Bush has a long way to go before he takes Jimmy Carter's title of worst president ever. This is the man who mastermind 9/11? Look at him! He's just like Stewart said, adorable. This county will endure despite the Liberals. Oh and by the way, the democraticly lead congress has much worse approval ratings than the President. His base still supports him he's only lost support of the independents who elected him. Those same independents that will elect McCain.
Only about 5 months left in office... irretrievably low approval ratings... about to go down in history as the worst president of all time... I'd have gone ahead and slapped Misty May's magnificent ass!
Wow... "dumbocrat"... did you think that up all by yourself?
The Dems in congress mostly DO suck (almost as badly as the Republicans)! But nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could overshadow how simultaneously dishonest, incompetent and generally disasterous this Bush administration has been. So to summarize once again: He should've slapped her ass.
Lying us into war is definitely classy. So is being responsible for the deaths of 4,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. I guess that doesn't matter to you though. Fuck those sand-niggers, right?
Seriously... do you harbor resentment toward your mother for drinking so much Wild Turkey while she was pregnant with you?
Lied? When did he lie? He said exactly what the CIA, NSA and every other western intelligence agency AND the UN Security Council believed. That Saddam had major stockpiles of WMD and was working on a bomb. If he "lied" then so did all of them, AND all of the Democrats who voted for the war.
That figure is conservative. The World Health Organization indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians have died. PLEASE look it up!
He lied about the yellow-cake uranium (and got caught). Rumsfeld lied about "knowing where the WMD's are". They constantly implied that Saddam and Osama were somehow connected, when all evidence was (and still is) to the contrary.
And yes, the Dems bear much of the responsibility for this mess!
104,000 to 223,000 with 95% certantity is a fuckin shitty estimation it if its +/- is as much as the fuckin minimum....thats giving a swing of over 100,000 deaths...thats fuckin stupid. US ARMY HOOAH
Yes, but it is the most scientific figure anyone has. Even assuming the minimum... hell, even assuming HALF the minimum is true, those are some HUGE civilian casualty #'s. And by the way, my groundpounding friend, I wasn't blaming the Army for those deaths. We have the best armed forces on Earth, especially when considering our incompetent "commander in chief". Most civ deaths are a result of the ongoing sectarian violence, but our government IS directly to blame for igniting that firestorm.
Like you cared when Saddam caused millions dead. Atleast the recent dead die for something better. The Iraqi surplus is now $80b from oil revenue that is entirely for Iraqi use, so much for the war for oil stupid leftist slogans. Donkeys.
I'm referring to the number of people you claim Saddam killed... "Millions"? Not accurate by any reputable estimation.
Don't get me wrong. Seeing Saddam dangling from a rope made for a truly joyous occasion, but that's only one positive element in a war that has been, beyond any doubt, a complete fucking disaster. Get what I'm sayin... lad?
Lol, even the single war he created with attacking Iran caused more than one million dead. Not to count the countless murders of kurds and own citizens. Dont give me the leftist slogan "but Saddam was bad" , its just stupid propaganda for the stupidest of leftists. Ofcourse Iraq is better off now, and ofcourse the small numbers dead is worth much more than continuing tyranny. Even if the numbers of dead where much larger freedom always is the better option. You will never get it will u?
Ya see... THIS is why there are very few reasonable and intelligent conversations happening anymore. This is why U.S. political dialogue is SO clogged with bullshit and falsehood. We have so many people here who write off anyone who disagrees with them as "stupid". Anyone who isn't willing to get on his knees and fellate the president to completion is a "traitor" or a "leftist". And by the way... the U.S. facilitated and funded that war with Iran.
Your're fooling nobody with your moral high ground, you went off your number of dead argument and had no arguments at all left. I dont pretend to be a moral idiot, i always have some adjectives and curses to sum up a general feeling after the argument is passed. Stupid dishonest opponents always attack this part.
The "moral high ground" is like Mt. Everest in a way. You may have never been there, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
Here's where your argument falls apart. If you're going to count the number of casualties incurred during the Iran-Iraq war as those "killed by Saddam" then you have to apply the same standard to other leaders. By your "logic" Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill slaughtered 47 million people and could be counted as some of the worst murderers in history.
I'll repeat myself; they died for something better. You're the one starting with the numbers, like they matter. Saddam was a tyrant with no regard for any human life and treated his own citizens as animals. Im no kind of a conservative, i mock every religion and i also cant stand ppl standing up for tyrants and their slaughters.
I agree that the WWII soldiers died for something better. But I simply DON'T agree with you that the Iraq war soldiers died for something better. First we were told we had to invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. There were none. So then they said it was because of the Saddam-Bin Laden connection. This was proven non-existent. So now we're supposedly there because Saddam sucked. In MY OPINION (along with 64% of America), this war wasn't worth the money or lives it cost.
Im not sure what you are talking about, did u listen to Bush's address to the UN? WMD is just a small part of the reason, the Saddam - Bin Laden connection was due to Abu Nidal working out of Baghdad. After Saddam fell, the Al'Quida chief Sarkawi was leading the insurgents. The congressional hearings didnt say there where no connections, they said it could not be verified.. Though the circumstances tell another story..
You're simply mistaken about it being a "small part of the reason". I was here, heard every speech and saw all the little things they were doing to scare the American public. When the 9-11 commision concluded that there was no connection, it was on the front page of every newspaper in the country. Even our own intelligence officials admit the lack of association. Keep in mind, the Congress, at the time, was heavily Republican dominated. The "no connection" thing is a resolved issue.
When that it said i do understand the opposition in the US, why the hell should the US take responsibility for a just war the free world should all participate in. With time this will be looked upon as a just war and necessary war, though when we are rid of the remains of the hippie rebel liberals from the 68 generation and their indoctrinated kids. Iraq is to wealthy and strategically important to be left to a fanatic crime family.
I can see how someone might surmise that the war will have been worth it. I understand your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it. Most of the free world was against our invasion and now most of America recognizes it as a huge mistake. This has nothing to do with hippies from 1968. They're SO very irrelevant at this point. Most of them are either, dead, in prison, living in isolation, or have sold out their values by now. I think Iraq is too important to have destroyed her infrastruction.
Destroyed her infrastructure? Every inch of Iraq was controlled by a crime family with torture chambers and millions dead on their hands, not in the fight for freedom but for preservation of a tyranny. So do not give me your tears for Iraqs infrastructure, nor their civilians who embrace their newly created democracy, highways created by the US army corps of engineers and security to travel on them. I also saw every speech and read every resolution breached, the most important 1441 of course..
Yes, they "embrace their new democracy" so much that 98% of them hate us and want us to get the fuck out. I'm referring, of course, to those who haven't been killed by death squads or fled the country by now. How can you defend igniting a religious civil war that's cost more than 100,000 lives, especially in a country that posed no threat to us?
And the word "infrastructure" refers to roads, electricity, clean water, etc. It's pretty much fucked now.
They dont hate the US, more than half say the removal of Saddam was a good thing. Its natural that they now want the control of their country back and they will. Iraqi government themselves have gotten the UN mandate for the security presence of US led forces and that will be renewed in december and come to an end in 2011. I defend the removal of this Baath slaughter house and the liberation of Iraq. Maybe u should check out the new highways, electricity, water and oil installations in place?
"Ma'am... we have some good news and bad news. The bad news is that your entire family has been wiped out in the bombing of Baghdad and in the ensuing civil war. The good news is that you can drive to their funerals quite easily on the new road we built!"
You clearly do not know anything about the conflict where Iraqi army fight side by side with the security forces in Baghdad to ensure public safety and transition of power. UN mandated and supported by most of the free world, we do have some idiots claiming the insurgents and terrorists have a legitimate cause with blowing up civilians, the very thing the US forces are there to help prevent. Go back to your hole.
I feel like I do know a little bit about it, having been one of the U.S. Marines who "liberated" Iraq. And yes, we (as in soldiers) did our absolute best to prevent the insurgent violence. But it happened (and is still happening) anyway. What, in the name of God, leads you to the conclusion that I believe the insurgents have a "legitimate cause"?
I feel sad for you having such faulty logic then. Insurgent violence is down more than ever. US forces and Iraqis are preventing attacks daily, its bound to happen but that is not an argument against protecting those you can now is it?. Even if the insurgents would WIN it would still be the right thing to resist them. Did you not say the war was wrong?, insurgents are the real protectors of civilians while the US bomb cities? Make up your mind, either the insurgents is right or the coalition is.
Truly spoken like someone who sits in front of a television and assumes he knows more than those who were there. Of COURSE we have to resist the insurgents... only because we're there now. But if we WEREN'T there in the first place, there WOULDN'T BE any insurgents. If you can't understand that, I believe it is you has the logic impairment. Yes, I did say the war was wrong, but as far as insurgents being "the real protectors of civilians" you pulled that straight out of your ass.
You honestly think the fight against terrorism is the reason of its origin? Iraq would again fall in the hands of tyrants and slaughterers if the coalition did not bring security and better odds for a better future. I actually thought for a second that you where rational, sadly stupidity prevails again.
In Iraq, yes! Al Queda wasn't in Iraq in any significant numbers until we invaded. There was no civil war until we invaded. When I was there I saw a country that had been thrown completely into upheaval. Families wiped out, entire towns that had once been peaceful places to live, now without water, electricity, and under constant threat of insurgent violence. Regardless of what you read on your right-wing websites, I saw the devastation with my own eyes. You have no leg to stand on.
Abu Nidal was and Al Sarkawi was, two major operatives in the Al'Quida . Sarkawi led the insurgents until his death. If you knew anything about Saddam your argument against intervention from a civilian point of view fall on its own stupidity. Millions turned out to vote and elected a government. 19,2million ppl had access to portable water oct 2007 a 52% increse to prewar levels. You are full of lies and have no regard for peoples freedom. Your peace is my reason for war.
Where are you getting those stats? Those are incredibly inaccurate...
And I LITERALLY gave my flesh and blood to stop insurgent violence. What have you done besides sitting in front of the television or computer screen blogging about how much fun it would be to watch entire nations burn? War is a spectacular sight from a distance, isn't it?
Even if they went to war to find hidden candy stolen on your nearest walmart; Saddam and his crime family would still be outside international law and should be removed. The war is just as just without any government saying so, they could blow bubbles for all i care at the pulpit in UN. "Saddam is bad, but they lied to us.. BUHUUU".. Lol, man u make me laugh.
So then you believe we should invade and conquer any country whose government we find to be objectionable? Where do you draw the lines there? Should we invade and destroy Iran? How about N. Korea? China's government is at least as oppresive as Iran's. Should we start a war with them too? And what about Russia? They're showing signs of falling back into an authoritarian system. Let's kill their women and children!!! You sound like you're pining for the days of the Holy Roman Empire.
Not any country we find objectionable but every country led by tyrants with no regard for human life and who does crimes against humanity and thus is outside international law, so yes North-Korea would be a candidate. In reality they are holding Soul as hostage with thousands of artillery so that any intervention here would be to costly. Diplomatic pressure to Russia is better since they are heavily connected in world affairs. Kosovo,Iraq and Afghanistan is however possible and just to set free.
If freedom and democracy would dominate the world that's not such a bad thing is it?. That is what all free men choose when given the chance. You seem like you do not understand any logic at all when your argument is that if u don't take all at the same time you cant take any. Eventually freedom will come around to all, tyrannies are getting less in numbers with time passing by. You clearly are one of many factors that prolong human suffering though.
I don't believe our role is to be the moral and political police for all humanity. I don't believe we have the moral authority or the economic ability to do so. And please answer the question regarding Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you, or do you not include these countries in your desire for violent conquer? I'm honestly interested in your opinion. I promise, regardless of your answer, I will not suggest that you "go back to your hole".
Its not only our role its our responsibility, its not a coincidence that its the free world that press for international action against the genocide in Darfur, the Kosovo, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and so on. It was'nt Iran,China or for that matter Russia that wanted any international involvement. Not only do we have the moral authority but we have proved it several times. Yes, the theocracy of Iran and SA will face consequences if they do as they preach. By a moral authority, the free world.
Perhaps your country is a bastion of public schools bursting with extra money, no crime to deal with, and more health insurance than anyone needs, but the U.S. isn't so much. We actually have expenses that need to be dealt with here. And while you're talking happily about our "responsibility" to engage in World War III and kill hundreds of millions of innocent citizenry, we have some economic (and hopefully ethical) concerns that won't allow us to spend trillions more on world domination.
I do not say its the responsibility of the US, I say its the responsibility of all free nations. I would join the war for liberty around the world as well if my government would let me, call me naive. There are ppl around the world in chains watching the same skies and wonder when their freedom will come, some snear and laugh at the idea while some think its about time. If we do not resist do you think the problem will go away? The insurgents dont fight the US, they fight their lack of tyranny..
I think what you're proposing is an endless world war. Even if we "liberate" country after country, what do we do when those countrys' new governments turn out to be just as objectionable (e.g. Afganistan)? Go back to war? Re-annihilate them? Kill more civilians? Also, on a side note... have you read anything about Senator Joe Biden's proposed plan to de-centralize Iraq's government?
Afghanistan and Iraq is far better off now than ever, in Afghanistan the fighting is primarily in the south where taliban still fight a guerrilla war against NATO forces. Women attend school, ppl play music and enjoy the freedom the minority rule of taliban would not grant them. "Just as objectionable", words of a fool.
Whenever you resort to petty name-calling, you make your arguments appear weak. Let's keep things on an adult level, shall we? And when did I object to Afganistan? If anything there needs to be MUCH MORE focus on Afganistan because it's beginning to slide back into disarray. One of the primary criticisms the majority of Americans have with the Iraq war is the fact that it distracted us from the true "war on terrorism".
Feel free to take the verbal moral high ground, i'm far from politically correct and i tend to spice up my arguments with some adjectives, still being an adult. There is no disarray in Afghanistan, a couple bombs a week and some insurgent ambushes is to be reckoned with also in the future. Cant smoke em all out but we can do as much as we can do and still call it a success.
No disarray in Afghanistan??? The country's economy is largely based on a growing illegal opium trade. The Taliban has ALREADY taken back parts of the country! Those aren't my opnions. Those are easily verfiable facts. How can you POSSIBLY argue that we need to face down tyrannical governments while simultaneously arguing that Afghanistan is all peaches and cream?
I never said that, Afghanistan is not a Scandinavian democracy and it will never be for ages. The opium trade is a part of Afghanistans history and its the economic backbone of the country, opium is not just used as a reality escape for poor ppl with alot of money but also for medicine. There is no argument that we should not wage war against Taliban because of the opium will once again flourish. Taliban as i said is fighting in mostly in the south and most of the provinces enjoy security.
There has never been a free democracy in modern times that have fallen back into autocracy, free democracies do not fight war against each other. When people are free and subject to free press, books and education they tend to turn to western ideas cause they are not forces upon us. Now we have endless wars, and we have always had them. They will only come to and end when all nations are free. You want to grant the right for genocides and tyrant rule everywhere except where u live. Shame on you.
Let's talk about "never". NEVER has a democratic system been successfully jammed down a country's throat. And, by the way... Russia is sinking back into autocracy.
(Let's eliminate this new thread... we already have two going. Just respond in the above thread.)
Russia has never been a free democracy, KGB/FSB always lurks in the shadows. Journalists get killed and at the moment free press in Russia are of the lowest in the world. And yes, never has a democratic system been forces upon any, cause its not needed!. The Iraqis did not line up in front of a barrel to vote, they voted in the knowledge that they might had to face a barrel if they DID VOTE. Surely even a supporter of consistent world tyranny should polish your propaganda some more..
Oh... I just realized your confusion about Afganistan. I wasn't saying it was worse off now than before we invaded. I was saying we (the U.S.) helped the Taliban gain power in the 1970's and 1980's and then they eventually bit us in the ass. Thus, the Taliban was "just as objectionable" or moreso, than the Russian invaders that we helped repel.
Of course they helped the Mujaheedins now Taliban when they fought off the Russians cause then they where on our side and also had the support of the common Afghan. Now they dont, its an overwhelming support for NATO forces in the country. 70%-80% last time i checked at world public opinions, now thats more than any other western government have. I salute you for probably unwillingly go to Iraq but once a liberal always an liberal..
I volunteered to join the Marines and go to Iraq. We don't have a draft here anymore. And once again... NO ONE is arguing the invasion of Afghanistan... at least not in this conversation. But I can't BELIEVE you would actually defend the Taliban government that we put in place. It fostered the extremists who killed 3000 of my countrymen. I can't even respect your opinion in this instance. That's just fuckin sick!
Again you claim i do or have said something that makes me think your not sober at all. I would gladly join the fight in Afghanistan and fight Taliban if my country would let me. Hamid Karzai won the 2004 presidential election in Afghanistan and is no Taliban. Taliban do have numerous unsuccessful assassination attempts on his life though. Last comments you clearly have made up another straw man again and wander around like Mr Magoo.
(part two) If you wish to have a respectful, intelligent conversation... a comparison of views between a liberal-leaning American and a conservative Norweigan, I'd be down with that. If not, don't post to me anymore. It's pointless and unproductive.
you're right, it's actually alot more than that. And yes, using extremely sketchy evidence that half of the cia knew was faulty is not justified as a mistake. He was looking for evidence, he made evidence, therefore he lied.
oh look, I found an argument on the internet
SURPRISE
sublimations 3 years ago 4
it's an intense one too! ooooooo...
8Chizz8 3 years ago
bush lied, soldiers died
ADD112 3 years ago
At the end he says, "Back of the hand, small of the back. Perhaps the finest decision of his entire presidency."
cbrownkramer 3 years ago
Does anyone know what he said that was bleeped out at the end?
catboxcatboxcatbox 3 years ago 2
Hilarious!!
wellverzed 3 years ago
Bush has already snatched gold medals in all the following categories:
* Dumbest president
* Most destructive president
* Most deceitful president
* Worst president all around
Congrats fucktard!!!
kossmikham 3 years ago
Nixon wins gold in deceitful and worst president... bush takes silver
helorm341 3 years ago
whah, somebody who worked for hims broke into an office. Bush is killing kids in iraq
rams25 3 years ago
wow, you're a really gay person.
mattrmc19 3 years ago
Did you have to train to be that stupid?
DantesDump 3 years ago
Bush has a long way to go before he takes Jimmy Carter's title of worst president ever. This is the man who mastermind 9/11? Look at him! He's just like Stewart said, adorable. This county will endure despite the Liberals. Oh and by the way, the democraticly lead congress has much worse approval ratings than the President. His base still supports him he's only lost support of the independents who elected him. Those same independents that will elect McCain.
Specialed84 3 years ago
jimmy carter? Reagan was the worst buddy, now it is bush. Despite liberals? joking right
rams25 3 years ago
hahaha... His "base" would support an orangutan if it could wave an American flag and show itself to be an evangelical Christian.
mientememami 3 years ago
Only about 5 months left in office... irretrievably low approval ratings... about to go down in history as the worst president of all time... I'd have gone ahead and slapped Misty May's magnificent ass!
mientememami 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Good thing the Dumbocrat lead congress is going to overshadow Bush with crappy ratings!
Ahughson3 3 years ago
Wow... "dumbocrat"... did you think that up all by yourself?
The Dems in congress mostly DO suck (almost as badly as the Republicans)! But nothing short of a nuclear holocaust could overshadow how simultaneously dishonest, incompetent and generally disasterous this Bush administration has been. So to summarize once again: He should've slapped her ass.
mientememami 3 years ago
He didn't, because he has far more class than you'll ever possess.
DantesDump 3 years ago
Lying us into war is definitely classy. So is being responsible for the deaths of 4,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians. I guess that doesn't matter to you though. Fuck those sand-niggers, right?
Seriously... do you harbor resentment toward your mother for drinking so much Wild Turkey while she was pregnant with you?
mientememami 3 years ago
Lied? When did he lie? He said exactly what the CIA, NSA and every other western intelligence agency AND the UN Security Council believed. That Saddam had major stockpiles of WMD and was working on a bomb. If he "lied" then so did all of them, AND all of the Democrats who voted for the war.
BTW, that 100,000 dead Iraqis figure is garbage.
DantesDump 3 years ago
That figure is conservative. The World Health Organization indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians have died. PLEASE look it up!
He lied about the yellow-cake uranium (and got caught). Rumsfeld lied about "knowing where the WMD's are". They constantly implied that Saddam and Osama were somehow connected, when all evidence was (and still is) to the contrary.
And yes, the Dems bear much of the responsibility for this mess!
mientememami 3 years ago
104,000 to 223,000 with 95% certantity is a fuckin shitty estimation it if its +/- is as much as the fuckin minimum....thats giving a swing of over 100,000 deaths...thats fuckin stupid. US ARMY HOOAH
Dougefresh3451 3 years ago
Yes, but it is the most scientific figure anyone has. Even assuming the minimum... hell, even assuming HALF the minimum is true, those are some HUGE civilian casualty #'s. And by the way, my groundpounding friend, I wasn't blaming the Army for those deaths. We have the best armed forces on Earth, especially when considering our incompetent "commander in chief". Most civ deaths are a result of the ongoing sectarian violence, but our government IS directly to blame for igniting that firestorm.
mientememami 3 years ago
Like you cared when Saddam caused millions dead. Atleast the recent dead die for something better. The Iraqi surplus is now $80b from oil revenue that is entirely for Iraqi use, so much for the war for oil stupid leftist slogans. Donkeys.
richter75 3 years ago
Millions huh? So then... you haven't actually researched any of this...
mientememami 3 years ago
$80 billion lad.
richter75 3 years ago
I'm referring to the number of people you claim Saddam killed... "Millions"? Not accurate by any reputable estimation.
Don't get me wrong. Seeing Saddam dangling from a rope made for a truly joyous occasion, but that's only one positive element in a war that has been, beyond any doubt, a complete fucking disaster. Get what I'm sayin... lad?
mientememami 3 years ago
Lol, even the single war he created with attacking Iran caused more than one million dead. Not to count the countless murders of kurds and own citizens. Dont give me the leftist slogan "but Saddam was bad" , its just stupid propaganda for the stupidest of leftists. Ofcourse Iraq is better off now, and ofcourse the small numbers dead is worth much more than continuing tyranny. Even if the numbers of dead where much larger freedom always is the better option. You will never get it will u?
richter75 3 years ago
Ya see... THIS is why there are very few reasonable and intelligent conversations happening anymore. This is why U.S. political dialogue is SO clogged with bullshit and falsehood. We have so many people here who write off anyone who disagrees with them as "stupid". Anyone who isn't willing to get on his knees and fellate the president to completion is a "traitor" or a "leftist". And by the way... the U.S. facilitated and funded that war with Iran.
mientememami 3 years ago
Your're fooling nobody with your moral high ground, you went off your number of dead argument and had no arguments at all left. I dont pretend to be a moral idiot, i always have some adjectives and curses to sum up a general feeling after the argument is passed. Stupid dishonest opponents always attack this part.
richter75 3 years ago
The "moral high ground" is like Mt. Everest in a way. You may have never been there, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
Here's where your argument falls apart. If you're going to count the number of casualties incurred during the Iran-Iraq war as those "killed by Saddam" then you have to apply the same standard to other leaders. By your "logic" Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill slaughtered 47 million people and could be counted as some of the worst murderers in history.
mientememami 3 years ago
I'll repeat myself; they died for something better. You're the one starting with the numbers, like they matter. Saddam was a tyrant with no regard for any human life and treated his own citizens as animals. Im no kind of a conservative, i mock every religion and i also cant stand ppl standing up for tyrants and their slaughters.
richter75 3 years ago
I agree that the WWII soldiers died for something better. But I simply DON'T agree with you that the Iraq war soldiers died for something better. First we were told we had to invade Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. There were none. So then they said it was because of the Saddam-Bin Laden connection. This was proven non-existent. So now we're supposedly there because Saddam sucked. In MY OPINION (along with 64% of America), this war wasn't worth the money or lives it cost.
mientememami 3 years ago
Im not sure what you are talking about, did u listen to Bush's address to the UN? WMD is just a small part of the reason, the Saddam - Bin Laden connection was due to Abu Nidal working out of Baghdad. After Saddam fell, the Al'Quida chief Sarkawi was leading the insurgents. The congressional hearings didnt say there where no connections, they said it could not be verified.. Though the circumstances tell another story..
richter75 3 years ago
You're simply mistaken about it being a "small part of the reason". I was here, heard every speech and saw all the little things they were doing to scare the American public. When the 9-11 commision concluded that there was no connection, it was on the front page of every newspaper in the country. Even our own intelligence officials admit the lack of association. Keep in mind, the Congress, at the time, was heavily Republican dominated. The "no connection" thing is a resolved issue.
mientememami 3 years ago
When that it said i do understand the opposition in the US, why the hell should the US take responsibility for a just war the free world should all participate in. With time this will be looked upon as a just war and necessary war, though when we are rid of the remains of the hippie rebel liberals from the 68 generation and their indoctrinated kids. Iraq is to wealthy and strategically important to be left to a fanatic crime family.
richter75 3 years ago
I can see how someone might surmise that the war will have been worth it. I understand your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it. Most of the free world was against our invasion and now most of America recognizes it as a huge mistake. This has nothing to do with hippies from 1968. They're SO very irrelevant at this point. Most of them are either, dead, in prison, living in isolation, or have sold out their values by now. I think Iraq is too important to have destroyed her infrastruction.
mientememami 3 years ago
Destroyed her infrastructure? Every inch of Iraq was controlled by a crime family with torture chambers and millions dead on their hands, not in the fight for freedom but for preservation of a tyranny. So do not give me your tears for Iraqs infrastructure, nor their civilians who embrace their newly created democracy, highways created by the US army corps of engineers and security to travel on them. I also saw every speech and read every resolution breached, the most important 1441 of course..
richter75 3 years ago
Yes, they "embrace their new democracy" so much that 98% of them hate us and want us to get the fuck out. I'm referring, of course, to those who haven't been killed by death squads or fled the country by now. How can you defend igniting a religious civil war that's cost more than 100,000 lives, especially in a country that posed no threat to us?
And the word "infrastructure" refers to roads, electricity, clean water, etc. It's pretty much fucked now.
mientememami 3 years ago
They dont hate the US, more than half say the removal of Saddam was a good thing. Its natural that they now want the control of their country back and they will. Iraqi government themselves have gotten the UN mandate for the security presence of US led forces and that will be renewed in december and come to an end in 2011. I defend the removal of this Baath slaughter house and the liberation of Iraq. Maybe u should check out the new highways, electricity, water and oil installations in place?
richter75 3 years ago
"Ma'am... we have some good news and bad news. The bad news is that your entire family has been wiped out in the bombing of Baghdad and in the ensuing civil war. The good news is that you can drive to their funerals quite easily on the new road we built!"
mientememami 3 years ago
You clearly do not know anything about the conflict where Iraqi army fight side by side with the security forces in Baghdad to ensure public safety and transition of power. UN mandated and supported by most of the free world, we do have some idiots claiming the insurgents and terrorists have a legitimate cause with blowing up civilians, the very thing the US forces are there to help prevent. Go back to your hole.
richter75 3 years ago
I feel like I do know a little bit about it, having been one of the U.S. Marines who "liberated" Iraq. And yes, we (as in soldiers) did our absolute best to prevent the insurgent violence. But it happened (and is still happening) anyway. What, in the name of God, leads you to the conclusion that I believe the insurgents have a "legitimate cause"?
mientememami 3 years ago
I feel sad for you having such faulty logic then. Insurgent violence is down more than ever. US forces and Iraqis are preventing attacks daily, its bound to happen but that is not an argument against protecting those you can now is it?. Even if the insurgents would WIN it would still be the right thing to resist them. Did you not say the war was wrong?, insurgents are the real protectors of civilians while the US bomb cities? Make up your mind, either the insurgents is right or the coalition is.
richter75 3 years ago
Truly spoken like someone who sits in front of a television and assumes he knows more than those who were there. Of COURSE we have to resist the insurgents... only because we're there now. But if we WEREN'T there in the first place, there WOULDN'T BE any insurgents. If you can't understand that, I believe it is you has the logic impairment. Yes, I did say the war was wrong, but as far as insurgents being "the real protectors of civilians" you pulled that straight out of your ass.
mientememami 3 years ago
You honestly think the fight against terrorism is the reason of its origin? Iraq would again fall in the hands of tyrants and slaughterers if the coalition did not bring security and better odds for a better future. I actually thought for a second that you where rational, sadly stupidity prevails again.
richter75 3 years ago
In Iraq, yes! Al Queda wasn't in Iraq in any significant numbers until we invaded. There was no civil war until we invaded. When I was there I saw a country that had been thrown completely into upheaval. Families wiped out, entire towns that had once been peaceful places to live, now without water, electricity, and under constant threat of insurgent violence. Regardless of what you read on your right-wing websites, I saw the devastation with my own eyes. You have no leg to stand on.
mientememami 3 years ago
Abu Nidal was and Al Sarkawi was, two major operatives in the Al'Quida . Sarkawi led the insurgents until his death. If you knew anything about Saddam your argument against intervention from a civilian point of view fall on its own stupidity. Millions turned out to vote and elected a government. 19,2million ppl had access to portable water oct 2007 a 52% increse to prewar levels. You are full of lies and have no regard for peoples freedom. Your peace is my reason for war.
richter75 3 years ago
Where are you getting those stats? Those are incredibly inaccurate...
And I LITERALLY gave my flesh and blood to stop insurgent violence. What have you done besides sitting in front of the television or computer screen blogging about how much fun it would be to watch entire nations burn? War is a spectacular sight from a distance, isn't it?
mientememami 3 years ago
Even if they went to war to find hidden candy stolen on your nearest walmart; Saddam and his crime family would still be outside international law and should be removed. The war is just as just without any government saying so, they could blow bubbles for all i care at the pulpit in UN. "Saddam is bad, but they lied to us.. BUHUUU".. Lol, man u make me laugh.
richter75 3 years ago
So then you believe we should invade and conquer any country whose government we find to be objectionable? Where do you draw the lines there? Should we invade and destroy Iran? How about N. Korea? China's government is at least as oppresive as Iran's. Should we start a war with them too? And what about Russia? They're showing signs of falling back into an authoritarian system. Let's kill their women and children!!! You sound like you're pining for the days of the Holy Roman Empire.
mientememami 3 years ago
Not any country we find objectionable but every country led by tyrants with no regard for human life and who does crimes against humanity and thus is outside international law, so yes North-Korea would be a candidate. In reality they are holding Soul as hostage with thousands of artillery so that any intervention here would be to costly. Diplomatic pressure to Russia is better since they are heavily connected in world affairs. Kosovo,Iraq and Afghanistan is however possible and just to set free.
richter75 3 years ago
So you wouldn't include Iran or Saudi Arabia in this quest for world domination?
mientememami 3 years ago
If freedom and democracy would dominate the world that's not such a bad thing is it?. That is what all free men choose when given the chance. You seem like you do not understand any logic at all when your argument is that if u don't take all at the same time you cant take any. Eventually freedom will come around to all, tyrannies are getting less in numbers with time passing by. You clearly are one of many factors that prolong human suffering though.
richter75 3 years ago
I don't believe our role is to be the moral and political police for all humanity. I don't believe we have the moral authority or the economic ability to do so. And please answer the question regarding Iran and Saudi Arabia. Do you, or do you not include these countries in your desire for violent conquer? I'm honestly interested in your opinion. I promise, regardless of your answer, I will not suggest that you "go back to your hole".
mientememami 3 years ago
Its not only our role its our responsibility, its not a coincidence that its the free world that press for international action against the genocide in Darfur, the Kosovo, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Rwanda and so on. It was'nt Iran,China or for that matter Russia that wanted any international involvement. Not only do we have the moral authority but we have proved it several times. Yes, the theocracy of Iran and SA will face consequences if they do as they preach. By a moral authority, the free world.
richter75 3 years ago
Perhaps your country is a bastion of public schools bursting with extra money, no crime to deal with, and more health insurance than anyone needs, but the U.S. isn't so much. We actually have expenses that need to be dealt with here. And while you're talking happily about our "responsibility" to engage in World War III and kill hundreds of millions of innocent citizenry, we have some economic (and hopefully ethical) concerns that won't allow us to spend trillions more on world domination.
mientememami 3 years ago
I do not say its the responsibility of the US, I say its the responsibility of all free nations. I would join the war for liberty around the world as well if my government would let me, call me naive. There are ppl around the world in chains watching the same skies and wonder when their freedom will come, some snear and laugh at the idea while some think its about time. If we do not resist do you think the problem will go away? The insurgents dont fight the US, they fight their lack of tyranny..
richter75 3 years ago
I think what you're proposing is an endless world war. Even if we "liberate" country after country, what do we do when those countrys' new governments turn out to be just as objectionable (e.g. Afganistan)? Go back to war? Re-annihilate them? Kill more civilians? Also, on a side note... have you read anything about Senator Joe Biden's proposed plan to de-centralize Iraq's government?
mientememami 3 years ago
Afghanistan and Iraq is far better off now than ever, in Afghanistan the fighting is primarily in the south where taliban still fight a guerrilla war against NATO forces. Women attend school, ppl play music and enjoy the freedom the minority rule of taliban would not grant them. "Just as objectionable", words of a fool.
richter75 3 years ago
Whenever you resort to petty name-calling, you make your arguments appear weak. Let's keep things on an adult level, shall we? And when did I object to Afganistan? If anything there needs to be MUCH MORE focus on Afganistan because it's beginning to slide back into disarray. One of the primary criticisms the majority of Americans have with the Iraq war is the fact that it distracted us from the true "war on terrorism".
mientememami 3 years ago
Feel free to take the verbal moral high ground, i'm far from politically correct and i tend to spice up my arguments with some adjectives, still being an adult. There is no disarray in Afghanistan, a couple bombs a week and some insurgent ambushes is to be reckoned with also in the future. Cant smoke em all out but we can do as much as we can do and still call it a success.
richter75 3 years ago
No disarray in Afghanistan??? The country's economy is largely based on a growing illegal opium trade. The Taliban has ALREADY taken back parts of the country! Those aren't my opnions. Those are easily verfiable facts. How can you POSSIBLY argue that we need to face down tyrannical governments while simultaneously arguing that Afghanistan is all peaches and cream?
mientememami 3 years ago
I never said that, Afghanistan is not a Scandinavian democracy and it will never be for ages. The opium trade is a part of Afghanistans history and its the economic backbone of the country, opium is not just used as a reality escape for poor ppl with alot of money but also for medicine. There is no argument that we should not wage war against Taliban because of the opium will once again flourish. Taliban as i said is fighting in mostly in the south and most of the provinces enjoy security.
richter75 3 years ago
There has never been a free democracy in modern times that have fallen back into autocracy, free democracies do not fight war against each other. When people are free and subject to free press, books and education they tend to turn to western ideas cause they are not forces upon us. Now we have endless wars, and we have always had them. They will only come to and end when all nations are free. You want to grant the right for genocides and tyrant rule everywhere except where u live. Shame on you.
richter75 3 years ago
Let's talk about "never". NEVER has a democratic system been successfully jammed down a country's throat. And, by the way... Russia is sinking back into autocracy.
(Let's eliminate this new thread... we already have two going. Just respond in the above thread.)
mientememami 3 years ago
Russia has never been a free democracy, KGB/FSB always lurks in the shadows. Journalists get killed and at the moment free press in Russia are of the lowest in the world. And yes, never has a democratic system been forces upon any, cause its not needed!. The Iraqis did not line up in front of a barrel to vote, they voted in the knowledge that they might had to face a barrel if they DID VOTE. Surely even a supporter of consistent world tyranny should polish your propaganda some more..
richter75 3 years ago
Oh... I just realized your confusion about Afganistan. I wasn't saying it was worse off now than before we invaded. I was saying we (the U.S.) helped the Taliban gain power in the 1970's and 1980's and then they eventually bit us in the ass. Thus, the Taliban was "just as objectionable" or moreso, than the Russian invaders that we helped repel.
mientememami 3 years ago
Of course they helped the Mujaheedins now Taliban when they fought off the Russians cause then they where on our side and also had the support of the common Afghan. Now they dont, its an overwhelming support for NATO forces in the country. 70%-80% last time i checked at world public opinions, now thats more than any other western government have. I salute you for probably unwillingly go to Iraq but once a liberal always an liberal..
richter75 3 years ago
I volunteered to join the Marines and go to Iraq. We don't have a draft here anymore. And once again... NO ONE is arguing the invasion of Afghanistan... at least not in this conversation. But I can't BELIEVE you would actually defend the Taliban government that we put in place. It fostered the extremists who killed 3000 of my countrymen. I can't even respect your opinion in this instance. That's just fuckin sick!
mientememami 3 years ago
Again you claim i do or have said something that makes me think your not sober at all. I would gladly join the fight in Afghanistan and fight Taliban if my country would let me. Hamid Karzai won the 2004 presidential election in Afghanistan and is no Taliban. Taliban do have numerous unsuccessful assassination attempts on his life though. Last comments you clearly have made up another straw man again and wander around like Mr Magoo.
richter75 3 years ago
oh... and if you're trying to insult me by calling me "liberal"... mission failed. Progressive liberals built this country. So thank you!
mientememami 3 years ago
(part two) If you wish to have a respectful, intelligent conversation... a comparison of views between a liberal-leaning American and a conservative Norweigan, I'd be down with that. If not, don't post to me anymore. It's pointless and unproductive.
Peace,
-m
mientememami 3 years ago
you're right, it's actually alot more than that. And yes, using extremely sketchy evidence that half of the cia knew was faulty is not justified as a mistake. He was looking for evidence, he made evidence, therefore he lied.
thejugglenaut91 3 years ago 5
When the audio gets blanked out, Jon Stewart says that it was THE BEST DECISION THAT BUSH EVER MADE!.....just wanted to let you viewers know that:)
kevinbassist91 3 years ago
She actually didnt bend down for him to spank. She was showing Bush her lower back tattoo when he went in for the cheap feel.
TheJaguarKnight 3 years ago
Should we believe the associated press or thejaugerknight...
helorm341 3 years ago
always believe thejaguarknight. You can actually find the article (written by the AP) posted on the official USA volleyball website.
TheJaguarKnight 3 years ago
Right, and the AP article disagrees with you, so I think i'll side with the AP's version.
helorm341 3 years ago
I was referring to an AP article, all you have to do is google bush, tattoo, and volleyball
TheJaguarKnight 3 years ago
BUSH IS A PIMP!
mccaslin7575 3 years ago