It's absolutely amazing to me that someone can say that Bush was better than Obama. I mean, that's really mind boggling to me. If you just straight-up look at facts, Bush increased the size of government an astronomical amount and spent way more than Obama ever could. When Bush left office, we were already 14 trillion in debt and the dominoes of the downfall were already falling. Losing tens of thousands of jobs per month, on top of spiraling deficit. How has government gotten bigger under Obama
@rb3264 I never said I supported Obama. I never said he was better. You are right about the 10 trillion, and I disagree with a lot about Obama. I was just pointing out that what Bush did was really shitty, and that's not to say what Obama has done wasn't shitty too but Bush certaintly isn't better than Obama. Obama got Bin Laden, Gaddafi, and is pulling our troops out finally. Obama has screwed a lot of working class people and idk what's going to happen but there are no decent candidates now.
Bigger government is not the answer to our problems. Bush wasn't the best, but better than Obama.
I don't see how Obama will fund all of this health care, stimulus funding, and other pet projects without raising taxes on those who work for a living and contribute to the economy.
If all other tactics fail, liberals will call those who oppose Obama a racist/bigot. It's happening already, a clear sign that the dems will lose seats in the 2010 elections.
WOW... come up with that all by yourself did ya? I'll own that though, The GOP is smart enough to know it has to take issue with politically self serving legislation that risks bankrupting the nation BUT DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS everyone agrees need to be fixed, or they are likely to not be re-elected. When will the Donks figure it out? Honestly, a deficit neutral health care bill? HA!! "NO" such thing!
I was just pointing out that Saddam was a terrorist from day one and was mentored by a "Jew Hating" terroist.
Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
I would like to know the source of that, but I don't think that even if has any truth to it you could say a Nazi mentored anyone with the last name Bush or that any one with that name had murdered or even hated any jews.
.....the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act
and btw how did saddam contribute to terrorism? because the truth is he hated terrorists he shot them when he found them he did not want any of them in his country terrorists population has jumped since we invaded iraq because we fell into bin ladens propaganda he said we would take over countries that we were bad and we fell into his trap we need to get out of there unless the iraq government does more to help
He shot the ones that threatened him and he gave quarter to others and I can name them if necessary. He gave $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. He committed terrorist acts himself with WMDs and just in torture chambers in general. He came to power in Iraq through the use of terrorism.
His mentor and uncle was a Nazi supporter, and the Bath party was founded by a radical Palestinian sheik that had moved into Iraq during WW1 and a Paris educated Syrian. They even modeled their uniforms after the Nazi uniform. The founding Sheik was given the rank of general in Hitler's army and was promised air support against the British but could not afford to risk it when the time came and the Brits retained control.
Saddam was connected to these thugs through his Uncle a henchman for the Nazis in attempt to take control from the Brits. When the bath party tried began to resurge in Iraq, Saddam (already a murderer) was pulled in by his uncle as a henchman and assassin. He was jailed with his uncle in short order, but eventually the Bath Party took power and Saddam and his uncle were freed.
Once freed Saddam essentially murdered, intimidated, assassinated, extorted and threatened his way through to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, from this position he gained leverage though the same tactics I described before to take power from the president by giving him the choice of turning over power and surviving or not and being murdered along with his family.
Saddam murdered members of his own family to include the husbands of his own daughters, when he believed their loyalties to have shifted or their motives became questionable or their power threatened some other interest of his. Saddam Hussein, his sons, and any other uniformed or non-uniformed surrogate who tortured , murdered, extorted, raped, intimidated , etc. at his request was a terrorist.
Once freed Saddam essentially murdered, intimidated, assassinated, extorted and threatened his way through to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, from this position he gained leverage though the same tactics I described before to take power from the president by giving him the choice of turning over power and surviving or not and being murdered along with his family.
i dont like how we went to iraq for the simple reason they didnt attack us yes i beleive they deserve their liberty over there but we were just attacked we should have went to 1 place afhganastan not 2 wars thats my point
It's difficult to layout as much evidence that they were never there, as there is evidence that they were, especially if you eliminate all circumstantial type evidence. I.E. They never found them or they quit looking. Ex-Bathist Generals and officers say that they were there. There was a nuclear program and the documentation of this has been found and exposed to the media.
It wasn't Just George W. Bush's opinion. His opinion was based on the NIE and the intelligence reports from virtually every normally dependable primary intelligence gathering/analyzing service. This still wasn't my primary reason for supporting the invasion but I understand that saying there was no proof, sounds damning, but how much evidence do you consider proof?
Proof they weren't there when? What killed the Kurds. As many people on the left like to point out when it's convenient, We (the USA) sold Saddam Hussein Chemical weapons to use against Iran. The IAEA found proof, and so did UNSCOM. Both sent inspectors to assure they were removed, but before they were finished, they were thrown out.
I have to remind many people that right before we invaded Iraq both Hans Blix and Mohammed Al Baradai were publicly stating that though Saddam appeared to be moving toward compliance, he was not being as transparent as he was supposed to be and neither of them could say he did not have WMDs. They would know better than anyone would but they never gave him the "All Clear".
I have to remind many people that right before we invaded Iraq both Hans Blix and Mohammed Al Baradai were publicly stating that though Saddam appeared to be moving toward compliance, he was not being as transparent as he was supposed to be and neither of them could say he did not have WMDs. They would know better than anyone would but they never gave him the "All Clear".
Though many around the world hate this, the U.S. is allied with Israel and the turmoil in that region has been an issue ever since the Israel became A UN protectorate. Saddam used to give $25,000(US) to the families of homicide bombers. He funded terrorism and provided refuge to terrorists when it suited him.
By doing this Saddam was a only contributing to the problem in the region. The other major contributor is Iran. Iran is really the biggest problem. It funds Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Islamic Martyrs Brigade, Al Qaeda, etc., etc., all of which murder innocent men women and children throughout the region and lately the rest of the world.
If you realize this as every POTUS has since Jimmy Carter you have to begin to address the problem of who is really behind all of the terrorism in the world, and apply pressure against those responsible. The best way to understand what is happening is with a map.
If you go to a map of the region and look at what countries surround Iran, it is no coincidence that on today's map we are occupying, based in, or tightly allied with every country on the Iranian border to the exception of Syria. Today the main exporter of terror finds itself surrounded by states cooperation with a worldwide coalition against terror.
I take your point as to not fighting wars on two fronts, but I would ask what it is about fighting the same war on two fronts that is so foreign to folks. That is the nature of warfare throughout history. We are more than capable regardless of what many talking head s say for political points. You might notice a certain degree of success on both fronts lately, making it more difficult to argue against an idea that happens to have worked out.
And to your point about Afghanistan, The Afghani people never did anything to the US and none of the 19 who hit us on 911 were Afghanis. Explain the difference between holding the govt. of Afghanistan responsible for aiding terrorists, but not the Iraqi govt. It works out to a double standard similar to the one you get when folks want us to go into Sudan when that govt. has done nothing to us.
ESSAYONS: "Prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq. What is your proof of this? Basic logic: you can't prove a negative. I was in an engineer unit in Iraq in 2004. No one was surprised when they called off the WMD snipe hunt that summer.
What you mean to say is that you can't prove when the WMDs weren't in Iraq anymore. There were WMDs in Iraq, so it's not a negative. Saddam used them at one point. To claim to have a definate idea of when they left means you should possess some evidence or proof. Let's hear it. Like I said there were many reasons and WMDs weren't my primary reason to support it.
No offense but I've been in an Engineeing unit all over the world for11 years. This hardly qualifies either one of us to be able to prove one way or the other if Saddam had WMDs or not at the actual time of the invasion. I alway respect a fellow Engineers opinion though. Essayons.
I am just saying that I was there -- in n. Iraq in 2004. The search for WMD was called off during the summer. "Immediate threat" was the only moral reason to invade another sovereign country. That was our justification for hanging Nazis at Nuremberg. There are not "many good reasons" for starting a war.
And I'm just saying that you can't prove that WMDs weren't there, but you are giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt before your own president and milllitary leadership. To your argument as to morality.. that is a huge joke! You could use any of a number of attrocities that Saddam was in the midst of to justify toppling his regime. As a member of the millitary in 1991, we all new we were going back to Iraq to fifnish that job one day or another.
John135426, What Nixon ran on ( my grandfather campainged for him in full disclosure) had more to do with public opinion at the time he ran for office. How's this for education: When the public opinion was being turned by spineless politicians in cognress slowly trying undermine the effort in Vietnam, raging protests, the Haight-Ashberry crowd, liberal college campuses country-wide, the mainstream media and draftcard burning hippies, how many of those do you suppose were republicans.
The entirety of our country turned on that war. I don't know who's fault it was or even care. What I do know is that it was both party's fault. One for backing out in that fashion and the other for being leveraged into it. You speak of my education as if you have done enough due dilligence to be able to safely establish that. I always mades "A"s in history and I was raised by a civicly active history/sociology/pshycology/and civics professor.
My mother, who is also the president of our states largest teacher's union (though they technically won't call themselves a union) always tought me to never assume anything and this is a true sign of intellect. I hope you are more carefull determining the verocity of the ideas you profess on campus, as the integrity of our education system is paramount when expanding the universe of ideas installed into the minds of our future leaders.
Don't punch the screen just yet though John, I was wondering if you could explain to me how even if I agreed with your premise that Republicans caused us to fail in Vietnam (lmao); How does this effect the right thing to do as a unified country right now? It doesn't you just have a different idea of what we should be doing and decided to take a shot at my intellect. So silly for such a sophisticate.
I have never claimed to be a genious nor do I feel I need to defend my intelligence, but I would point a thing or two out. As I said above, I always made "A"s in history, but this was also the case in Economics, Sociology, and English and interestingly enough I believe that this qualifies me for your same career choice. Instead I joined the Army so I wonder if I don't have more actual foreign policy experience than you do.
Now just for the record John135426, I did not finish college, but I have made quite a comfortable living self-employed and my uneducated IQ is 130-136 depending on which time was tested. (someone told me Einstein's was 126, but I don't care enough to verify that.) All this really means is that I am smart enough to post all of this in backwards and make folks who can't dig deep enough like you look stupid.
and another thing the end is a lie "the party" referring to the democrats is a party of cut andr run no its not because if thats the case i guess the republicans are just as guilty of the same thing remember nam?
CVK92, I appologize for telling you to shut up and the way I said that. After speaking with you in private I have more respect for you than this. Even if I did not I should not have gone there anyway. I enjoyed our conversation and keep on keeping on.
what about the republicans why cant you talk about how the president doesnt try to work with congress how he vetoes everything they try to pass my point is yes theres alot of corrupt democrats but dont think there isnt any corrupt republicans
i hear people say all democrats all the time dont tell me to shut up because im sick of hearing people attack eachother and dividing this country go ahead tell me i dont know anything i guess i stand alone when i say the country needs to work together
"im sick of hearing people attack eachother and dividing this country go ahead tell me i dont know anything i guess i stand alone when i say the country needs to work together"
Oddly enough your complaint is the same as the complaint that George Bush is making in this cut, and the same problem I along with many others have with the leadership in the Donk's party.
I never said any of those things, but it strikes me as absolutely hilarious that your whole rant right there seems to be against all of "us" who attack others. Who are you attazcking and is that any better or worse to do. Maybe if you understood how politics works a little better you'd understand, but it's a little inappropriate for a starter lesson here. Get yourself a nice tall glass of shut the hell up. "Democrats" referes to congressional party leadership. Not all "Donks".
defeatocrats huh? and they should be called rectumpublicans then. all their ideas and solutions comes from there. and the results is always...well you know... shit.
Trekkerjon if that is all you have to offer, I would point you toward th Appalachian Trail which will take as far North as Maine, from which Canada is only a short stroll away. Prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq. What is your proof of this?
== Prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq. No WMDs were found. They had a detail work for an entire year, after the invasion, and didn't find any.
== Reagan simply called the radicals; "RADICAALS" and pointed to them. I have no problem with that. More likely, Reagan's people cut a deal with Iran. Like they did with the Contras a few years later.
Yep, I understand the contra situation a little better than you obviously. No surprise and Reagan scared the shit out the Iranians. (period) LIke I said prove they weren't there and moved. He had a year to get them out and if you remember the recordings that got Colin Powell in so much trouble in his testimony to the UN. That is what they were doing was moving weaponry. Prove thet they aren't in the Baca Valley in Syria where a great many folks think they are.
All I asked you to do was prove it. I really have no desire for any other communications with you untill we get past that point. Folks who make blanket staements which hurt the credibility of our entire country should have some proof. All that stuuf you smokin 9on the trail is satrting to cut loose too many brain cells. Switch over to the "nugs" and you become more intelligent and less mentally obtuse.
You can't call me a liberal or a conservative. I only care about 1 thing. America. And I understand her more than most. You would be wise to understand a tactic the Bush administration is using to grow/concentrate their own power. It's called "promoting adversaries", look it up.
Would you support terrorists attacking US cities so that the US could expand its control over the world? You'd be a traitor to think that, right?
warisforsuckers, Are you for real? No body needs to look it up. You seem a tad presumtuous to me. We are not dealing with any advasaries we haven't been dealing with for more than 2 decades. Who promoted what adversaries when the Islamic revolution was allowed to have Iran and take hostages? You need to be specific.
In 1979, the Reagan team & the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran promoted each other as adversaries, and they both won... In 1982-85 authoritarian right-wing Israelis & Hezbollah both won (& again in 2006). In 2001, al-Qaida & American right-wing authoritarians both won. There will be plenty more in the near future I'm sure... All these examples (on all sides) are traitors to their countries/people/religions.
You don't understand too much more than most if any at all. The reagan administration was already to be percieved as a adversay to the "revolution" in Iran". This is why they released the hostages they took in the 70s during the Carter administration, as soon as Reagan was sworn in. Reagan simply called the radicals; "RADICAALS" and pointed to them. I have no problem with that.
lt5lee, I agree 100%, but for the sake of the argument,I give them the benifit of the doubt by saying there is no proof either way. Something seems very, very wrong with Democrats giving the benefit of the doubt to the party who was a proven mass murderer. This has to be a lack of "quality" education on the subject or an agenda. Either way it's a sad concious decision.
They had a lot to complain about. Iraq, bullshit war. "We have undeniable evidence of WMD." After the war starts, all that evidence disappears and now the war is no longer about our safety, but we have to spread democracy.
Just once I would like some one to prove that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Show me the proof. There are a great many people who believe that all he had left was flown to Syria and buried in the desert. Did some one prove that incorrect yet.? I would give President Bush the benifit of the doubt before I gave it to Saddam Hussein. We have been spreading democracy since Korea genius. The U.S. Army's Special Forces Credo is "De Opresso Liber". It has always been that.
About time Bush called Demos out by name. Most Demos have been "obstructing & undermining" everything from making less-expensive energy at home to winning wars since day one.
dombolical - Who are those "people that will ultimately DESTROY US ALL"? Do you have names? Can you tell me who they work for? Who is dumb? Who is ignorant? You are if you say the Free Masons. At least be creative and say it's some powerful conglomerate, or better yet a "Neo-Con" think tank.
Shup up George!, your are a loser!
OsamaBinLudin 5 months ago
It's absolutely amazing to me that someone can say that Bush was better than Obama. I mean, that's really mind boggling to me. If you just straight-up look at facts, Bush increased the size of government an astronomical amount and spent way more than Obama ever could. When Bush left office, we were already 14 trillion in debt and the dominoes of the downfall were already falling. Losing tens of thousands of jobs per month, on top of spiraling deficit. How has government gotten bigger under Obama
zamardii12 1 year ago
@zamardii12 14 trillion when bush left office? Its more lik10. and to think that your messiah added 5 trillion already... sad.
rb3264 4 months ago
@rb3264 I never said I supported Obama. I never said he was better. You are right about the 10 trillion, and I disagree with a lot about Obama. I was just pointing out that what Bush did was really shitty, and that's not to say what Obama has done wasn't shitty too but Bush certaintly isn't better than Obama. Obama got Bin Laden, Gaddafi, and is pulling our troops out finally. Obama has screwed a lot of working class people and idk what's going to happen but there are no decent candidates now.
zamardii12 4 months ago
BECUASE YOU DID IT BUSH...THATS WHY...YOU MOTHERFUCKER...
salbella50 1 year ago
Never felt more raped as an American than when he was in office.
TheBlackWhiteDog 1 year ago
i have right-wing political views but GEORGE W BUSH is the worst president of American History!!!
jw16e4 1 year ago
worst president ever
FlyinSpaghettiMnstr7 1 year ago
i hate this Blood piston iiiiiigggg
mrog58 2 years ago
good for you I hate Idiots...like you.
bmr461 2 years ago
@bmr461 and i fuck you so long you love me fk fagget...
mrog58 2 years ago
President Bush had guts...
chetohimler 2 years ago
i actually miss bush my parents were doing alot better texa wise no shitomam is here anf cuking up my future fuck u obama
dojOdRiFTeR 2 years ago
Comment removed
jmfigone209 2 years ago
Bigger government is not the answer to our problems. Bush wasn't the best, but better than Obama.
I don't see how Obama will fund all of this health care, stimulus funding, and other pet projects without raising taxes on those who work for a living and contribute to the economy.
If all other tactics fail, liberals will call those who oppose Obama a racist/bigot. It's happening already, a clear sign that the dems will lose seats in the 2010 elections.
nightfrog65 2 years ago 2
@nightfrog65 Wasn't the best? He was the worst!
Democracy4UK 1 year ago
Bush wasn't the best president. But he was sure as hell better than this clown we have in office right now.
TheRealTaco87 2 years ago 6
lol
martian25 2 years ago
@TheRealTaco87
No, the real clown is gone from office, he is back in Texas. Obama is a far better President and far more respected by our allies than Bush ever was.
Also Bush in this clip is confusing the fight against Islamic extremists with the war in Iraq. They are seperate and distinct.
bigfilmhat 1 year ago
Clown? Let me guess you have the answers....idiot
keith2k1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well Republicans are a party of NO.
texas224 2 years ago
WOW... come up with that all by yourself did ya? I'll own that though, The GOP is smart enough to know it has to take issue with politically self serving legislation that risks bankrupting the nation BUT DOES NOT FIX THE PROBLEMS everyone agrees need to be fixed, or they are likely to not be re-elected. When will the Donks figure it out? Honestly, a deficit neutral health care bill? HA!! "NO" such thing!
ESSAYONSMFER 2 years ago
@ESSAYONSMFER Finally some one who can see straight thank you very much
harriet807 1 year ago
hold on ill get it but did you get my msg about the guy on myspace?
CVK92 4 years ago
did you get my msg?
CVK92 4 years ago
well you talk about how saddams uncle was a nazi look at bush's grandfather
CVK92 4 years ago
I was just pointing out that Saddam was a terrorist from day one and was mentored by a "Jew Hating" terroist.
Terrorist: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism
Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
thank you for your lesson on that lol again i have learned alot thank you lol did you get my comment msg thing private comment thing w/e it is
CVK92 4 years ago
I would like to know the source of that, but I don't think that even if has any truth to it you could say a Nazi mentored anyone with the last name Bush or that any one with that name had murdered or even hated any jews.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
.....the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.
His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act
CVK92 4 years ago
Not sure what that has to do with anything In the world today.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
and btw how did saddam contribute to terrorism? because the truth is he hated terrorists he shot them when he found them he did not want any of them in his country terrorists population has jumped since we invaded iraq because we fell into bin ladens propaganda he said we would take over countries that we were bad and we fell into his trap we need to get out of there unless the iraq government does more to help
CVK92 4 years ago
He shot the ones that threatened him and he gave quarter to others and I can name them if necessary. He gave $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. He committed terrorist acts himself with WMDs and just in torture chambers in general. He came to power in Iraq through the use of terrorism.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
His mentor and uncle was a Nazi supporter, and the Bath party was founded by a radical Palestinian sheik that had moved into Iraq during WW1 and a Paris educated Syrian. They even modeled their uniforms after the Nazi uniform. The founding Sheik was given the rank of general in Hitler's army and was promised air support against the British but could not afford to risk it when the time came and the Brits retained control.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Saddam was connected to these thugs through his Uncle a henchman for the Nazis in attempt to take control from the Brits. When the bath party tried began to resurge in Iraq, Saddam (already a murderer) was pulled in by his uncle as a henchman and assassin. He was jailed with his uncle in short order, but eventually the Bath Party took power and Saddam and his uncle were freed.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Once freed Saddam essentially murdered, intimidated, assassinated, extorted and threatened his way through to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, from this position he gained leverage though the same tactics I described before to take power from the president by giving him the choice of turning over power and surviving or not and being murdered along with his family.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Saddam murdered members of his own family to include the husbands of his own daughters, when he believed their loyalties to have shifted or their motives became questionable or their power threatened some other interest of his. Saddam Hussein, his sons, and any other uniformed or non-uniformed surrogate who tortured , murdered, extorted, raped, intimidated , etc. at his request was a terrorist.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Once freed Saddam essentially murdered, intimidated, assassinated, extorted and threatened his way through to the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, from this position he gained leverage though the same tactics I described before to take power from the president by giving him the choice of turning over power and surviving or not and being murdered along with his family.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
i dont like how we went to iraq for the simple reason they didnt attack us yes i beleive they deserve their liberty over there but we were just attacked we should have went to 1 place afhganastan not 2 wars thats my point
CVK92 4 years ago
essay there was no proof to support mr bush claim that iraq had WMD
CVK92 4 years ago
It's difficult to layout as much evidence that they were never there, as there is evidence that they were, especially if you eliminate all circumstantial type evidence. I.E. They never found them or they quit looking. Ex-Bathist Generals and officers say that they were there. There was a nuclear program and the documentation of this has been found and exposed to the media.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It wasn't Just George W. Bush's opinion. His opinion was based on the NIE and the intelligence reports from virtually every normally dependable primary intelligence gathering/analyzing service. This still wasn't my primary reason for supporting the invasion but I understand that saying there was no proof, sounds damning, but how much evidence do you consider proof?
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Proof they weren't there when? What killed the Kurds. As many people on the left like to point out when it's convenient, We (the USA) sold Saddam Hussein Chemical weapons to use against Iran. The IAEA found proof, and so did UNSCOM. Both sent inspectors to assure they were removed, but before they were finished, they were thrown out.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
I have to remind many people that right before we invaded Iraq both Hans Blix and Mohammed Al Baradai were publicly stating that though Saddam appeared to be moving toward compliance, he was not being as transparent as he was supposed to be and neither of them could say he did not have WMDs. They would know better than anyone would but they never gave him the "All Clear".
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have to remind many people that right before we invaded Iraq both Hans Blix and Mohammed Al Baradai were publicly stating that though Saddam appeared to be moving toward compliance, he was not being as transparent as he was supposed to be and neither of them could say he did not have WMDs. They would know better than anyone would but they never gave him the "All Clear".
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Though many around the world hate this, the U.S. is allied with Israel and the turmoil in that region has been an issue ever since the Israel became A UN protectorate. Saddam used to give $25,000(US) to the families of homicide bombers. He funded terrorism and provided refuge to terrorists when it suited him.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
By doing this Saddam was a only contributing to the problem in the region. The other major contributor is Iran. Iran is really the biggest problem. It funds Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Islamic Martyrs Brigade, Al Qaeda, etc., etc., all of which murder innocent men women and children throughout the region and lately the rest of the world.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
If you realize this as every POTUS has since Jimmy Carter you have to begin to address the problem of who is really behind all of the terrorism in the world, and apply pressure against those responsible. The best way to understand what is happening is with a map.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
If you go to a map of the region and look at what countries surround Iran, it is no coincidence that on today's map we are occupying, based in, or tightly allied with every country on the Iranian border to the exception of Syria. Today the main exporter of terror finds itself surrounded by states cooperation with a worldwide coalition against terror.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
I take your point as to not fighting wars on two fronts, but I would ask what it is about fighting the same war on two fronts that is so foreign to folks. That is the nature of warfare throughout history. We are more than capable regardless of what many talking head s say for political points. You might notice a certain degree of success on both fronts lately, making it more difficult to argue against an idea that happens to have worked out.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
And to your point about Afghanistan, The Afghani people never did anything to the US and none of the 19 who hit us on 911 were Afghanis. Explain the difference between holding the govt. of Afghanistan responsible for aiding terrorists, but not the Iraqi govt. It works out to a double standard similar to the one you get when folks want us to go into Sudan when that govt. has done nothing to us.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
al quida was in afghanastan not iraq we put most of our attention on iraq thats what i believe is wrong
CVK92 4 years ago
ESSAYONS: "Prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq. What is your proof of this? Basic logic: you can't prove a negative. I was in an engineer unit in Iraq in 2004. No one was surprised when they called off the WMD snipe hunt that summer.
Trekkerjon 4 years ago
What you mean to say is that you can't prove when the WMDs weren't in Iraq anymore. There were WMDs in Iraq, so it's not a negative. Saddam used them at one point. To claim to have a definate idea of when they left means you should possess some evidence or proof. Let's hear it. Like I said there were many reasons and WMDs weren't my primary reason to support it.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
No offense but I've been in an Engineeing unit all over the world for11 years. This hardly qualifies either one of us to be able to prove one way or the other if Saddam had WMDs or not at the actual time of the invasion. I alway respect a fellow Engineers opinion though. Essayons.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
I am just saying that I was there -- in n. Iraq in 2004. The search for WMD was called off during the summer. "Immediate threat" was the only moral reason to invade another sovereign country. That was our justification for hanging Nazis at Nuremberg. There are not "many good reasons" for starting a war.
Trekkerjon 4 years ago
And I'm just saying that you can't prove that WMDs weren't there, but you are giving the enemy the benefit of the doubt before your own president and milllitary leadership. To your argument as to morality.. that is a huge joke! You could use any of a number of attrocities that Saddam was in the midst of to justify toppling his regime. As a member of the millitary in 1991, we all new we were going back to Iraq to fifnish that job one day or another.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John135426, What Nixon ran on ( my grandfather campainged for him in full disclosure) had more to do with public opinion at the time he ran for office. How's this for education: When the public opinion was being turned by spineless politicians in cognress slowly trying undermine the effort in Vietnam, raging protests, the Haight-Ashberry crowd, liberal college campuses country-wide, the mainstream media and draftcard burning hippies, how many of those do you suppose were republicans.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The entirety of our country turned on that war. I don't know who's fault it was or even care. What I do know is that it was both party's fault. One for backing out in that fashion and the other for being leveraged into it. You speak of my education as if you have done enough due dilligence to be able to safely establish that. I always mades "A"s in history and I was raised by a civicly active history/sociology/pshycology/and civics professor.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
My mother, who is also the president of our states largest teacher's union (though they technically won't call themselves a union) always tought me to never assume anything and this is a true sign of intellect. I hope you are more carefull determining the verocity of the ideas you profess on campus, as the integrity of our education system is paramount when expanding the universe of ideas installed into the minds of our future leaders.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
Don't punch the screen just yet though John, I was wondering if you could explain to me how even if I agreed with your premise that Republicans caused us to fail in Vietnam (lmao); How does this effect the right thing to do as a unified country right now? It doesn't you just have a different idea of what we should be doing and decided to take a shot at my intellect. So silly for such a sophisticate.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
I have never claimed to be a genious nor do I feel I need to defend my intelligence, but I would point a thing or two out. As I said above, I always made "A"s in history, but this was also the case in Economics, Sociology, and English and interestingly enough I believe that this qualifies me for your same career choice. Instead I joined the Army so I wonder if I don't have more actual foreign policy experience than you do.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now just for the record John135426, I did not finish college, but I have made quite a comfortable living self-employed and my uneducated IQ is 130-136 depending on which time was tested. (someone told me Einstein's was 126, but I don't care enough to verify that.) All this really means is that I am smart enough to post all of this in backwards and make folks who can't dig deep enough like you look stupid.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
keep on keeping on? lol np i respect you to you have alot of good advice
CVK92 4 years ago
and another thing the end is a lie "the party" referring to the democrats is a party of cut andr run no its not because if thats the case i guess the republicans are just as guilty of the same thing remember nam?
CVK92 4 years ago
CVK92, I appologize for telling you to shut up and the way I said that. After speaking with you in private I have more respect for you than this. Even if I did not I should not have gone there anyway. I enjoyed our conversation and keep on keeping on.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
what about the republicans why cant you talk about how the president doesnt try to work with congress how he vetoes everything they try to pass my point is yes theres alot of corrupt democrats but dont think there isnt any corrupt republicans
CVK92 4 years ago
what email?
CVK92 4 years ago
sorry check again, I had just turned it loose.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
i hear people say all democrats all the time dont tell me to shut up because im sick of hearing people attack eachother and dividing this country go ahead tell me i dont know anything i guess i stand alone when i say the country needs to work together
CVK92 4 years ago
check your youtube e-mail.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
"im sick of hearing people attack eachother and dividing this country go ahead tell me i dont know anything i guess i stand alone when i say the country needs to work together"
Oddly enough your complaint is the same as the complaint that George Bush is making in this cut, and the same problem I along with many others have with the leadership in the Donk's party.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
I never said any of those things, but it strikes me as absolutely hilarious that your whole rant right there seems to be against all of "us" who attack others. Who are you attazcking and is that any better or worse to do. Maybe if you understood how politics works a little better you'd understand, but it's a little inappropriate for a starter lesson here. Get yourself a nice tall glass of shut the hell up. "Democrats" referes to congressional party leadership. Not all "Donks".
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
You need to get back to history class real quick to study up on who lost us Vietnam moron.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
defeatocrats huh? and they should be called rectumpublicans then. all their ideas and solutions comes from there. and the results is always...well you know... shit.
instinct8will 4 years ago
== There is plenty of evidence of WMD's in Iraq Ours.
Trekkerjon 4 years ago
Trekkerjon if that is all you have to offer, I would point you toward th Appalachian Trail which will take as far North as Maine, from which Canada is only a short stroll away. Prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq. What is your proof of this?
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
== Prove that there were no WMDs in Iraq. No WMDs were found. They had a detail work for an entire year, after the invasion, and didn't find any.
== Reagan simply called the radicals; "RADICAALS" and pointed to them. I have no problem with that. More likely, Reagan's people cut a deal with Iran. Like they did with the Contras a few years later.
Trekkerjon 4 years ago
Yep, I understand the contra situation a little better than you obviously. No surprise and Reagan scared the shit out the Iranians. (period) LIke I said prove they weren't there and moved. He had a year to get them out and if you remember the recordings that got Colin Powell in so much trouble in his testimony to the UN. That is what they were doing was moving weaponry. Prove thet they aren't in the Baca Valley in Syria where a great many folks think they are.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
All I asked you to do was prove it. I really have no desire for any other communications with you untill we get past that point. Folks who make blanket staements which hurt the credibility of our entire country should have some proof. All that stuuf you smokin 9on the trail is satrting to cut loose too many brain cells. Switch over to the "nugs" and you become more intelligent and less mentally obtuse.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
GO BUSH COOL VIDEOOOOOO
Phillies100 4 years ago
You can't call me a liberal or a conservative. I only care about 1 thing. America. And I understand her more than most. You would be wise to understand a tactic the Bush administration is using to grow/concentrate their own power. It's called "promoting adversaries", look it up.
Would you support terrorists attacking US cities so that the US could expand its control over the world? You'd be a traitor to think that, right?
warisforsuckers 5 years ago
warisforsuckers, Are you for real? No body needs to look it up. You seem a tad presumtuous to me. We are not dealing with any advasaries we haven't been dealing with for more than 2 decades. Who promoted what adversaries when the Islamic revolution was allowed to have Iran and take hostages? You need to be specific.
ESSAYONSMFER 5 years ago
In 1979, the Reagan team & the Islamic revolutionaries in Iran promoted each other as adversaries, and they both won... In 1982-85 authoritarian right-wing Israelis & Hezbollah both won (& again in 2006). In 2001, al-Qaida & American right-wing authoritarians both won. There will be plenty more in the near future I'm sure... All these examples (on all sides) are traitors to their countries/people/religions.
warisforsuckers 4 years ago
You don't understand too much more than most if any at all. The reagan administration was already to be percieved as a adversay to the "revolution" in Iran". This is why they released the hostages they took in the 70s during the Carter administration, as soon as Reagan was sworn in. Reagan simply called the radicals; "RADICAALS" and pointed to them. I have no problem with that.
ESSAYONSMFER 4 years ago
w w w bush c o m
Phillies100 4 years ago
lt5lee, I agree 100%, but for the sake of the argument,I give them the benifit of the doubt by saying there is no proof either way. Something seems very, very wrong with Democrats giving the benefit of the doubt to the party who was a proven mass murderer. This has to be a lack of "quality" education on the subject or an agenda. Either way it's a sad concious decision.
ESSAYONSMFER 5 years ago
I love how all these libs here are getting pissed off since they all know Bush is right lol.
speed1205 5 years ago
Bush is a dumb ignorant piece of shit, horror of a human being mason scum. May he Burn in the presence of who he really believes in.
dombonical 5 years ago
George Bush is a dumb,ignorant piece of shit carrying out orders from the people that will ultimately DESTROY US ALL.
dombonical 5 years ago
ah hes very right..all the demos' did after 9/11 was critisize
blair9123 5 years ago
They had a lot to complain about. Iraq, bullshit war. "We have undeniable evidence of WMD." After the war starts, all that evidence disappears and now the war is no longer about our safety, but we have to spread democracy.
damng00d 5 years ago
Just once I would like some one to prove that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Show me the proof. There are a great many people who believe that all he had left was flown to Syria and buried in the desert. Did some one prove that incorrect yet.? I would give President Bush the benifit of the doubt before I gave it to Saddam Hussein. We have been spreading democracy since Korea genius. The U.S. Army's Special Forces Credo is "De Opresso Liber". It has always been that.
ESSAYONSMFER 5 years ago
Piss on Bush.
BluePlanetInnovator 5 years ago
siisy boy
vbzmachine 5 years ago
The Dems would DESTROY this country if they got their way.
Goldiney 5 years ago
believe what you want im sure people say republicans will destroy this country the fact is people lik you destroy this country
CVK92 4 years ago
About time Bush called Demos out by name. Most Demos have been "obstructing & undermining" everything from making less-expensive energy at home to winning wars since day one.
85Scott 5 years ago
Bush is a piece of shit mason scumbag.
dombonical 5 years ago
dombolical - Who are those "people that will ultimately DESTROY US ALL"? Do you have names? Can you tell me who they work for? Who is dumb? Who is ignorant? You are if you say the Free Masons. At least be creative and say it's some powerful conglomerate, or better yet a "Neo-Con" think tank.
ESSAYONSMFER 5 years ago
actually you should probably let him know if it werent for free masons this country wouldnt be here.
CVK92 4 years ago
The fight is about to get started.
ESSAYONSMFER 5 years ago