom fighters", not terrorists, and anyways Najbullah ( later hung high on a street if i'm not mistaken ) was a straw man of the "evil empire". These days, let's invade a country because evil talibans can't stand miniskirts, schools read only the Quran & porn-TV is banned...it's morally unjust.

Back in the 60's, France & Italy were behind Mobutu in the Congo rebellion (where at some point you'd have 3 separate governments, Mobutu, Kasa-Bubu & another one ).
The ideological cover was Congo should become Zaire (ala Sedar-Senghor ) & foster the value of in-bred negro-hood ( n?gritude in Sedar-Senghor ) outraged by european colonialism.
Millions of lives got lost.
A few years back, another rebellion in belgian Congo.
About-face, now Congo is no longer "Zaire"...

So it's about ethics, not fictitious, gratuitous philosophies to embellish acts of power & supremacy.
Once proposed a "nazi UN charter", Hitler baffled the proposal under the honest pretense they wanted to be the boss, the hell with blowing smoke.

After dismantling colonial empires (evil, racist, whatever ), now Doublejew reads Israeli vetted reports & dreams about building a new one...answer...a) you could keep those in existence in the 1940's and b) if those could no longer work, yours stands no better chances in 2005 and c) how many "rugheads" are there? A billion?

I just shake my head in disbelief.
About polls:
we had two cases here when (based upon polls & partial scrutiny) idiots were partying the victory & helding press conferences, only for the final result to change (by 10%, not 0,x ).
In the 1993 Quebec elections, polls stated PQ would win the elections; instead, liberals did.
Some scholars claim polls are inherently flawed (EG people purposefully lie & the undecided are in much greater number ).

ham
12-21-2005, 10:43 AM
quote:As far as I am concerned, any American that does not support the president during a time of war is a traitor.


was that from "Delta force III " or " American Ninja IV "?

and what is a perjuring or lying president?

Sonar
12-21-2005, 11:27 AM
Former President Clinton, various leftists, and the United Nations said the exact same

things Bush said, the only difference was Bush ACTUALLY took action, INSTEAD of just TALKING

about it.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of

mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President

Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to

seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the

risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons

against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb. 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb., 18, 1998

"[WE]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S Constitution

and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on

suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its

weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl

Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

-------------

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction

technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the

weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and

palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports

indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to

pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is

doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that

will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen.

Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace

and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is

building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin

(D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout

his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should

assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass

destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam

Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since

embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate

that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if

necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of

mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.

Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop

nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also

should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of

weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct. 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN

resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons,

and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do" - Rep Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein

has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery

capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It

is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his

capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear

weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and

has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of

weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,

leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so

consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to

his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the

threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry

(D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

Sonar
12-21-2005, 11:34 AM
quote:Originally posted by ham


quote:As far as I am concerned, any American that does not support the president during a time of war is a traitor.


was that from "Delta force III " or " American Ninja IV "?
Well actually that quote was from me, a former US Marine.
Since your only military experience consists of watching movies, I'm sure you don't understand.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

ham
12-21-2005, 01:29 PM
the only soldiers i can get Rambo quotes from are those in service.
Some die for those quotes.
Hint: Kenndy was having sleazy weekends while sending soldiers to die in Vietnam. Doublejew opted for national guard, yet thicked the "non wanting to volunteer overseas" box...very brave. Another chicken pleaded homosexual; a third said he wanted to become a priest, then dodged the seminary when the war ended.
These days they are the pundits waging wars on the behalf of the country whose "patriotic" duty they dodged...funny.
Are these the people who can call anyone"traitor"?
Or are they the measure of bravery?
At least Hitler & Mussolini had volunteered WWI.
the rest it's all a movie we all watch through TV news.

Then there must be a distinction between "can", " might " and "has".
If i had a billion dollars i could easily develop bacteriological weapons or atomic weapons.
Knowledge is common in this era.
I would hire a few expat scientists and fund their research and bingo, you get screenplay for some Bond movie.
Pakistan has A bombs; India has A bombs; Korea has A bombs...this proves even East Timor could have A bombs.

The only problem with Irak is liars said they had to act now because Saddam was striking.
As a matter of fact, UN inspections & else found nothing remotely similar to the "secret reports" only B&B knew about.
Now are UN inspectors on Teheran's payroll?
That is all the evidence there...

Interesting enough, back then liars said Irak was paying huge amounts of money to kamikazes, thus invading Irak would deplete the propelling force behind fanatics blowing themselves up to grant $300.000 to their families ( yes, news here quoted fantastic amounts ).
That card had already been played with Afghanistan fueling kamikazes with opium money...but they stood corrected & said "secret reports" indicted Saddam...good friend from the Iran war times.

Now they are three times liars because there are more violent & frequent terrorist acts & bombs today than when Saddam was in power + Irak is on the verge of tribal warfare, just like Afghanistan...you can only have a soldier at every traffic light & hope it isn't his turn...same as russians did.

Not to mention the funny lines of liars claiming they are on a mission on the behalf of "god" and "god" this & that...ah but the hallucinating freak was Hitler.
Hint #2: Pakistan used to be the only democracy to have a premier with a period, besides Thatcher.
Rebellion came and now you have a dictator like Mujarraf.
Can you really tell the difference between him & Saddam?
Mural art hailing the caudillo...summary executions...garrison state...end of elections...war with neighboring states... yet Delta Force is fine with that...has "god" anything to say?
When planes where crashing, men in cahoots with god flew "over there", instead of leading the the counter-attack.
Hitler never left Berlin because in his own words that would turn him into a coward whose orders deserved to be disregarded.

Soldiers die. They are into the ENRON disaster but don't tell the courts because of privacy concerns...

Sonar
12-21-2005, 03:54 PM
Don't really know where you are going with this since you tend to jump all over the place with it.
You know that you forgot to mention that Bush also lied about water on Mars.
What exactly is your point? That George Bush is no better than Hitler or Mousillini? Or Saddan Huissen or OBL? Why don't you throw Stalin in there too?
There is nothing going on in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else occupied by American soldiers that even remotely compares to some damn Rambo movie or Chuck Norris movie.
War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

ham
12-21-2005, 05:19 PM
well, let's end this nonsense.

quote:You know that you forgot to mention that Bush also lied about water on Mars.


yes, sure...they dodge conscription & let "patriots" like you take their place...bravo...cheers.
Or are you saying they aren't conscription dodgers?
What's wrong with Stalin?
He was America's big WWII ally, wasn't he?
Oh no!
Another ally suddenly found guilty of horrible crimes!
Sounds like the USA have problems selecting friends.


quote:War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.


for a start, a billion "rugheads" who can black us out and have airplanes crash whenever they want...for a start...of course big brother had no clue while flooding us with muslims then waving the bible...how interesting...now big brother wants to wage war at the whole muslim world ( at least Irak, Afghanista, Iran, Syria & a few others ).


quote:Don't really know where you are going with this since you tend to jump all over the place with it.


i have no idea, but sure no further than:


quote:any American that does not support the president during a time of war is a traitor.


When Italy invaded Albania, the "reason we told others " was to counter aggressive German politics and to take stress off France & the UK.
As a plus, our king's wife was a gipsy princess from Yugoslavia.
" The reason that sounded good " was the Italy had just conquered Abyssinia and our king had then become "emperor", thus Albania was another "annexed land".
Well, for local populations it was only for the good, since they were under a caudillo (Zogu) turned from president to King via a golpe.
The "real reason" was Mussolini's son in law & foreign policy minister count Ciano & other influent people had huuge financial interests in Albania, and king Zogu was an obstacle.
Now i told you the 3 reasons...which one was the true propelling force behind that war?
I'm going nowhere: just facts.

wxman2003
12-21-2005, 06:23 PM
I am a registered Republican, and say that because I do not not want to be confused with a liberal when I bash George Bush. First, Bush acts like a tryannt and a fool. Illegal wiretapping is a violation of our constitution and what he is doing is illegal. He does not have the right to wiretap anyone he wishes under the pretext of stopping terrorism. He chooses not to get a court order, which he can do secretly. He can only claim emergency reasons to wiretap for up to 30 days after he delared the emergency...9/11/2001. He believes he is above the law and can spy on anyone he wishes. He is a disgrace to the Constitution, which so many American have died fighting to defend. When asked about the lack of checks, he got upset acting like a tyrannt, and claimed the reporter was accusing him of being a tryannt. Apparently if you ask the president about checks and balances, you are accusing him of being a tyrannt. By the way he did not answer the question. His vice president Cheney, actually admires Nixon and the way he spied. He feels that the president's powers were eroded since Nixon. Wrong, they were not eroded, Nixon abused them, and Congress had to reel him in. It is sad that most Americans do not realize they are losing their freedoms as of yet, but of course they are the same ones that approved of the war in Iraq, but now dissaprove of. I do not approve the way the Democrats ran this country into the ground, but I also will not support a tyrannt and a fool who has a total disregard for the truth and the law.

wxman2003
12-21-2005, 06:31 PM
Opposing a president actions during a war is not being a traitor. Only a fool follows blindly into war. Just asks the Germans under Hitler, Russians under Stalin, and on and on. To stand up for what is right, even opposing the president during war is patriotic. The Viet Nam war was wrong, and if the people of this country did not stand up against it, how many more Americans would have died? If the blacks did not stand up against the tyranny of in equality, they still would be riding the back of the bus, not allowed at most Universites, etc. America was formed because it was fed up with the tryanny of government, and wanted a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Not a government of the govenment, by the government and for the government served to by the people. Those who follow blindly and blindly follow the president into war are the fools and traitors.

Sonar
12-21-2005, 07:09 PM
quote:Originally posted by wxman2003

I am a registered Republican, and say that because I do not not want to be confused with a liberal when I bash George Bush. First, Bush acts like a tryannt and a fool. He is a disgrace to the Constitution, which so many American have died fighting to defend. It is sad that most Americans do not realize they are losing their freedoms as of yet, but of course they are the same ones that approved of the war in Iraq, but now dissaprove of. I do not approve the way the Democrats ran this country into the ground, but I also will not support a tyrannt and a fool who has a total disregard for the truth and the law.
Isn't that interesting. A liberal that doesn't want to be confused with a liberal. That's a pretty common theme among Bush bashers. I'm well aware that the Republican Party also has it's far left kooks but they are very rare. Or maybe not as rare as I thought.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

Sonar
12-21-2005, 08:10 PM
quote:Originally posted by wxman2003

Opposing a president actions during a war is not being a traitor. Only a fool follows blindly into war. Just asks the Germans under Hitler, Russians under Stalin, and on and on. To stand up for what is right, even opposing the president during war is patriotic. America was formed because it was fed up with the tryanny of government, and wanted a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Not a government of the govenment, by the government and for the government served to by the people. Those who follow blindly and blindly follow the president into war are the fools and traitors.
I think that you are a little bit confused with your claims of "fools following the president blindly into war". Seems to me that the president did seek and win congressional approval for both the Afghanistan war and the Iraqi war.
Did not the Senate Armed Services Committee hold hearings on whether or not to go to war in Iraq after their August '02 recess?
The war powers clause of the Constitution states that war is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people----- The Congress.
On September 18th, 2001, congressional approval for the war in Afghanistan was granted by a 98-0 vote in the Senate and a 420-1 vote in the House.
On October 16, 2002, congressional approval for the war in Iraq was granted by a 77-23 vote in the Senate and a 296-133 vote in the House.
So what "Fools following blindly into war" are you refering to? Our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq no doubt.
Well the facts speak for themselves. NOBODY followed anyone blindly into war so get your damn story straight before you go blasting off with innuendo's and slanderous and derogatory insinuations.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

Sonar
12-21-2005, 10:31 PM
quote:Originally posted by ham
What's wrong with Stalin?
He was America's big WWII ally, wasn't he?
Oh no!
Another ally suddenly found guilty of horrible crimes!
Sounds like the USA have problems selecting friends.


Russia was an ally of the US during WWII but I would not go so far as to say our "Big WWII ally". He was more of a "Big ally" of western Europe rather than the USA. Do you think that Germany would have prevailed if not for Russia?? With or without Russia, Germany was doomed. Roosevelt trusted them but most Americans did not.
"What's wrong with Stalin" ? Hard to believe that you would even ask such a question. But sure, since you don't know, I'll give you a little education about Stalin.
1: Ask any Ukrainian about Holodomor and then try to convince them that Stalin was a good guy. For those that don't know, Holodomor is the man-made famine created in Ukraine and some parts of Russia in 1932 and 1933. Some refer to it as the Ukrainian genocide.
It was caused by the seizure of the 1932-33 Ukrainian grain crop by Stalin under his 'Collectivization' doctrine. While 14.5 million people starved to death, Stalin exported 1.7 million tons of grain in 1932 and 1.84 million tons in 1933.
The governments of 26 countries recognize Holodomor as genocide committed by Stalin against the Ukrainian people.
Maybe you should go to the Vatican and ask someone about it.
The last Saturday in November in the official day of commeration throughout Ukraine.
The events of 1932-33 in Ukraine were seen by Stalin as the final solution against possible Ukrainian self-determination.
2: The Soviet system of forced labor camps. aka: The Gulag.
3: Repression, persecution and murder of (in some estimates) up to
30 million of his own peolple.
4: The Great Purge of the 1930's when Stalin tortured and executed
600,000 of the 1.2 million Communist Party members that brought
him to power.
5: The non-aggression pact with Hitler in August 1939.
There is much documentation about "whats wrong with Stalin". Check it out.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

wxman2003
12-22-2005, 05:39 PM
Sonar, get your head out of your political butt. The people did follow the leaders blindly into war by the propaganda machine known as The President and congress. Congress followed blindly by trusting a president who had false information, based on very iffy data that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That is what the war was based on, nothing else. Surprise, surprise, no weapons of mass destruction found and in fact Colin Powell was very hesitant to present such bogus info to the UN. Now of course since no weapons were found, good old georgie decided to change the reason to attack Iraq and that being Iraq is now a better place without Hussein, and therefore the war was still justified. Bush spoke to the nation and conned them into thinking if we did not go into Iraq, that nuclear and biological weapons would be flying over here shortly. He used fear to rile up a nation and follow him blindly into iraq, just as Hitler riled up Germany by claiming Poland first attacked Germany, which was a lie, thus allowing him to march into Poland with the full support of the blindly following Germans. That is how a nation follows blindly, by using fear of one's demise to go into war. Iraq was not a threat, and clearly was being controlled quite well, even without the monitors there. The greater threat to this country is North Korea, and always has been. But Bush knows a war with N Korea would be more bloody and he did not want the image of another Viet Nam to tarnish the Bush name. So it's much easier to attack a weak country and look God like. open your eyes, you were fooled, but of course once a fool, always a fool. War is started by fools, who
use innoncent young men and women to to die for their foolish cause. This is the first war the US has ever started, and now we officially in the hall of fools who started wars.

ham
12-22-2005, 05:55 PM
what if Germany had prevailed?
we'd have "german military" on our grounds rather than american, and probably we'd be typing here in some bastardized german reminiscent of switzerduetsch.
We'd hear probably shuplatter music instead of negro rappers.
Schnitzel would be popular, not hamburger.
We'd eat Pretzel, not hotdog buns.
and we'd be oh-so-grateful Germans had died to our own defense.

Yes, i know who Stalin is.
Even Lenin in his testament ordered to execute him (that's why Stalin would invalidate Lenin's testament ).


quote:4: The Great Purge of the 1930's when Stalin tortured and executed
600,000 of the 1.2 million Communist Party members that brought
him to power.


Hitler did the same (to my dismay) with the "long knives" night.
Too bad in his last days he accursed this decision made on the payroll of industrial lobbies (since gray shirts were almost all forner communists, EG Otto & Gregor Strasser, the SA etc ).


quote:5: The non-aggression pact with Hitler in August 1939.


actually Hitler mistakenly broke it. After all, the americans & british were quick to jump in.
The war against Russia was a folly, moreso when at war with France & the UK.
He didn't learn Napoleon's lesson...
Japan didn't help germany out (that would be the only hope since Japan had already defeated Russia in 1905), and for a payday, Stalin attacked them in their last months...really a gentleman.

ham
12-22-2005, 05:58 PM
quote:This is the first war the US has ever started, and now we officially in the hall of fools who started wars.

hmmm
the war against spain in 1898 i think...Afghanistan...

the USA stopped being a pacific country after the civil war & the demise of the southern-ridden establishment of Monroe, Hamilton & Jefferson convinctions.
Another (small) reason why the civil war had started.

Sonar
12-22-2005, 08:30 PM
wxman, First of all, I don't have a political butt. I am not a politician in any way and am not affiliated to any political party.
Seems that you are the one that felt a need to proclaim yourself as a registered Republican. Well good for you, I have no problem with it. But it seems to me that you belong to the wrong party. You don't want to be confused as a liberal yet you express an extreem leftist viewpoint. What a joke !!!
Your extreem point of view no doubt fits into the category of sensationalized hysteria that consumes about 15% of the American population. The country stands divided at 60-40 at this point in time and you are definately in the far left corner of the 40% group.
If you are foolish enough to believe that WMDs did not exist in Iraq then so be it. Just because they were not found does not mean that they do not exist. Somewhere, maybe buried in the desert, maybe buried beneath the streets of Bagdad, maybe stockpiled in Syria there is enough nerve agent to kill every man, woman and child that has ever lived. Sooner or later it will be found.
The greater threat is North Korea? Well you are entitled to your opinion but again you are looking at the world through a pinhole.
Kim Jong-iL (at this point in time) is no more of a threat to the US than a mosquito on a water buffalo's ass. Since he has no delivery system and his nukes are nothing more than a bluff, what's he gonna do? Do you think that China and Russia are stupid enough to not keep North Korea under their thumb? His only option is to develop low grade weapons plutonium to sell on the black market. Maybe possible but very unlikely.
If we did have a reason to go to war with North Korea, do you really think that it would be a ground war? Another Viet Nam as you said? Maybe you should do some homework on the subject. We have air superiority already in place in South Korea that North Korea can not deal with. Their only hope would be Russia and China. If it ever comes down to that, then God help us all.
The USA did not start a war with Iraq. It is nothing more than a continuation of the Gulf War that was started when Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait. Hussain was given every option possible but violated every UN mandate that existed and made a mockery of every term of our original withdrawl. And the UN oil for food progam became nothing more than robbery of Iraqi resourses by crooks in western Europe. Not to mention the 100's of 1000's of Iraqi's being slaughtered Stalin style. The list goes on and on.
You have a right to your opinion just as anyone else and this forum is the last place that I would expect anyone to express support for ANYTHING American. In fact I believe that the person who started this thread did so only in order to pull some strings. I have no problem at all debating this issue with some of the people here and I can accept their point of view whether I agree with it or not.
It's one thing to disagree and express a different opinion. That is what a civilized democracy is all about. But to publically slander the president and our troops abroad during such a critical time is a completely different thing. There are more than 2000 American familys who have sacraficed a son or daughter in this effort. Do you think for one second that they would agree with you?
60% of the American people do not agree with you. And of the 40% that do share some of your views only 15% would go so far left.
80% of the Iraqi people disagree with you.
Someone asked me yesterday "What was wrong with Stalin"? I'm having a difficult time finding anything right about Stalin. But I think that your kind of rhetoric would have been eliminated very efficiently. Your analogy of Hitler invading Poland with this situation is very far fetched.

A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.

wxman2003
12-22-2005, 10:55 PM
Sonar, you need to check your polls. Over 50% of the people think the war is wrong. Matter of fact 60% think the war is wrong, with Bush's approval rating down to 35%. Because I attack him, I must be a liberal in your eyes, when in fact I am very conservative. Anti abortion, anti big government, and anti tax and spend, which of course GW is the biggest spender, and biggest producer of big government of all times. Perhaps Mr Bush is more of a liberal than I am. I find it quite amusing that you come up with all the claims of things hidden in the desert, or under the street of Bagdad, etc. You make a good fiction writer. Quite hilarious in fact. Amazing we can find stores of money, but yet unable to find a nuclear warhead,
that would be buried. Technology can easily detect nuclear substances, no matter where it is hidden and can be found much easier than money. You get upset when someone speaks up against a leader, that is fine and your opinion, but when you label someone un American, when they speak up against the government sounds more like a communist, or worse, you sound like Joe McCarthy.

I highly doubt North Korea is a lesser threat than Iraq. I guess you didn't read the latest and that North Korea has sold Iran it latest ballistic missile technology than has a range of 3000 km, which now has Germany and the rest of Europe quite worried. Japan is very much worried as North Korea already has a minimum of 5 to 10 nuclear warheads, and the technology to deliver.

North Korea does not give a rat about China, as it views China with total disdain as it has abandoned the socialist dream for capitalism, same holds for Russia.

So please get your facts straight about North Korea. North Korea does not care about our air force, and it's superiority. They do not think like that. There soldiers are as fanatical as the Japanese where in WWII and will fight like that. They don't care if they lose a war, but they will make sure they take as many lives as they can if attacked. Believe me, all 35,000 US troops near the DMZ will be evaporated with the first missile Mentally IL launches.

The greatest threat to US? Iraq, get real. The greatest threats are North Korea and Iran who are working hand in hand to create nuclear instability across Asia and the Middle East.

wxman2003
12-22-2005, 10:58 PM
quote:Originally posted by ham


quote:This is the first war the US has ever started, and now we officially in the hall of fools who started wars.

hmmm
the war against spain in 1898 i think...Afghanistan...

the USA stopped being a pacific country after the civil war & the demise of the southern-ridden establishment of Monroe, Hamilton & Jefferson convinctions.
Another (small) reason why the civil war had started.


It was the first war we started that was officially declared war by the president. We never declared war on Afghanistan or Spain.

Sonar
12-23-2005, 01:27 AM
According to the Washington Post and ABC, Bushes approval rating is up to 47%. You are obviously quoting CNN. Very odd for a conservative to quote a liberal news sourse.
Belief that the United States is making significant progress toward establishing a democratic government in Iraq has jumped dramatically, by 18 points, to 65 percent. A sense of progress in establishing civil order similarly is up, by 16 points, to 60 percent. Each is its best since these questions first were asked in the spring of 2004.

Moreover ? in a view held by majorities across party lines ? 71 percent of Americans believe the Iraqi elections have moved the United States closer to the day U.S. forces can be withdrawn. Fifty-four percent express optimism about Iraq in the year ahead, eight points more than at this time last year. And 56 percent think the United States is winning the war, up slightly from 51 percent in August.

By the way, WMD's do not equate to only nuclear weapons and I never said that I believed that Iraq had nuclear weapons. What I refered to were nerve agents. Do you know the difference between nerve agents and nuclear weapons? Either you don't or you are trying to dramatize and twist the issue.
Just so that you know what I'm talking about, the ingredients for 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and vx seem to have disappeared. These are nerve agents, also called WMD's. Do you think that they just disappeared into thin air? They had to have gone somewhere. Most likely Syria but possibly still in Iraq.
As far as North Korea is concerned, give it up. You don't understand that the problem is minimal and the USA is very well capable of handling a problem should one arise. As far as Iran is concerned, that could very well be a different story in the future. Maybe it's about time for Europe to get off their ass and do something for a change.


A man's mind, streched by a new idea, will never re-gain it's original dimension.