mad at bush?

That add is pretty stupid. I'm tired of people bashing the president. He misled us. O fucking K get over it. He's a politician it's his job. If I were cbs i wouldn't run that shitty piece of propaganda either.










Eggs and bacon please, eggs over skeezy

^you're silly.



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

You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.

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

...it's my duty
haha.. duty
haha.. diareha
hey lois... diareha

frirst off, it is not the job of a policitian, let alone a president to mislead us. Nor is it their job to promise things, and do the complete oppisite, nor is it their job to outright LIE to our country. Bush himself, along with his cabnit, are some of the worst politicians in US history... they need to be put out of power.
Pat Melvin
WBP|films

I know it's not his job but what else would you expect from a politician. He's done a lot better than people give him credit for.










Eggs and bacon please, eggs over skeezy

no. he hasn't.
Pat Melvin
WBP|films

yes he has










Eggs and bacon please, eggs over skeezy

I like that commercial. I agree with Melvs too.

we don't have a 1 trillion dollar deficit because of Bush. That deficit is from Reagan.

Coming Soon...

^^^ good point. what's someone supposed to do with 1 trillion dollars of debt? the us will always be in debt










Eggs and bacon please, eggs over skeezy

i dont like how bush went back on some things, but unfortunately that is how washington works. politicians do it all of the damn time. bush isn't an isolated case or anything.

guess what. bush didn't create a 1 trillion dollar deficit. the deficits be around for a long time now, and pretty much every administration adds to it.

yes bush has spent a lot of money on the war and homeland security, and also a lot on bailouts, for example the airline industry.

the economy is just not what it used to be in the late 90s, and thats no fault of bush's. the tech bubble burst and everything started to go downhill before he was elected, which was no fault of clinitons. it just happened.

sometimes a deficit is important to the state because things like defence, which is the no. 1 priority of the federal government (there is no possible arguement here, i dare you) need to be payed for. Sept 11th didnt happened because of bush it happened because of intelligence failures during the 90s. THAT was clintons fault. Bush is just dealing with it, and to tell you what, hes doing a pretty good job, despite what all you left-wingers think.

take a look for a second at what has changed internationally since the bush administration. the united states and the western world is safer than it was before. Ignore some of the reasons for Bush going into Iraq, yeah WMD don't seem to be there, who cares, Saddam was a threat anyway, and now hes gone. Good.

One of the things I don't agree with is how the Bush Administration has slapped huge tariffs on Softwood Lumber and especially Steel, hurting 3rd world countries, Canada, and an especially forviving ally, Australia.

But I'm sorry, the spending had to happen, and unfortunately its added to the debt. Suck it up, you're safer because of it. What have the Liberals done for Canada lately? fuck all, now thats something to complain about.






I feel bad for people who don't drink, cause when they wake up in the morning, thats the best the're going to feel all day

his tax cuts, although nice for us, hdid not have to happen. he has ruined social security, and yes, a large part of teh deficit IS his falt. He promised as part of his campaign to balence the budget and return integrity to the white house. he has failed miserably in both. there is so much to say about him, and the government as a whole, that is wrong. Go out and get educated on teh subject, then draw your own conclusions. It's hard to not hate the government when they're as crooked as ours is.
Pat Melvin
WBP|films

its a little hard to balance the budget when you're waging 2 wars. situations change, you have to adapt.






I feel bad for people who don't drink, cause when they wake up in the morning, thats the best the're going to feel all day

veteran- thank you for being sane. anyone who advocates moveon.org needs to think twice before tellin someone else to 'get educated' that site is the quintessence of radical far left nonsense. if by being educated you mean to say that we should embrace one extreme point of view and then block out all else, then you are probably well on your way.











-you think you can take us on... you and your cronies-

For good anti bush commercials:
http://www.bushin30seconds.com/finalsts.shtml

Especially good ones are Child's pay, Al Keyda, Bankrupt, and my favourite, Leave no Billionaire Behind. But most of them are good.

Outright lie to our country?? no it wasn't a complete lie, because we have found a few weapons programs and handled them. Now clinton lying under oath. That was a blatant lie, nothing can be more of a lie. It was of the importance that The bush situation was, but still counts. you guys keep coming up with things bush did and i can name things VERY closley related, that Bll did. keep em coming.



get her cooking supplies or a broom. she'll figure it out...-killly802

woah, don't even try to play the extremist card on me. look back over my posts dealing with the war and bush. I am pretty damn close to center, but i think that the commercial, no moveon.org, should be shown. It's fucking free speech, that's all.
Pat Melvin
WBP|films

Maybe if you guys paid more attention to what Bush is actually doing rather than talking about how much he rules you'd see that he is spending 500 BILLION dollars a year. x2 years= 1 trillion dollars. don't belive me? look it up nay-sayers.

we don't have a 1 trillion dollar deficit because of Bush

no we didnt get the defecit because of him, but he is one of the leading contributors, seeing as he pours over 87 billion dollars a year into i raq, and 51 percent of all government spending goes into the military. maybe we should just have saddam assisinate him.. thatd be a switchup.

your number is off, and realize its only been a year, lol. you make it sound like he has been doing it for the last decade......

a deficit is just a fucking number. Literally. this number means nothing. The governemnt spends more money than they bring in on taxes on purpose. Its called a supply side economy. They spend more money and buy more goods, and give more tax breaks, that way the corporations have more money floating around in the economy. This allows for them to have more sales, and in turn create more jobs. Then in the long run, the newly aquired jobs have to pay an income tax, paying it all back. This also keeps inflation in check and helps the economy to move. Every president has done it in some way. Some more than others but bush has used it very effectivley, and look at what has been happening since they started spending. The economy is doing GREAT, the unemployment is low, and we are digging ourselves out of the deficit. And about how he spent 500 trillion dollars in a year. that is just a figure, yea that mighht seem like alot, but the U.S. government is the largest spender in the world, by far. Without us, literally the world would go down the shitter. So know what you are saying and what those figures actually mean before you say something dumb again.



get her cooking supplies or a broom. she'll figure it out...-killly802

Skiinstead: I'm pretty sure noone died as a result of Clinton's sex life. However, the fact that the republican party diverted over 200 FBI agents assigned to some portion of the witch hunt to find evidence against Clinton may have-those agents could have been better used to talk to texan flight instructors who complained of foreigners in their schools who didn't want to learn how to take off or land, or how about investigating URGENT reports of planned Al Qaeda attacks? Clinton lied to a court and no one got hurt. Bush lied to a nation and over 9,000 people died. How did he lie?
1. 'Iraq has nuclear weapons.'
Remember that yellow cake uranium from Nigeria Saddam was supposed to have? The head of a a CIA directed mission to investigate concluded the following 'I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the threat'. He submitted this to the CIA and it was ignored. The whole hoax wasn't even well executed: the nigerian foreign minister who signed documents involved in the case not only was no longer in power, but hadn't been for over 10 years.And the aluminum tubes that were supposed to be used in making centrifuges nukes? It was concluded by agents of the UN security council that the tubes, 'unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.' But Bush didn't let the facts stand in his way, he told his story despite having had his own people report that it was entirely inaccurate un a State of the Union address before 62 million Americans.

2 'Iraq has ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda'
This was said so much that everyone just believes it. In fact, the two of them tried to get to form an alliance in the past, but, as it turned out, they HATED each other; bin Laden completely disagreed with Hussein's religious and political views. That Al Qaeda poison and explosives factory in northern iraq that Bush officials said Saddam had been harbouring? it belonged to a fundamentalist group who had officially declared Hussein their 'enemy'. The truth is there was no connection; there was not even one Iraqi among the 9/11 hijackers. In fact, 15 of them were Saudis, but you didn't hear anything about 'Saudi Arabia attacking the US'. Why not? Hell, Osama himself is a Saudi! Who does have a connection with Osama? How about George W. Himself! Osama's family has been investing in bush family texas oil ventures since 1977. Little known fact, the Bin Ladens are one of the richest families on earth, and worked closely with the bushes. When George Sr. became a consultant for the carlyle group, they immediately donated 2$million. In fact, another of Osama's brothers was at a carlyle group conference in washington DC the morning of, you guessed it, 9/11. but here's another reason you wont hear it implied that the Saudis were the attackers: Bush has a very close relationship witht eh Saudi royal family. For god's sake, George Sr. calls the prince of Saudi Arabia by a nickname: Bandar Bush! Now, you'd think THIS regime would be good enough to take out; according to Amnesty International, In SArabia, 'Gross human rights violations continued...hundreds of suspected religious activists and critics of the state were arrested...Torture and ill treatment remained Rife'. In 2000, 125 people were beheaded in Riyadh, the capital city. Sounds likea nasty place. Guess we need their oil.
Less than a week after the september 11 attacks, Bush went out on his balcony at the White House to relax and smoke a cigar. He had afriend join him out there, and told him 'If we can't get them The Al Qaeda operatives suspected of being involved in the attack to cooperate, we'll hand them over to you.' The man joining him was his good friend, the Prince of Saudi Arabia. Bandar Bush.

2. It's not JUST the U.S. Going to war, it's a coalitiioin of the 'willing'
Some of the participants in this 'coalition' are a joke. listed among them is Palau, and Island with 20,000 people. They sent no troops. Albania, a rural backwater farm country. They sent no troops. Afghanistan. You gotta be kidding me! Thanks to bush, their whole country is on average about 2 feet lower! They sent no troops. Poland did offer to send 200 men! I'm sure that helped. Oh, and morroco offered 2000 monkeys to help detonate landmines (an offer which was refused).
Larger countries who volunteered weren't really worth calling 'willing'. 70% of Australian citizens opposed the war, but for a little incentive, or threatening, the US shut New Zealand (who refused to join the coalition) out of trade talks. Aussies, you better join up, or else! How about Italy? 69% opposed. Japan? 70% opposed. Spain! only 13% of spaniards were in favour of war, and that was only if it had UN support! Turkey, 95% opposed. How about the U.K.? The steadfast ally of the US? Polls showed that only 9% of UK citizens were in favour of war if it meant the US and UK going it alone. Well put whoever you want on a list, you WERE in it alone.

3. 'We are doing everything in our power to minimize civilian casualties.'
How's this for an idea. If you want people around the world to stop hating the US, stop killing their civilians and calling it 'collateral damage'! Gee, sorry we blew up your home, but hey, shit happens, ok? Is that what they told the child they caught on film who lost his parents and both of his arms when a US missile struck his home, as he begged reporters to help him find his arms? Oh sorry, I guess they don't show that kind of footage on Fox. You probably didn't see Razek al-Kazem al-Khafaji, either, who, as he stood in the rubble of his home amidst the scattered body parts of his wife, six children, father, mother and two brothers (all killed by one U.S. attack), asked God to 'Take our revenge on America'.
Gee, I wonder why they're so hateful! Ingrates.

4. The war is getting fair and accurate coverage.
While we're on the subject of what you may have seen on TV, how's this: the White house field office, AKA Fox news, wasn't exactly impartial. In fact, FAIR, an independant media research group, reported the following statistics after seeing over 1600 sources appearing in on camera stories about Iraq.
-You were 25 times more likely to see a pro-war US source than an anti-war one.
-Military sources were featured twice as frequently as civilians
-Only 4% of sources were affiliated with Universities or other non-governmental organizations.
-of 840 US sources who were current or former government or military officials, 4 were identified as opposing the war. Yeah, 4.
-Anti-war statements were consistently limited to 1 second sound bites.
-None of the six major telecasts conducted a sit-down interview with anyone who opposed the war.

You want to argue taht Bush has been a model President? then argue against the facts. And those are facts, backed up by documented sources. And did he lie to America? Well, the Bush administration doesn't think so. Condoleeza rice said that 'The president's state of the union said something inaccurate...if you notice, the president's statement says 'sought'.sought that yellow cake uranium, she means-it didn't say he received or acquired.' Hey, that's true. So Bush TRICKED his country into thinking Saddam had nuclear weapons? The blame-passing for the innacuracies in that speech went on until Bush finally said that he was responsible for any words that came out of his mouth. Sad that he actually had to say that, it seems pretty obvious.

So the next time the Bush administration gives you something like what Powell gave us when he said 'every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid Intelligence', you should take it with a grain of salt. Especially since two days earlier, while reviewing that 'solid intelligence' concerning Saddam with CIA officials, Powell threw the papers in the air and announced, 'I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!'

So spew all you want about Bush doing a 'good job', being a moral guy, and an upstanding President. The facts are in opposition, and US allies are dwindling right along with support for its beloved leader, King George. God bless America, because America needs all the help it can get.

My brackets didnt show up... the following parts of quotes are NOT actual quotes and were supposed to be in brackets to clarify what the speaker meant:

'The Al Qaeda suspected of being involved in the attack'

'Sought that yellow cake uranium, she means.'

hey jd may just ask the hundreds of thousands of iraqis who have been tortured by saddam if they care whether or not saddam had weapons of mass destruction, also the 5000 or so civlians we supposedly killed is nothing compared to the number of innocent iraqis saddam kills every year, or talk to the people in israel who have to live with the threat of suicide bombs every day, which saddam helped supply hamas and other terrorist groups with, and the fact that saddam paid the families of suicide bombers around $20,000, the problem with liberal pussies like you is that your only attack on war is the polotical reasons behind it, if you think about it on a sane level, its helped a shitload more people than its not helped, so please think about it like that, and then you might shut the hell up
--------------------

HIGH NORTH SESSION 4

The Hot Sauce Champion of the World

bush is a frigging prick, let's face it. plus he's in politics, which makes it worse. break down the word, poli- means many, and -tics are blood sucking creatures



'Who am I?..I'm the one telling you how it is.' -Get Shorty

^Then why didn't Bush use those as his reasons to invade Iraq?... Oh wait, because then he'd be waist deep in other countries as well.

What good comes out of invading N. Korea? A whole shitload of rice.

Or how about on the topic of Israel. Have you ever asked yourself who are (also) the REAL terrorists?

You might side with the American President and say 'People who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up in crowded market places full of innocent people are terrorists.' That may be so, but how come Isreali troops aren't labelled by the President as terrorists when their armoured vehicles move into Ramallah (sp) and Jenin and fire AMERICAN made weapons at innocent people as well. The Palestinian death toll is INCOMPARIBLY above the Isreali death toll.

Why does the President continue to support Israel?









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

You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.

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

...it's my duty
haha.. duty
haha.. diareha
hey lois... diareha

^^^lineskier10




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

You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.

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

...it's my duty
haha.. duty
haha.. diareha
hey lois... diareha

And also this liberal/conservative thing is bullshit.. quit living within political boundaries that others have constructed

It's getting old.

To somehow relate this back to skiing, most of you wouldn't say 'Eric Pollards style is sooo gay' because it's HIS style. You respect that firstly and foremost (you don't have to like it). I think you can probably relate that analogy back to this (hopefully).




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

You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.

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

...it's my duty
haha.. duty
haha.. diareha
hey lois... diareha

Shit! I keep on forgetting things to add. I get tunnel vision when I write.

A little more on topic, The IMF came out and said a couple of weeks ago, that if the U.S. doesn't get its debt under control that it threatens the global economy.

New York Times Source




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

You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.

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

...it's my duty
haha.. duty
haha.. diareha
hey lois... diareha

i like how we're spending so much money rebuilding a place we blew the shit out of while we dont spend any time working on things in our own country... such as healthcare or education. 5000 we supposedly killed? .

try at least 8000 buddy.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

there it is, verified case by case.

I like Lineskiier's argument. Saddam is a really bad guy, and everyone's glad he's gone.And yeah, he tortured lots of people, and when they put economic sanctions on his country, he let people starve. Newsflash: the US government DOES NOT CARE. They LIKE dictators, always have! They're like a business, they'l sacrifice pretty much any principle for monetary or power related goals. So, if being a horrible person is all it takes to get your country invaded and your leader deposed by the moral pillar that is the USA, explain this:

Cambodia: After secretly extending the Vietnam war into Cambodia and bombing Cambodian buildings, the US decided to support the rise of dictator Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge for no better reason than they opposed Vietnam. Pol Pot then wiped out millions of his own people.

The Congo / Zaire: The CIA has been supporting Mobutu Seseseku for years, and the violence resulting from his regime continues today. US officials were afraid of Mobutu's opponent, a nationalist named Lumumba, so they oversaw his assasination. Mobutu took control, and set up a dictatorship, outlawing political activism, killed dissidents, and ruled the country unopposed for years.

Brazil: The US didn't think much of Leftist, democratically elected President Goulart, so they pushed for a coup, resulting in authoritarian rule and 15 years of terror.

Indonesia: One of the US's favourite allies since 1965, when they assisted with the overthrowing of the democratically elected government in favour of General Suharto, a hard-line military leader who killed about half a million people, and ruled for over 3 decades. This dictator thing didn't bother the US, who approved the illegal annexation of east Timor in the 70s, leading to another 200,000 deaths.

How about today, though? Surely we've suddenly gained a strong sense of moral fiber. It seems obvious that this government is good and upstanding where those others weren't. Well, not really.

As of right now, China is the US' favourite dictatorship. Never mind that the government imposes severe limits on the media, the Internet, workers' rights, religious freedom, and has a judicial system which is in direct opposition to any rule of law you can think of and is riddled with corruption. never mind all that. It's good for business! There are more than 800 Kentucky fried chicken outlets in China, more than 400 McDonalds and over 100 pizza huts. Kodak is approaching a monopoly on film sales. The 103$ billion trade imbalance between the US and China is the largest the world has ever seen. The USimports 6 times as much as they export. Hell, at 12$billion in Chinese imports, Wal Mart is a bigger trading partner for the Chinese than Russia or Great Britain!

And why not the Saudis? one of the worst dictatorships on Earth. I already told you, we need their oil and their investment. Bush needs their investment in his own companies! Bush and dictators are close family friends. He wouldn't attack them...

In fact, now that the Iraqi people have been 'liberated', how about making a few stops at all those other places the US governemnt has screwed. Then you can move on to Burma, Peru, Colombia, Sierra Leone, and Cote d'ivoire. But those don't seem like a priority. When he was elected, Bush turned the Pentagon over to a right wing group headed by Rumsfeld and paul Wolfowitz, whose earlier declared platform was that America's goal should be an unchallengeable, militarily imposed, U.S. run world (that frightens me just a bit). Anyways, they assisted DARPA with the 'Policy Analysis Market', by which individuals would be able to invest in hypothetical futures contracts involving the likelyhood of such events as 'the assasination of Yasser Arafat' or 'the overthrow of Jordan's king'. Other futures would be available based on military presence in Egypt, Iran, iraq, Syria, Turkey, Israel, and Jordan.
All oil producing countries.

Are we still going to say that Bush was in it for the poor peoples of Iraq? Still think he was just being a good samaritan? Ok, explain this:

Defense department statement by (guess who) Paul Wolfowitz:
'...There have always been 3 fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, and the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi peoples...The third one by itself as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it.'
Not worth the risk? Then why'd you do it?
Before the war started, the liberation of Iraqis was always added as an afterthought; you were always hearing things about 'our security' and 'our interests'. Hell, if the US army went around liberating veryone under an oppressive regime, they'd be at war with half the world! Liberation sounds nice, but it's not worth dying for, and it isn't worth our money... but cheap gas, cheap clothes, cheap TVs... that's more like it!

It wasn't until after the Bush administration lost the Ability to play the weapons of mass destruction and biological warfare cards that they started preaching this liberation crap.
Recently on

Accidentally clicked the reply button... anyways to continue my overlong post:

Recently on nightline, they interviewed an Iraqi woman who is pro american and teaches english. She said that things are so bad since the American invasion, she sometimes wishes Saddam were still in power. And despite what they show you about that statue being knocked down by a few dozen people, less than a mile away at that exact moment, thousands were standing in protest to US troops. Guess the cords of the cameras didn't go that far. That Iraqi woman's sentiment is widespread. 20 years under a brutal dictator, and after only 90 days under America they wanted Saddam back!

So whynot let them choose? Where are the free elctions? Nah, we know if they held them now, they'd turn the country over to some fundamentalist. Already women can't go outside without covering up for fear of being killed, and anyone who shows movies or sells alcohol is facing execution. Sounds like liberation to me!

I wonder who Bush is going to 'save' next...

yes i agree with a lot of your points, and i realize that bush isnt going to attack a lot of those countries for multiple reasons, like not attacking saudi arabia even though their government should be overthrown, and because they are almost certainly helping terror, but bush isnt going to do that because he is a tool like that, anyways i think that saddam was the biggest threat to the u.s. and we recieved intelligence from the most trusted anti-saddam iraqi group that he had WMD, this cold have been falsified, but we believed it, so other than North Korea, Iraq was the only hostile country that had WMD, so we invaded iraq, and if we invaded all the other places that had bad governments that you mentioned, i think the world would be even more angry at us then it is now due to pussy governments in germany, france, and the U.N. so basically we took out the biggest threat to us on intelligence that is in question now, and if we go on to all of the lesser threats and attack them, i think people like all of you that are against bush would be even more angry even though you have provided some good reasons to attack them
--------------------

HIGH NORTH SESSION 4

The Hot Sauce Champion of the World

Anyone who tries to make the arguement that the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq to 'liberate' is wrong. Its a nice thing to say, but flat out wrong. They viewed Saddam as a threat to the security of the United States and went to war to protect that. That is the no. 1 reason. Yes there are underlying reasons that make the decision easier. Support of Palestinian terrorists and the massive amounts of oil in Iraq are two of the big ones. But that isn't reason to go to war. The WMD card was a stupid one to use so heavily because it was so hard to prove. Blair is in more trouble than Bush on that one, but Bush made the mistake of relying on that to heavily as well. Bottom line is Iraq was a threat to the United States and its interests. Now its not

The free elections will come. But the country is not ready for it yet. Anyone can see that. After 25+ years under dictatorship its hard to suddenly make the country a democracy. Once some of the infrastructure is rebuilt and in place the US will begin moving out and things will improve. Until then though, expect more deaths both US military and civilian, but those civilian deaths are still far fewer than under Saddam.

People should really stop worrying about Iraq though. Its no longer a problem, and it wasn't no.1 on the list ever. But it was an easy win, and thats what Bush needed for a 2nd term. And he'll get it.

What has to happen now is for him to get the balls to take on the Saudis. They are a far bigger threat, and it continues to astound me why no one does anything about it.






I feel bad for people who don't drink, cause when they wake up in the morning, thats the best the're going to feel all day

They don't have to take the Saudis on really, it wouldn't take any balls at all;

One of the causes of September 11th was that U.S. forces were in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia), and North Africa. This pissed off alot of people (most notably Osama BinLaden.)

Now the reason for the Americans in Saudi Arabia, was basically to act as Body Guards for the Royal Dictatorship after the GW (from Iraq and their own people). It benifitted both parties as the Americans got some black gold and some friends in the region.

Unfortunately for the Americans they aren't the most popular Royal Family in the region (wrong friends to have), and for the most part within their country too.

My guess is that if the Americans left Saudi Arabia right this moment, that the current Saudi regime would be overthrown by its own people in a short period of time.

So basically the United States has Saudi Arabia right at the tip of their fingers. They can get anything they want out of the Saudis, for the Royal Family lives in fear of being booted out.

Unfortunately the thing the Americans can't get is peace, because many of the Saudi people aren't too fond of Bush.

Terrorists WILL remain in Saudi Arabia no matter what actions are taken just because of the sheer amount of them.



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

You lewd, crude, rude, bag of pre-chewed food, Dude.

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

...it's my duty
haha.. duty
haha.. diareha
hey lois... diareha

that is a good point... i thought that it would almost serve our interests better (economically speaking) to leave saddam in power.... like you said... we are basically in s.a. to protect the ruling fam there... with saddam we had one more threat that we could hold over the saudi's heads... 'tell your opec buddies to keep the price per barrel low, and we will make sure saddam and his cronies dont get in your business' now saddam is gone, but i guess there is still probably ample threat as you pointed out to continue with that basic m.o. since saudi arabia houses about a quarter of the worlds oil, i think that that keeping them on a tight leash would have been moe important economically speaking... so in conclusion.... if we were really after cheap oil, i think we kinda blew it with the iraq thing.... but if there was a legitimate threat to our security, that makes more sense... we deal with the threat even if it is at a small cost to our leverage on the saudis.











-you think you can take us on... you and your cronies-

people who say things like 'we didn't go for oil LOL! they only produce like 1% of the world's oil!' have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. yeah, they produce a small amount for the world to buy, you know why? not lack of it, in fact they are sitting one of the biggest oil deposits in the world. UN sanctions prevent them from selling more, and they are only allowed to buy food and things like that with their oil money. do some research holmes.

good commercial




____________________
Rats in a city!

Veteran: you didn't understand what I was saying. I don't think he went there to liberate anybody. But he sure liked using that as his excuse for being there once the other reasons fell apart. Like I pointed out, his administration said specifically that going to liberate Iraq wasn't a good enough reason. So that isn't why the war happened.

And lineskiier: He did know beforehand that his information was wrong. The CIA did an investigation, and told him so (or rather, told his administration so, assumedly he was informed too.) He went ahead and reported facts that his own people had told him were FALSE. So that isn't why the war happened either. And he didn't go to war because saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, like I said earlier, saddam had no such ties. So why'd he go?

By the way don't get started on the French. That is one of the most horrible bits of propoganda ever put forward by an American administration. REALLY...do NOT get me started.

If any of you hate Bush then it is a result of unjustified opinions. Do you think Bush was just like hey lets go to war? Bush acted in accordinace with US intelligence that he received. Bush owes nobody an explanation. Most all of presidents would have dont he same thing if given the same intell. If anyone has explaning to do then it is the US intelligence for not having legit intell. Even the former chief inspector, who resigned due to what he thought was false intell, states, 'U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had wmd's.' i'm not saying that iraq doesnt have wmd's, i'm just saying there is no need to hate on bush like you all do.

bush sucks, I rule, end of discussion.

it's pointless to argue, because everyone has their own 'right' opinions. you're not going to change that, ever. so shut up and get back to skiing you lazy bitches.
Pat Melvin
WBP|films

if u think that Bush was so rightshous then howcome he didn;t get more suppoer from other countries?


____________________
Rats in a city!

^ or the UN?

over 60 nations gave support...and if you were smart and at least halfway knowledgeable of the UN's role in the war you would know that the UN DID directly support the Iraq war. do i have to explain how little dumbasses?

60 nations, consisting mostly of small countries who gave little or no physical military support.

a country is a country. so your implying that it must be a big country to be a country? the way i see it, the US had 60 more supporting countries than it needed. you dont need permission to protect yourself.

I'm curious, how did the UN support the war? I could've sworn the security commitee outright opposed it?
Pat Melvin
WBP|films

thats what i thought too