Well, I'm assuming by "something" he meant "one thing". Besides, I've had to explain to a total of four people today that yes, a PC made by me can play music, sort photos, and edit video, just like a Macintosh, so I'm not in the mood for games.
When I look at Bush's presidency, I see them in the historical context of previos presidents. Other presidents did far more outlandish things than what Bush has done.
Japanese americans into concentration camps.
Purchasing Alaska from the Russians, and the Louisiana Purchase Jefferson made, talk about empire building 
Grenada and Panama.
Forcing the entire Cherokee tribe to relocate to a reservation to open up Oklahoma to homesteaders. An act declared illegal by the Supreme court, President Grant replied, "They made their decision, let's see them enforce it."
Ordering soldiers to wear the UN uniform, President Clinton. An illegal order from the perspective of the UCMJ and US Constitution.
So compared to other presidents, GWBush hasn't been that bad.
Jimro
Actually, you know what?
Jimro, I challenge you to find one reason to elect John Kerry.
I don't usually do this, but as far as I'm concerned, if I have to play this game then someone else does too.
One reason to elect John Kerry.
His environmental record in the senate. Sponsored bills to close Antarctica to mineral mining, attempt to ban international drift nets, and marine life protection in general.
Jimro
It's painful to admit, but just because America and Britain were the good guys in the first and second world wars, doesn't mean that we're the good guys in the Iraqi war. It's difficult to admit, but somebody has to live in the country that's got politicians who are, basically, sending the country to the dogs, and somebody has to live in the country which wrongly started the war.
America and Americans didn't start the Iraqi war, Bush and his Yes-Men did. No matter what the polls came out as, he would still have started the Iraqi war.
No, I am not forgetting September 11th. That was not Saddam. That was terrorism. Saddam Hussien, evil as he was, did not stay in power for forty or so years by supporting terrorism.
If you're so badly off for precedent, take a look at Soviet Russia under Stalin. Evil as he was, he didn't support terrorism either.
His environmental record in the senate. Sponsored bills to close Antarctica to mineral mining, attempt to ban international drift nets, and marine life protection in general.
Good call.
Harley, while I mostly agree with you, I just want to point this out:
If you're so badly off for precedent, take a look at Soviet Russia under Stalin. Evil as he was, he didn't support terrorism either.
"Terrorism" is a subjective buzzword, and in Stalin's case it referred to basically any kind of uprising or dissent at all.
Harley,
Do you view the coalition forces in Iraq as an army of occupation along the lines of post WWII Germany, or as an army of liberation?
Believe me when I tell you that nobody wants out of there more than us, but leaving before the job is done (a functioning modern infrastructure and stable govt) is not the answer.
Jimro
Yes. Debates over Saddam's alleged military capabilities aside, what's done is done, and leaving Iraq to fester in ruins would only lead to it being snapped up by some fundamentalist maniac. At least Saddam ran a secular government.
I was watching Foxnews the other night.
All in all it was fair and balanced reporting from the hour or so that I saw, as it gave the same minutes of air time to each candidate and sides of issues, had guests of differing political and economic persuasions.
But it was pointed out that Kerry needs to pound on the Iraq war if he is to have a realistic chance of winning. If Kerry took a stance, "The Iraq war was wrong, I was wrong for supporting Pres. Bush as a senator, and my plan of action is to get out as soon as possible. When Iraq has a stable government and trained national police force, we will leave."
That would definately be a good start towards winning the election. However, Kerry changed his mind on Iraq again last week, and we are less than 50 days from the election.
So, I still predict Bush being re-elected.
Jimro
Of course you do. 
Bush spelling the end of America's reign as a superpower? I don't think that will happen...it'll happen because the other nations catch up...and that will happen eventually. Bush keeps boosting the military spending so it's hard to see it happening...
Unless all the nations get tired of America and all gang up on it but that's crazy too...
There are far worse choices...
Unless he exhorts the supply of cash to be spent.
You know, during the occupation of Frace in the second world war, there was also a militia that went around declaring freedom. The funny side of it is portrayed in 'Allo 'Allo. The French militia also shot anybody it didn't like the look of, such as German civilians. And the French were on our side. So yes, the good guys can have facist pigs as well.
To those who support Kerry should read Charles Krauthammer's column about Kerry's stance (Or lack of a solid stance) on the Iraq war and how it is hurting him...
He takes so many stances on an issue that...you can't take him serious...the Dems needed to pick a stronger candidate I think...
With all due respect, Torn, read Cycle's essay response on the Republican definition of 'strength'. Do you really think Bush is a great, strong leader because of his obstinate refusal to acknowledge that he was wrong?
It takes great strength and even greater courage to admit that you might've made a mistake.
Refusual to admit that you are wrong in spite of all the evidence being stacked against you is simply childish.
Which one is Bush doing?
I'd rather not see a man with the attitude of a 6-year-old in charge of the world's most powerful military. At least Kerry has the ability to change his mind. That, in my opinion, is a strength.
Since I am not of age to vote it really doesn't matter to me.But I really would like to see better stuff in the schools.WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING!!!!!That is really all so who ever can do that is fine in my book.Better emergency plan would be nice to.School was out one day when the threat of Ivan was about atleast 3 days away.A wasted hurricane day.Even though the hurricane plan is more at a county level I still think more government funding would help.The dang Opperation:Iraqi Freedom should be over by now.The Iraqis already have some control and we really don't need all those troops over there so why don't the take out the ones that have already done there time?Becuase that about evry one thats why!!!!!
The dang Opperation:Iraqi Freedom should be over by now.The Iraqis already have some control and we really don't need all those troops over there so why don't the take out the ones that have already done there time?Becuase that about evry one thats why!!!!!
You know what? I'm going to let someone else handle this. I can't think of a nice way to respond to such ignorance.
Ok cycle, I'll field this one.
Iraq is not a stable nation. Iraq has three major population groups that don't like each other. Shiites (or Shia if you prefer), Sunni's, and Kurds.
Iraq has foreign terrorists attacking their newly formed national police force as well as coalition forces so that a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy may be set up.
The world does not need another Iran.
So, as the interim government takes it's steps towards elections, they still need peacekeeping forces on the ground to keep the dogs from taking over the country. Until the INP (iraqi national police) are trained, equipped, and ready to protect their own soverenty.
Pulling out now would possibly cause civil war between the three major groups, and would most definately see a fundamentalist government formed by the victorios Shiites. Unless Turkey decides annex the northern part of Iraq and create a Kurdish state. Then the borders would be redrawn and the region would continue to smolder with hate.
The death toll would be in the millions, the oil would not flow and provide cash for hospitals, schools, and services. It would not be a pretty picture.
Jimro
Eon, I'm afraid that politicians can't admit that they're wrong. Don't ask me why. But if they do, they have to step down from office or something.
It's like saying to the world, "I am an idiot, and so is my country for electing me."
So you see, they can't admit it, not just out of pride, but for the sake of their country as well.
Oh, I know that very well, Harley. But tell me, what's worse? Watergate (in which no one died) or Iraq (in which thousands of people have died needlessly)?
Nixon resigned over Watergate.
I don't know anything about Watergate.
But Iraq is one serious mistake. Bush can't say that he was wrong about going to war (well, he can't) but he should resign, or at least pull out of the election.
But he won't. He's too bloody proud.
Yes, I know. You see, I know very well that admitting he was wrong would be the end of George W. Bush's presidential career, but somehow, that really doesn't bother me. 
Why did I go so far!!!Man I'm am being ignorrant
.............someone hit me............
.Sorry this forum ain't for me really........
What are you getting upset about? You'd just made a mistake...nothing to cry over...
Hindsight is always 20/20.
If we knew then what we know now, Iraq wouldn't have been invaded. It would have been political suicide to do so.
The intelligence community failed us, plain and simple. The congressional report says so. www.gpoaccess.gov/serials.../iraq.html
However, going off of the information available at that time, we went to war. Now we have to stick it out until it's over. There is no other choice.
Would changing leadership in the middle of this really help us? No. Kerry's stances on negotiation will only fuel the terrorists belief that the can deal with the US with impunity. Looking back on the Iran hostage crisis of Carter, it was ultimately solved by putting Reagan into the white house.
Democrats have a bad record of not dealing with terrorists. Clinton had no less than 3 opportunities to have Bin Laden assassinated.
Jimro
I wonder if anyone remembers the U.S.S Cole...
According to the Associated Press, "Drafts of a report from the top U.S. inspector in Iraq conclude there were no weapons stockpiles, but say there are signs the fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had dormant programs he hoped to revive at a later time, according to people familiar with the findings." This was all part of a 1,500-page report released last week by the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer. Yes, it's yet more proof that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat after all - whoops! However, while Iraq wasn't an imminent threat then, it's sure as hell an imminent threat now. From a recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that the best-case scenario at this point is an Iraq whose "political, economic and security stability would remain tenuous" (worst-case scenario: all-out civil war), to the apparently new tactic of blowing up journalists while they're reporting live on air, the situation in Iraq is far from rosy. Even Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Dick Lugar (R-Ind) are criticizing Bush's policy in Iraq: "Our committee heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the war and people outside the administration what I call the 'dancing in the street crowd' that we just simply will be greeted with open arms," he said. "The nonsense of all of that is apparent. The lack of planning is apparent." But hey, Bush is in charge so... don't worry about it! 
It's not the Iraqi natives that have been such a problem. The influx of foreign terrorists on such a massive scale was an unpredicted event, especially those trying to cause civil war. Which is why Sunni clerics are being targeted.
Whether or not you believe terrorists were in Iraq before, they sure as heck are in there now.
Jimro
Whether or not you believe terrorists were in Iraq before, they sure as heck are in there now.
My point exactly.
Quote:
The influx of foreign terrorists on such a massive scale was an unpredicted event
Really? I could've told you that was likely to happen when the US took over Iraq. Ever heard of the Brotherhood of Islam? In extremist Islamic circles any attack on an Arabic nation may be considered an act of war against the Islamic faith itself, rendering, in the eyes of the extremists, the attacker the enemy of all Muslims. I, and just about everyone I know with any interest in politics knew that was going to happen.
How American officials and their British allies missed that I don't know. But unpredicted or not, they should have secured Iraq's borders against entrance from unsavoury company.
Honestly, it just looks like carelessness to me, and it's being paid for with lives.
It's as if all these people from different countries who hated each other before have drawn together to fight a common enemy. It's happened before when one country has invaded another.
If it wasn't us they are fighting, it would be quite... noble? Patriotic? There's definitely a word for it.
No, it's just a simple function of the stability of the region. Unstable region = terrorist activity. Terrorist organizations thrive in anarchy.
It's the law of unintended consequences. Whenever you do something you have the intended consequence (getting a glass of water to quench your thirst) and the unintended consequence (getting the flu from a co-worker on your way to the sink).
The fact that muslims the world over, and in Iraq, are calling the terrorist executions of civilians in Iraq "not islam" is a step in the right direction.
These terrorists are not fighting for political freedom, they are fighting for religious repression. They are not fighting for womens rights, they are fighting for female subservience. They are not fighting to bring Iraq into the 21st century, they fight to drag it back to the seventh.
There is a huge difference between fighting off an invader and relentlessly attacking coalition forces trying to rebuild Iraq and get the heck home.
The terrorists in Iraq are there because that's where Americans are, we've had terror attacks on American targets in the middle east for quite a long time. Air Force barracks, the Cole, civilians in kuwait, etc. Never on the scale that we see in Iraq tho.
They are coming out of the woodwork, and they will get their wish to meet Allah.
Jimro
If it wasn't us they are fighting, it would be quite... noble? Patriotic? There's definitely a word for it.
That's ridiculous. There's a certain level of anti-American paranoia that I'm willing to put up with, but this is just too dumb to ignore.
The majority of the "insurgents" in Iraq are Islamic radicals from abroad, who have shown up because the Americans are there and their manifesto is to purge Muslim countries of Western influence, by any means they deem necessary. Almost everyone but them, most Muslims included, considers them to be evil. They're not fighting for freedom; they're seizing the opportunity to kill Westerners.
Check your facts before you say something stupid.
Quote:
Check your facts before you say something stupid.
The text you're referring to isn't even a fact, it's an opinion. I never called it a fact. And I don't call your opinions stupid. That is unnessecery flaming.
Just because they're not on our side, everything they do is considered evil, whereas if we did the same thing, it would be considered by many to be excusable.
Aren't I allowed my opinions without being insulted?
If you don't want your opinions to be challenged, either make sure they're at least loosely based on fact, or don't post them at all. I grow tired of people accusing the US and the media of double-standards that don't exist. Yes, there are double-standards, but not in this case. The insurgents in Iraq are foreign terrorists, not freedom fighters. If a bunch of Americans showed up in a war zone and started making trouble, they'd be just as "evil" as the ones in Iraq.
We have an exciting new standard for American foreign policy! In recent weeks various reports have been released revealing the scope of prisoner abuse and torture in Iraq. According to one, "there have been about 300 allegations of prisoners killed, raped, beaten and subjected to other mistreatment at military prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay since the start of the war on terror." According to another, "commanding officers and their staffs at various levels failed in their duties and that such failure contributed directly or indirectly to detainee abuse." But don't worry about it! See, here's what Donald Rumsfeld had to say about the torture scandals last week: "Has it been harmful to our country? Yes. Is it something that has to be corrected? Yes. Does it rank up there with chopping off someone's head off on television? It doesn't." And there you have it, folks. As long as something isn't as bad as chopping off someone's head on television, the US military can do it. Talk about lowering the bar...
Nice one, Cycle.
But that's just an opinion, not backed up with any facts. So it doesn't count.
Harley,
Americans running around and doing bad stuff.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south...569552.stm
In Afganistan, not Iraq, but it supports Cycles post.
Jimro
But that's just an opinion, not backed up with any facts. So it doesn't count.
What part?
i just read this on a cnn (time warner) owned messageboard, in an interview with the pakistani president, he told paula zahn that the iraq war hurt the war on terror, in the president's words, "has complicated the war on terror," and "it has made the job more difficult." and here is another cnn quote, he lamented that the war against Iraq "has aroused the passions of the Muslims more."
president bush is telling america the world has become a safer place since the invasion of iraq, and yet more people die everyday of terror related violence. the iraqis whom he claimed he went to free are mostly unemployed now, they can't even afford the basic necessities of life without committing deadly crimes.
i don't support dictatorship, but dictatorship a lot better than anarchy which breeds terrorism. china, cuba, iran, russia, pakistan, north korea and the former iraq are a lot better than the current iraq, indonesia, the philipines, where the governments have no control over the country. the former countries have better chances of relative peace than iraq will ever have in another 20 years.
Quote:
he lamented that the war against Iraq "has aroused the passions of the Muslims more."
Yay for blanket statements from our own president. Something tells me he should've said "terrorists", not "Muslims".
Owl basically sums it up for me. Good job.
Yay for blanket statements from our own president. Something tells me he should've said "terrorists", not "Muslims".
Methinks, SH, that that statement was made by the Pakistani president. I read a similar thing on Yahoo.
i believe the pakistani president used the word muslim instead of terrorist because in reality many non violent muslims in the middle east are becoming sympathetic with more anti american movements especially considering the arrogance being displayed by the american president. terrorist organization have always preached that america and the western world were trying to abolish their religion, take control of their lands and systematically colonize them, loot their oil reserves and so on. just when america had a chance to disprove these claims with the war in aghfanistan, after 9-11 when a lot of clerics known to have extreme anti american views rejected the attacks as unislamic, bush decided it was time to pay back friends, campaign financiers and he made up claims to attack iraq and they hurriedly went to war denoucing everyone that didn't agree with them in the most undemocratic fashion.
if enron didn't go bankcrupt before the war, the firm would have been a major contractor, like worldcom, that was about to go bankcrupt after it was found to have been engaging in professional malpractices, such that sunk enron, but bush decided to pay such a corrupt organisation with a huge contract ahead of the other telecommunication firms that had great records.
Using the word 'Muslim' instead of 'terrorist' is incredibly, undeniably racist. The very use of it will have enraged law-abiding Muslims and terrorists alike. There are terrorists that are not Muslim, and there are Muslims who are not terrorists.
How would Bush like it if someone put a blanket of terrorism on the Christian church, just because members of the IRA terrorist group are Christian?
Quote:
Using the word 'Muslim' instead of 'terrorist' is incredibly, undeniably racist.
Although your point is correct in that he shouldn't have said "Muslims", the word you should've used is prejudice, anyone, no matter race can be a Muslim.
the pakistani president not the american president said it and he apparently meant that the war angered so many muslims that it gave some of them a reason to join terrorist organization or cooperate less with law enforcement agencies that are fighting terrorism just like the actions of bush have made me more sympathetic with organization that are ralling for votes against bush in the upcoming election.
Yeah, I posted a webcomic on it earlier in the topic. I think it got ignored though. It's there though. I'll see if I can find a link...
Bleh, error 404. Oh well, I'll try another time. 
