Bush No, America Yes
-
America's popularity around the world has taken a beating in recent years, according to a set of coordinated polls conducted in 10 different countries. But the survey also found that despite widespread animosity toward President Bush, huge majorities said they have a good opinion of Americans. [^] Don't despair, American friends, you aren't so scorned after all :-D
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
K(arl) wrote: you aren't so scorned after all Wowsers! That's a weight off my shoulders. :rolleyes: ;P BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. If you actually read the Dueffler (sp?) report you will see that Saddam made an effort to mislead people about his capabilities. Obviously the man wanted to mislead and he succeeded. While you are doing your reading, you might want to read the conclusions that they came to about his desire to reconstitute his capabilities after the sanctions were dropped. You might recall that France, Russia, and China were all expressing an interest in dropping sanctions. Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program. What would he have done after the sanctions were done? He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 (no he didn't participate I didn't say that), but there is no reason to think he would have been unwilling to provide intelligence, knowledge, or material support to them. Al Quada had already investigated using chemical attacks in their Afghanistan training camps, I have little doubt they would jump at the oppurtunity to do so here in the US or in Europe. So in your mind this justifies the war -- speculation about what Saddam may have decided to do. But wait, wasn't this for the liberation of the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, or was that just the sugar coating? You must be mad that Bush isn't or does not appear to be getting ready to invade more countries. Since you like to read, perhaps you can point me to a report on how many other countries had real capabilities to terrorize us with WMDs, unlike Iraq. So why was Iraq first in line? Has the possibility that we went to war in Iraq purely for financial reasons crossed your mind? Or is that just too unbearable to even consider from our good and honest leaders? I simply just don't see any other explanation. Any argument you can bring up, I can counter with, "But there were many other nations like Iraq or worse." It doesn't make any sense that we had to invade; the man had nothing. Doug Goulden wrote: The real difference between most European's and Americans is philosophical. We feel the need to be able to defend ourselves in a preemptive manner if necessary. The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. The US has a history of using your approach, Pearl Harbor, the Spanish American War (the battleship Maine), and 9/11 are each examples of this. No American president who wants
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Has the possibility that we went to war in Iraq purely for financial reasons crossed your mind? Do you really think you can even begin to justify this on a cost basis. Of course that may be impossible to assess with your head in the sand but do the math. Just add and devide. Alvaro Mendez wrote: I hope people like you wake up before November 2nd. Yep Wake up and vote . Vote for GWB. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. If you actually read the Dueffler (sp?) report you will see that Saddam made an effort to mislead people about his capabilities. Obviously the man wanted to mislead and he succeeded. While you are doing your reading, you might want to read the conclusions that they came to about his desire to reconstitute his capabilities after the sanctions were dropped. You might recall that France, Russia, and China were all expressing an interest in dropping sanctions. Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program. What would he have done after the sanctions were done? He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 (no he didn't participate I didn't say that), but there is no reason to think he would have been unwilling to provide intelligence, knowledge, or material support to them. Al Quada had already investigated using chemical attacks in their Afghanistan training camps, I have little doubt they would jump at the oppurtunity to do so here in the US or in Europe. So in your mind this justifies the war -- speculation about what Saddam may have decided to do. But wait, wasn't this for the liberation of the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, or was that just the sugar coating? You must be mad that Bush isn't or does not appear to be getting ready to invade more countries. Since you like to read, perhaps you can point me to a report on how many other countries had real capabilities to terrorize us with WMDs, unlike Iraq. So why was Iraq first in line? Has the possibility that we went to war in Iraq purely for financial reasons crossed your mind? Or is that just too unbearable to even consider from our good and honest leaders? I simply just don't see any other explanation. Any argument you can bring up, I can counter with, "But there were many other nations like Iraq or worse." It doesn't make any sense that we had to invade; the man had nothing. Doug Goulden wrote: The real difference between most European's and Americans is philosophical. We feel the need to be able to defend ourselves in a preemptive manner if necessary. The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. The US has a history of using your approach, Pearl Harbor, the Spanish American War (the battleship Maine), and 9/11 are each examples of this. No American president who wants
Alvaro Mendez wrote: So in your mind this justifies the war -- speculation about what Saddam may have decided to do. But wait, wasn't this for the liberation of the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, or was that just the sugar coating? Yes it does justify the war in my mind and in many other Americans. I watched the WTC fall on television after some crazy bastards flew planes into them. What does that have to do with Iraq you ask? It has to do with realizing that the people who attacked the US throughout the 90's hadn't been contained by the UN and its sanctions. The Cole bombing, the attacks against our embassies by Al Quada were all viewed as police matters. The US spent 12 years working within the framework layed out by the UN ceasefire. What was the result? 12 years of a regime that routinely barred inspectors from suspected weapons sites, dozens of attacks on US and British planes in the no fly zone, and a systematic effort by Saddam and the people who supported him to lift sanctions that had only an effect upon his people not him. The man gassed the Kurds and slaughtered thousands while we stood there watching. With no proof that the man who was defying the efforts to check his weapons status had disarmed, many people suspected he still was holding out, including some of the people who are criticizing us. As for the idea that this war was just because he was a murderous thug, thats ridiiculous. The world, including the US has stood by and watched to many times as people were slaughtered by the millions. The US was reacting to a percieved threat from someone who had expressed a previous interest in harming the US. Alvaro Mendez wrote: You must be mad that Bush isn't or does not appear to be getting ready to invade more countries. That comment is ridiculous, I'm no warmonger. Alvaro Mendez wrote: Since you like to read, perhaps you can point me to a report on how many other countries had real capabilities to terrorize us with WMDs, unlike Iraq. So why was Iraq first in line? I think that you and I both can agree that there are other countries that may also pose a threat to the US security. But lets just discuss some examples and the differences. Iran which has been negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Commision over allowing inspections is a "terrorist regime" that supports Hezbollah. However, if you look at some of the trends the country has seemed to be dealing with serious
-
America's popularity around the world has taken a beating in recent years, according to a set of coordinated polls conducted in 10 different countries. But the survey also found that despite widespread animosity toward President Bush, huge majorities said they have a good opinion of Americans. [^] Don't despair, American friends, you aren't so scorned after all :-D
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
American newspapers should have a similar poll, asking if americans dislike europeans (and others) for disliking GWB. Then european newspapers could have a poll asking if europeans dislike americans because they dislike europeans for disliking GWB. :rolleyes: -- Wir müssen leben bis wir sterben.
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: Has the possibility that we went to war in Iraq purely for financial reasons crossed your mind? Do you really think you can even begin to justify this on a cost basis. Of course that may be impossible to assess with your head in the sand but do the math. Just add and devide. Alvaro Mendez wrote: I hope people like you wake up before November 2nd. Yep Wake up and vote . Vote for GWB. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: Do you really think you can even begin to justify this on a cost basis. Of course that may be impossible to assess with your head in the sand but do the math. Just add and devide. Justify this on a cost basis? Of course we're paying a crapload of money for this war. It's costing taxpayers $120 billion. What I meant was that the Bush administration is the one benefiting financially. How? I don't know, and I don't have proof. But I refuse to believe that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, more than the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, etc... So the other option is simple: the administration and/or entities related to it thought that that there was money to be made in Iraq. Richard Stringer wrote: Yep Wake up and vote . Vote for GWB. It's sad that people like you don't think there's a better choice, but it's also sad that people like me think anything is better than W. The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. GWB started the mess and JFK will (hopefully) clean it up. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Do you really think you can even begin to justify this on a cost basis. Of course that may be impossible to assess with your head in the sand but do the math. Just add and devide. Justify this on a cost basis? Of course we're paying a crapload of money for this war. It's costing taxpayers $120 billion. What I meant was that the Bush administration is the one benefiting financially. How? I don't know, and I don't have proof. But I refuse to believe that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, more than the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, etc... So the other option is simple: the administration and/or entities related to it thought that that there was money to be made in Iraq. Richard Stringer wrote: Yep Wake up and vote . Vote for GWB. It's sad that people like you don't think there's a better choice, but it's also sad that people like me think anything is better than W. The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. GWB started the mess and JFK will (hopefully) clean it up. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
Alvaro Mendez wrote: The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. What do you mean? He pernounces it perfucly. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
America's popularity around the world has taken a beating in recent years, according to a set of coordinated polls conducted in 10 different countries. But the survey also found that despite widespread animosity toward President Bush, huge majorities said they have a good opinion of Americans. [^] Don't despair, American friends, you aren't so scorned after all :-D
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a shit about what a bunch of loosers think of me. I feel better when the world, especially the Europeans, don't like us than when they do. It means we are obviously doing things correctly - considering that they never have managed to do so. Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? It seems that such a poll would be far more apropos. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: So in your mind this justifies the war -- speculation about what Saddam may have decided to do. But wait, wasn't this for the liberation of the Iraqis from a brutal dictator, or was that just the sugar coating? Yes it does justify the war in my mind and in many other Americans. I watched the WTC fall on television after some crazy bastards flew planes into them. What does that have to do with Iraq you ask? It has to do with realizing that the people who attacked the US throughout the 90's hadn't been contained by the UN and its sanctions. The Cole bombing, the attacks against our embassies by Al Quada were all viewed as police matters. The US spent 12 years working within the framework layed out by the UN ceasefire. What was the result? 12 years of a regime that routinely barred inspectors from suspected weapons sites, dozens of attacks on US and British planes in the no fly zone, and a systematic effort by Saddam and the people who supported him to lift sanctions that had only an effect upon his people not him. The man gassed the Kurds and slaughtered thousands while we stood there watching. With no proof that the man who was defying the efforts to check his weapons status had disarmed, many people suspected he still was holding out, including some of the people who are criticizing us. As for the idea that this war was just because he was a murderous thug, thats ridiiculous. The world, including the US has stood by and watched to many times as people were slaughtered by the millions. The US was reacting to a percieved threat from someone who had expressed a previous interest in harming the US. Alvaro Mendez wrote: You must be mad that Bush isn't or does not appear to be getting ready to invade more countries. That comment is ridiculous, I'm no warmonger. Alvaro Mendez wrote: Since you like to read, perhaps you can point me to a report on how many other countries had real capabilities to terrorize us with WMDs, unlike Iraq. So why was Iraq first in line? I think that you and I both can agree that there are other countries that may also pose a threat to the US security. But lets just discuss some examples and the differences. Iran which has been negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Commision over allowing inspections is a "terrorist regime" that supports Hezbollah. However, if you look at some of the trends the country has seemed to be dealing with serious
Doug Goulden wrote: Yes it does justify the war in my mind and in many other Americans. I watched the WTC fall on television after some crazy bastards flew planes into them. What does that have to do with Iraq you ask? It has to do with realizing that the people who attacked the US throughout the 90's hadn't been contained by the UN and its sanctions. The Cole bombing, the attacks against our embassies by Al Quada were all viewed as police matters. The US spent 12 years working within the framework layed out by the UN ceasefire. What was the result? 12 years of a regime that routinely barred inspectors from suspected weapons sites, dozens of attacks on US and British planes in the no fly zone, and a systematic effort by Saddam and the people who supported him to lift sanctions that had only an effect upon his people not him. The man gassed the Kurds and slaughtered thousands while we stood there watching. With no proof that the man who was defying the efforts to check his weapons status had disarmed, many people suspected he still was holding out, including some of the people who are criticizing us. It's admirable how you attempted to make a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But you failed, sorry. The man was bad, no doubt, but so were several other dictators just like him. The guys who attacked us were from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... and they didn't use WMDs to cause terror. Doug Goulden wrote: That comment is ridiculous, I'm no warmonger. I don't understand how you can fully support the Iraq invasion and not support the invasion of other countries that are like it or worse. It's a contradiction. Maybe when GWB decides that it's time to invade some other country, you'll be right there to back him up too. He's so trustworthy! Doug Goulden wrote: I think that you and I both can agree that there are other countries that may also pose a threat to the US security. But lets just discuss some examples and the differences. .... Yes, let's try alternatives to war first. War should be a last resort, especially if the bad guy is well contained with sanctions, no-fly zones, and a military presence nearby to keep him in line. Doug Goulden wrote: I don't see. 9/11 should never have happened, if Al Quada hadn't have been treated as a law enforcement issue, bin Laden would have been scooped up when Sudan offered him to Clinton. 9/11 was being planned long before Bush wa
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Yes it does justify the war in my mind and in many other Americans. I watched the WTC fall on television after some crazy bastards flew planes into them. What does that have to do with Iraq you ask? It has to do with realizing that the people who attacked the US throughout the 90's hadn't been contained by the UN and its sanctions. The Cole bombing, the attacks against our embassies by Al Quada were all viewed as police matters. The US spent 12 years working within the framework layed out by the UN ceasefire. What was the result? 12 years of a regime that routinely barred inspectors from suspected weapons sites, dozens of attacks on US and British planes in the no fly zone, and a systematic effort by Saddam and the people who supported him to lift sanctions that had only an effect upon his people not him. The man gassed the Kurds and slaughtered thousands while we stood there watching. With no proof that the man who was defying the efforts to check his weapons status had disarmed, many people suspected he still was holding out, including some of the people who are criticizing us. It's admirable how you attempted to make a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But you failed, sorry. The man was bad, no doubt, but so were several other dictators just like him. The guys who attacked us were from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... and they didn't use WMDs to cause terror. Doug Goulden wrote: That comment is ridiculous, I'm no warmonger. I don't understand how you can fully support the Iraq invasion and not support the invasion of other countries that are like it or worse. It's a contradiction. Maybe when GWB decides that it's time to invade some other country, you'll be right there to back him up too. He's so trustworthy! Doug Goulden wrote: I think that you and I both can agree that there are other countries that may also pose a threat to the US security. But lets just discuss some examples and the differences. .... Yes, let's try alternatives to war first. War should be a last resort, especially if the bad guy is well contained with sanctions, no-fly zones, and a military presence nearby to keep him in line. Doug Goulden wrote: I don't see. 9/11 should never have happened, if Al Quada hadn't have been treated as a law enforcement issue, bin Laden would have been scooped up when Sudan offered him to Clinton. 9/11 was being planned long before Bush wa
Alvaro Mendez wrote: I agree that Al Qaeda should have been dealt with long ago, and unfortunately we didn't. This comment doesn't go with Alvaro Mendez wrote: Let's not forget that 9/11 happened on George's watch, who ignored intelligence reports about Bin Laden's intentions. bin Laden was offered up on a platter by the Sudanese government, the US turned them down. Al Quada declared war on the US in 1998..... that wasn't Bush's watch. The Cole and the embassy bombings in Africa all happened before Bush took office. Should he have done more? Undoubtedly, but the idea that after years of inaction by the US Bush could all of a sudden jump into action and prevent what had been brewing for years is crazy. The world community would have been in arms just like they are now after the attacks of 9/11. Alvaro Mendez wrote: The biggest proof is the fact that terrorism has gone way up since we went in there. I must have missed the news where the continental US was attacked after 9/11. When was it? Terrorists who have aligned themselves with bin Laden have attacked us in Iraq, not here. Thats bad but not nearly as bad as thousands of defenseless American citizens being murdered at home. Alvaro Mendez wrote: It's admirable how you attempted to make a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But you failed, sorry I didn't make the connection, contacts between Al Quada and Saddam were documented facts. I also said that Saddam did NOT have anything to do with 9/11. What I did say was that there was no reason to think that he would not give weapons to Al Quada if sanctions were lifted. Read the Dueffler report, it specifically said he maintained the ability to reconstitute those weapons programs after sanctions were lifted. It was also documented that Al Quada had tested the effect of chemical attacks on animals in Afghanistan. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/19/terror.tape.chemical/[^]. After the sarin gas attacks that occured in the Japanese subway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway[^
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Yes it does justify the war in my mind and in many other Americans. I watched the WTC fall on television after some crazy bastards flew planes into them. What does that have to do with Iraq you ask? It has to do with realizing that the people who attacked the US throughout the 90's hadn't been contained by the UN and its sanctions. The Cole bombing, the attacks against our embassies by Al Quada were all viewed as police matters. The US spent 12 years working within the framework layed out by the UN ceasefire. What was the result? 12 years of a regime that routinely barred inspectors from suspected weapons sites, dozens of attacks on US and British planes in the no fly zone, and a systematic effort by Saddam and the people who supported him to lift sanctions that had only an effect upon his people not him. The man gassed the Kurds and slaughtered thousands while we stood there watching. With no proof that the man who was defying the efforts to check his weapons status had disarmed, many people suspected he still was holding out, including some of the people who are criticizing us. It's admirable how you attempted to make a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But you failed, sorry. The man was bad, no doubt, but so were several other dictators just like him. The guys who attacked us were from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... and they didn't use WMDs to cause terror. Doug Goulden wrote: That comment is ridiculous, I'm no warmonger. I don't understand how you can fully support the Iraq invasion and not support the invasion of other countries that are like it or worse. It's a contradiction. Maybe when GWB decides that it's time to invade some other country, you'll be right there to back him up too. He's so trustworthy! Doug Goulden wrote: I think that you and I both can agree that there are other countries that may also pose a threat to the US security. But lets just discuss some examples and the differences. .... Yes, let's try alternatives to war first. War should be a last resort, especially if the bad guy is well contained with sanctions, no-fly zones, and a military presence nearby to keep him in line. Doug Goulden wrote: I don't see. 9/11 should never have happened, if Al Quada hadn't have been treated as a law enforcement issue, bin Laden would have been scooped up when Sudan offered him to Clinton. 9/11 was being planned long before Bush wa
Alvaro Mendez wrote: The man was bad, no doubt, but so were several other dictators just like him. So? Are you saying that we have to deal with all of them at the same time? Are you saying we should have dealt with a different one? Alvaro Mendez wrote: I don't understand how you can fully support the Iraq invasion and not support the invasion of other countries that are like it or worse. It's a contradiction The real hope is that when the others see what happened to the first they fall into line. Also, if other alliescountries like France, Germany and Russia join in instead of stonewalling us maybe the brutal dictators of the world realize they're in trouble. Alvaro Mendez wrote: if the bad guy is well contained with sanctions, no-fly zones, and a military presence nearby to keep him in line. Gee your right! To hell with the fact that Iraqi children were starving. To hell with the fact that SH was defying UN sanctions. He was contained. Alvaro Mendez wrote: Let's not forget that 9/11 happened on George's watch I wonder if you will be prepared to blame Kerry for EVERYTHING that happens in the US during his term? Doubtful. :| Alvaro Mendez wrote: I'm sure W was busy complying with his "42% of the time on vacation" quota. A president can still conduct business and do his job while outside Washington DC. In fact, every POTUS has 4+ hours of briefings every day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. A US Senator MUST participate in Congressional committees and vote to be effective. For the 8 years Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee he was absent 76% of the time.[^] John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee too and he missed half of the public hearings. Between 1999 and 2003, Edwards averaged an 83 percent voting record and Kerry a 72 percent. The full Senate average for the past six years is 97 percent. Likewise, their 2003 attendance -- 61 percent for Edwards and 36 percent for Kerry -- also fell short of that year's Senate average of 96 percent. Edwards' 41 percent and Kerry's 8 percent voting record this year are far below the Senate average, again 96 percent attendance. I honestly don't know if either one of these fellows has the work eth
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Do you really think you can even begin to justify this on a cost basis. Of course that may be impossible to assess with your head in the sand but do the math. Just add and devide. Justify this on a cost basis? Of course we're paying a crapload of money for this war. It's costing taxpayers $120 billion. What I meant was that the Bush administration is the one benefiting financially. How? I don't know, and I don't have proof. But I refuse to believe that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, more than the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, etc... So the other option is simple: the administration and/or entities related to it thought that that there was money to be made in Iraq. Richard Stringer wrote: Yep Wake up and vote . Vote for GWB. It's sad that people like you don't think there's a better choice, but it's also sad that people like me think anything is better than W. The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. GWB started the mess and JFK will (hopefully) clean it up. Regards, Alvaro
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. - George W. Bush
Alvaro Mendez wrote: How? I don't know, and I don't have proof So what are you on about then?? Alvaro Mendez wrote: But I refuse to believe that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, more than the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, etc... That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence, though as the Deulfer(sp?) report recently stated Saddam was quite busy getting things setup for building up WMDs(and why do imagine?) as soon as he got enough people to agree to drop sanctions (which apparently were not working very well). If for whatever reason we went into another country, everyone would be saying well why Iran(for example), and not Iraq or N.Korea, etc.... Alvaro Mendez wrote: The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. Yeah, I can see how a man's pronunciation could effect his leadship ability. Alvaro Mendez wrote: GWB started the mess Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely fuck all about it. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Alvaro Mendez wrote: The man was bad, no doubt, but so were several other dictators just like him. So? Are you saying that we have to deal with all of them at the same time? Are you saying we should have dealt with a different one? Alvaro Mendez wrote: I don't understand how you can fully support the Iraq invasion and not support the invasion of other countries that are like it or worse. It's a contradiction The real hope is that when the others see what happened to the first they fall into line. Also, if other alliescountries like France, Germany and Russia join in instead of stonewalling us maybe the brutal dictators of the world realize they're in trouble. Alvaro Mendez wrote: if the bad guy is well contained with sanctions, no-fly zones, and a military presence nearby to keep him in line. Gee your right! To hell with the fact that Iraqi children were starving. To hell with the fact that SH was defying UN sanctions. He was contained. Alvaro Mendez wrote: Let's not forget that 9/11 happened on George's watch I wonder if you will be prepared to blame Kerry for EVERYTHING that happens in the US during his term? Doubtful. :| Alvaro Mendez wrote: I'm sure W was busy complying with his "42% of the time on vacation" quota. A president can still conduct business and do his job while outside Washington DC. In fact, every POTUS has 4+ hours of briefings every day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. A US Senator MUST participate in Congressional committees and vote to be effective. For the 8 years Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee he was absent 76% of the time.[^] John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee too and he missed half of the public hearings. Between 1999 and 2003, Edwards averaged an 83 percent voting record and Kerry a 72 percent. The full Senate average for the past six years is 97 percent. Likewise, their 2003 attendance -- 61 percent for Edwards and 36 percent for Kerry -- also fell short of that year's Senate average of 96 percent. Edwards' 41 percent and Kerry's 8 percent voting record this year are far below the Senate average, again 96 percent attendance. I honestly don't know if either one of these fellows has the work eth
Mike Mullikin wrote: So? Are you saying that we have to deal with all of them at the same time? Are you saying we should have dealt with a different one? I'm saying that if invading countries for the sake of "spreading freedom" is going to be our mission from now on (which in 2000 GWB said he wouldn't do), then we need to consider who we invade a lot more carefully. For starters, lets get rid of the bearded bastard right here close to us, just 90 miles south of the Florida Keys. He's been causing grief to his people and the people of Central and South American countries for the past 45 years. When's it his turn? Mike Mullikin wrote: Gee your right! To hell with the fact that Iraqi children were starving. To hell with the fact that SH was defying UN sanctions. He was contained. He was contained. He wasn't a threat. Why did we go to war again? Did the children begin starving after 9/11? Why did no one else care about Iraq's starving children back when they actually began starving? Clinton didn't care and neither did Bush 1, who was in a better position to act on it. Do you really think GWB really cares about Iraq's starving children? The UN sanctions are the UN's problem. Mike Mullikin wrote: I wonder if you will be prepared to blame Kerry for EVERYTHING that happens in the US during his term? Doubtful. I'm not like you Mike. I don't think Kerry is a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. If the man makes mistakes or screws up big time, I'll say it. I want a good leader, whatever party he comes from. I supported GWB, even as he was getting ready to invade Iraq. Having come from a totalitarian regime (the one 90 miles away from us), I support any action that helps bring dictators to their end. However, it's foolish to think that GWB acted properly across the board; from choosing the moment to invade, to his continued inability to bring peace to the region long after ending the main conflict. Mike Mullikin wrote: A president can still conduct business and do his job while outside Washington DC. In fact, every POTUS has 4+ hours of briefings every day. 7 days a week. 365 days a year. A US Senator MUST participate in Congressional committees and vote to be effective. For the 8 years Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee he was absent 76% of the time.[^] John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee too and he missed half of the public hearings. Be
-
K(arl) wrote: you aren't so scorned after all Wowsers! That's a weight off my shoulders. :rolleyes: ;P BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves:laugh: I'm glad to help you to sleep well :-D
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a shit about what a bunch of loosers think of me. I feel better when the world, especially the Europeans, don't like us than when they do. It means we are obviously doing things correctly - considering that they never have managed to do so. Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? It seems that such a poll would be far more apropos. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a sh*t about what a bunch of loosers think of me If you don't intend to travel outside your borders, I suppose that you can avoid to care about the opinions of others. But if you want to open your mind (I would be surprized ;P) and discover the World, it may be interesting to know if you are welcome or not. Stan Shannon wrote: Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind After 1945 it was (partly) true (partly because the political concept of "europeans" didn't really exist at that time). However, after the Iraq invasion, it's now the US who needs Europe to clean the mess it left behind. Stan Shannon wrote: Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? Yep, it would be interesting. at least to see how many Americans know there's a "rest of the World".
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: How? I don't know, and I don't have proof So what are you on about then?? Alvaro Mendez wrote: But I refuse to believe that they wanted to liberate the Iraqis, more than the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Cubans, etc... That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence, though as the Deulfer(sp?) report recently stated Saddam was quite busy getting things setup for building up WMDs(and why do imagine?) as soon as he got enough people to agree to drop sanctions (which apparently were not working very well). If for whatever reason we went into another country, everyone would be saying well why Iran(for example), and not Iraq or N.Korea, etc.... Alvaro Mendez wrote: The man can't even say "nuclear" for Christ's sake. Yeah, I can see how a man's pronunciation could effect his leadship ability. Alvaro Mendez wrote: GWB started the mess Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely fuck all about it. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stovesbrianwelsch wrote: That's not the primary reason stated for going in. In case you have not heard yet, there was decision made based on poor intelligence Thats the worst excuse they could come up with, not only were the reports so vague and obviously full of errors that even Bush should be able to spot it, the goddamn world was shouting it in the ears of the Bush regime. If they want to use it as an excuse, they are either total idiots, or deaf and blind. brianwelsch wrote: Not true. This mess has been ongoing for a while now. It's just that others have done precisely f*** all about it. No it hasn't, where did you get that idea from?, Saddam was leading the country with an iron fist. The violence was mostly performed by the Saddam regime, and it wasn't even nearly in the proportion of what is going on now. When you invaded, you removed every possibility of a slow but stabil move to democracy. Now, every group in the country wants a piece of the power, and the situation is building up to a regular civil war. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Marc Clifton wrote: Well, if you're republican, it seems you don't much give a damn about America's popularity opinion with different countries. If you're democrat, it seems that you want the rest of the world to fight our wars for us. That observation deserves a 5. What would be the right way to look at it? In reality who would want to make their decisions in life based on a popularity poll, it would seem to be the ultimate form of peer pressure. Personally I tend to discount the opinion of others outside the US based on the differences in their self interests and ours. The US has historically been criticized for being to early or to late into a war, as over involved or overly isolationist, so its hard to see where that will change anytime soon, as each group follows its own self interests. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
I fear you miss my point. It was that people from "friendly" countries are still able to make the distinction between GWB policy and the american "John Doe" (IMHO, this could change if GWB is reelected). Doug Goulden wrote: The US has historically been criticized for being to early or to late into a war, as over involved or overly isolationist, so its hard to see where that will change anytime soon, as each group follows its own self interests I don't think it will ever stop: it's impossible to get unanimity, there will always be somebody to critisize whatever decision is made. However, when it's about foreign policies, the US should also have a ear for what the others can say, because it's also in its interest to have allies rather than dealing with neutral or even hostile countries.
Fold With Us! "I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me saying "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals."
-
The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a shit about what a bunch of loosers think of me. I feel better when the world, especially the Europeans, don't like us than when they do. It means we are obviously doing things correctly - considering that they never have managed to do so. Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? It seems that such a poll would be far more apropos. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Alvaro Mendez wrote: We pursuaded our intelligence to come up with anything that may suggest that Iraq was creating WMDs to attack us Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. If you actually read the Dueffler (sp?) report you will see that Saddam made an effort to mislead people about his capabilities. Obviously the man wanted to mislead and he succeeded. While you are doing your reading, you might want to read the conclusions that they came to about his desire to reconstitute his capabilities after the sanctions were dropped. You might recall that France, Russia, and China were all expressing an interest in dropping sanctions. Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program. What would he have done after the sanctions were done? He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 (no he didn't participate I didn't say that), but there is no reason to think he would have been unwilling to provide intelligence, knowledge, or material support to them. Al Quada had already investigated using chemical attacks in their Afghanistan training camps, I have little doubt they would jump at the oppurtunity to do so here in the US or in Europe. The real difference between most European's and Americans is philosophical. We feel the need to be able to defend ourselves in a preemptive manner if necessary. The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. The US has a history of using your approach, Pearl Harbor, the Spanish American War (the battleship Maine), and 9/11 are each examples of this. No American president who wants to have to explain why they allowed chemical weapons to get into the hands of terrorists to a Congressional commitee. As for the problems in Iraq, I don't mean to downplay them, however, I would rather have our military confront people like Zarqawi in Iraq than our firefighter and police face him and his like here. War is a horrifying spectacle that should be avoided whenever possible, but the problem we are facing in Iraq now is the same threat we faced in Afghanistan, extremist Muslims. The war there now has very little to do with the thug we removed from power, but the US needs to confront that threat wherever we see it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. Houla, wait a minute[^] Doug Goulden wrote: Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer. Doug Goulden wrote: He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 So has the US! Doug Goulden wrote: the battleship Maine Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. Doug Goulden wrote: The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. It's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US policy on Iraq. Many believe it will create more problems and threats rather than solving them: preemptive wars can cause more troubles than they ca
-
The only thing that I find amazing is that I am supposed to give a shit about what a bunch of loosers think of me. I feel better when the world, especially the Europeans, don't like us than when they do. It means we are obviously doing things correctly - considering that they never have managed to do so. Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Are there any polls taken to determine what American opinions are about the rest of the world? It seems that such a poll would be far more apropos. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: Lets face it, the US is saddled with the task of cleaning up the mess Europe left behind. Europe deserves W - its karma. Is that why the US is asking for UK troop support in Bahgdad? Oh-no, that's just Stan's powers of selective observation springing up again. NB: Stan - Spelling note: Losers not loosers Rhys A bus station is where a bus stops. A train station is where a train stops. On my desk I have a workstation... Vampireware /n/, a project, capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.
-
Doug Goulden wrote: Yeah and the CIA forced the Russians to come to the same conclusion. Houla, wait a minute[^] Doug Goulden wrote: Fueled no doubt by the kickbacks they were recieving from Saddam's manipulation of the Food for Oil program No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer. Doug Goulden wrote: He had had some contact with UBL and Al Quada before 9/11 So has the US! Doug Goulden wrote: the battleship Maine Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. Doug Goulden wrote: The European community feels we should wait to repond to threats only after they are well formed. It's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US policy on Iraq. Many believe it will create more problems and threats rather than solving them: preemptive wars can cause more troubles than they ca
K(arl) wrote: Houla, wait a minute[^] With due respect Karl, a quote from Al Jazeera? Yuch.... I've read quotes in other places as well that the Russians were sure that Saddam still had weapons as well. In general I try to not rely on onfo from the Fox News Channel or Al Jazeera, they tend to be to biased in my mind. K(arl) wrote: No doubt? Waoh. Just remember the only reason there's no american name on the Duelfer's report is that "the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws". For the moment, it's easy to thrown the blame on one side or another[^]. For the moment, there are plenty of affirmations but a lack of proof. Let's wait for Volcker presided commission[^] findings, perhaps things will become clearer In my mind anyone in the US who traded illegally with Saddam and his regime should be tried for treason. Call me uptight but supporting someone illegally who is a threat to the US should be imprisoned for a very long time. I don't draw a distinction between Europeans and Americans in this..... Allies and citizens shouldn't undermine the process of containment. K(arl) wrote: Some experts still believe the explosion aboard the Maine was accidental[^]. This example could then even be used to claim how an event can be manipulated to help the public opinion to go to war. You're good my friend ;), I knew that when I made the comment. I wondered if someone would catch it or not. It does point to the fact that not only will te US react strongly to an attack against its citizens but also that initial conclusions can be wrong. I don't know that I would agree that data was manipulated in the case of the Maine, it seems that experts still disagree. BTW Hyman Rickover who was mentioned in the article you linked to was the creator of the US Navy's nuclear power program. He was a very driven, and intelligent man, near single handedly starting the development of the Naval Reactors program. K(arl) wrote: t's true european community is much more cautious towards War because it has known it too often on its soil, and in the recent times in its most horrible and destructive ways. Most of the european people have kept in their collective memories the consequences of such events, and that war is not only beautiful pictures on CNN. Nonetheless, I don't believe this tendency to Pacifism can explain why most of european people don't agree with US p