Is there anyone that will actually vote for Bush here?

i know people are making interesting and smart responses to this post but i don't really have the time to write everything i have to say. so on that note i would like to say,

bush is a moron and a bad president. i really would like dean to be our next president but it doesn't look like that is going to be a possibility.

Bush is a war mongeror. If he wanted to go into Irag for WMDs then why didnt he go when Saddam was committing mass genocide against the Kurds with mustard gas. Why didnt he go when Saddam was first refusing weapon inspectors. He had been refusing them for years. There have been no links of al Queda to Iraq so far. Bush went into Iraq for votes and oil. He is also a fucking homophobe who proposed an amendment to ban all gay marraiges. And whomever said the economy is in fine shape tell that to the 7 trillion dollar debt the US has.
John Kerry is not much better. He wants to increase the troops in iraq by 40 grand. He has a past riddled with controversy and had in his terms in the senate he got 0 out of 19 proposals passed. the only good options arent voted for because of money. money and corporations rule this country.





I got Jerry Garcia in a pouch man!!

Just do what Chong would do.

do i have to explain the deficit number all over again?? read my post and you will understand. It takes time for things to take efect. You will definatley not see a huge chunk of that deficit gone any time soon, for may reasons.

And for the people who say all he went in was for the oil. Why when you can liberate a country, make 100% sure that WMD's don't exist in the world that we have no control over, free the people of there own countrymen who have tortured hundred of thousands of people until they die, why the fuck would you not use it for your benefit. Its like sayin save a little mutt with no reward, or would you save a puppy with a $1000 reward. Then when you save, just say nawww i don't want the reward. Common sense people.



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

^its a little different than that

Not a whole lot. If doing something good, comes along with a lot of good benefits, why wuould you just not take them. Dumbest excuse i have ever heard.



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

Skin said : It takes time for things to take efect. You will definatley not see a huge chunk of that deficit gone any time soon, for may reasons.

Ok, well if its going to take so long then no one will know about it, and bush wins! yay!



Louis: Good I wont have to cook tonight.
Peter: No cook anyway then we'll throw it out i dont want you getting rusty.

bush gets my vote - we are a safer country now than when saddam was in charge right? His own people hated him and we helped them out.
------------------
'Sal is a dumbass'
-my dad after watching the x games

Most of the democratic candidates are just smashing Bush. I dont know what they stand for. Kerry is trying to suck on the vietnam vets because he was a vietnam vet, but the years following his tour of duty, he renounced his part in the war and said that the vets are essentially bad people. thats fucked up and we dont need that. Sure bush is not perfect, but he is just a guy. He is not even a pastor or some person who went through special training to deserve some special respect prior to his presidency. I wish the candidates would talk about what they really see as there part in the whole game. not bash bush. Bush has my vote.
mmmmmm snow goood

I would have to agree about the democratic candidates talking of how poorly things have been going, and whos fault it is and how BUsh has ruined the US. But i don't see them giving any ways to improve the country. Just badmouthing, which really is what sells. Democrats that resent bush, which mostly all do, are going to like the guy who goes out and says why hes an idiot and how he should be shot. It gets em hook line and sinker.

------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Especially Gay pride. There's gonna be a war over that one soon. Unfortunately, one of the armies will spend way too much time designing their military camo, and this will prove their downfall... -J.D._May

i'd vote for him, if i was old enough


Laura moesha sharifa taniqua shaniqua rakeefa la tanya mackinnon

Hey, is anyone aware of the current budget deficit right now? it is huge. it was not huge when Bush came to office. Despite this, Bush continues to give tax breaks and wage expensive wars in Iraq with questionable motives against the advice of the United Nations. And what about those 40 million people who dont have health care in this country, is Bush doing anything about that. Let's see, i think he's proposing more tax cuts. Some of you say that you believe in living with what you've earned, and that the rich should not have to share with the poor. What if you grew up in a dirt poor family where you had to drop out of high school just so you could earn money for your family. Do you really have any hope of advancement? should you be destined to be poor the rest of your life just because you grew up in a poor family? No, you should get government support to give you a chance to be successful in life. And what about gay marriages? I dont know where all of you stand on this, but aren't all people created equal, so shouldn't you have the right to marry without regards to your sexuality? Bush has done some very questionable things in his time in office, and inside the country, I dont think you can say that things have gotten much better. Bush's foreign policy is largely a matter of opinion, but what's going on in this country is not positive. The budget deficit is growing, people are being violated of their constitutional rights because of the patriot act, the environment is being used up in the interests of large corporations, these are not positives, and Bush should not be in office any longer.
i slept with your mom last night

^I'm not a Bush supporter, but it's arguable that war in Iraq and the economic opportunities that arise from it due to reconstruction etc. will actually help the deficit. The 400 billion or whatever it was he put into defense doesn't help though; honestly, the US has wnough military, use your money for something else. Like schooling.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83

misterbinz or whatever your name is, once again read the above posts on the deficit and about the economy issues. If you understodd why then your arguement would be destroyed. And he is doing what he can. He cannot set up healthcare plans until there is a stable governemnt first. You have to have your priorities straight.
------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Especially Gay pride. There's gonna be a war over that one soon. Unfortunately, one of the armies will spend way too much time designing their military camo, and this will prove their downfall... -J.D._May

oh, thats dissapointing, i thought by the title that we were bashing france-skierdudeguy, in the 'stupid People' thread

do we not have a stable government?
i slept with your mom last night

in iraq? no not at all.
------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Especially Gay pride. There's gonna be a war over that one soon. Unfortunately, one of the armies will spend way too much time designing their military camo, and this will prove their downfall... -J.D._May

oh, thats dissapointing, i thought by the title that we were bashing france-skierdudeguy, in the 'stupid People' thread

im talking about healthcare in the U.S., our number one priority should be our own country.
i slept with your mom last night

Very good article



ARE YOU ANGRY YET?
You should be! You've been lied to. Your tax money has been taken from you and spent under false pretenses. Your children have been sent off to kill and be killed in an illegal war launched without Congressional approval. You who fought in the war and think you came back home healthy, well, you've been lied to as well. Your health is all downhill from here (ask any Vet from Desert Storm), and your children will have a higher incidence of birth defects because that depleted uranium isn't as harmless as you were told it was. And those VA medical benefits you were promised? That was a lie too. Are you angry yet?

And those of you who sold your better judgment for a free hot-dog and a flag at a Clear Channel sponsored pro-Bush rally, well, you were lied to as well, and worse, made to look totally stupid before the rest of the world. The media which walked right past peace demonstrations to video tape the Clear Channel party plastered your face across the TV sets of the planet, waving your flag and shouting 'Sig WMD! Sig WMD' and singing 'Dubya Dubya Uber Alles' or something to that effect. And here you stand now, with egg on your collective faces, finally facing up to what your more intelligent neighbors knew all along; There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Bush made a total fool of you. The whole world is laughing at you. Those lacking the courage to admit they were wrong will no doubt descend into the ranks of fanatical 'true believers', ready to drink the Kool-Aid for his highnessness der Dubyer. For the rest of you brave enough to admit you were fooled, are you angry yet?

And for you Congressional types reading this web site (and I know that many of you do), Bush made total jackasses out of you as well. Under the Constitution, which you are sworn to uphold, only Congress can declare war. Changing the name to 'police action' or 'battle' does not get you off of the hook. When our army marches into another nation to take it over, that's a war by any meaningful definition of the word. So, you passed a bill that authorized the President to send in the military to Iraq, but ONLY if the President could prove that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction in defiance of UN Resolution 1441. The President said he had proof, and you did not check him on it. And now that the world knows that the President did not actually have any such proof, the world knows that the US Congress failed in their job. You were had, used, swindled, conned, etc. Bush bypassed you. He got his illegal war right past you. The President has made the entire Congress look like weak and impotent idiots and fools before the rest of the world for not exercising due diligence over a serious matter like war. Are you angry yet?

Our media has tried to teach us all that hate and anger are bad. Anger must be 'managed'. Hate of any and all kinds must be suppressed. Well, I am here to tell you that certain hates and angers are not only justified, they are essential. I hate drug dealers, don't you? I hate liars, don't you? You're a sucker if you don't. I hate spies who use deception to trick our nation into doing things it ought not to be doing. Hate and anger helped drive the British out of the colonies 1776. Hate and anger fueled the victory of WW2, which is why Bush, with his lies, tried to trick us all (or at least the gullible ones) into hating and being angry at a designated target for invasion.

I am very angry. #$%^#%$ anger management, I am pissed off! And if you carry any of the blood of those who made this nation what it is today you have to be angry too. You should be angry. You must be angry. Because right now there is a battle about to start over whether this nation will continue to be ruled by those who lie, or whether the liars will be kicked out. Whether we will have honest government or not. Whether we will be slaves to liars, or free citizens with honorable and respectful and fair government.

Be angry. Be very angry. Hate liars. Focus your anger on them. Drive them from office and from the media. There is no other choice but permanent servitude.
_________________
Personaly I believe my short term memory has been affected but that is the main side effect and I also think maybe my short term memory has been affected.

Pimpin since Pimpin be Pimpin been Pimpin - Dedicated to Mr Caylor.

bush is a chimp. uhh i mean chump.
................................................................................

-steve

'life begins at point a and ends at point b. kick major ass!'
-Ted Nugent

Probably Not
Piss on tits, piss on piss, and piss on this. PEACE OUT

ha...well if bush and cheney are as popular among teens as beavis and butthead were then hey we might get bush and cheney for another term!
Taste Death. Live Life.

so if you all hate Bush lets see what option you have, ie Kerry.

Thirty years ago, he came back from Vietnam and denounced his ''band of brothers'' as a gang of drug-fueled torturers, rapists and murderers. This is not reconcilable. When he was palling around with Jane Fonda in the '70s, he hated the military. It wasn't just that he opposed the war but that he accused his ''band of brothers'' of a level of participation in war crimes and civilian atrocities unmatched by the Japanese, the Nazis and the Soviets. If he'd said, ''We band of brothers . . . We're a little older, we're a little grayer, but we still know how to get high, murder the gooks and rape their womenfolk,'' it would at least have been consistent with his congressional testimony.
Taste Death. Live Life.

BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. Liberals claim Bush was the worst president in U.S. history. Let's clear up one point: We didn't start the war on terror. Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11. Let's look at the 'worst' president and mismanagement claims: FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost!, an average of 5,800 per year. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent . Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions. In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home. Worst president in history? I don't think so!

Taste Death. Live Life.

Just to point something out: there is an 'intelligence community.' The intelligence we have is essentially Western Intelligence. That means we the U.S. shares with Canada, Britain, France, Germany, etc... France and Germany did have essentially the same intelligence we did. Iraq owed France and Germany enormous amounts of debt, and they likely knew that there only chance to ever have it paid back was to leave Sadamm in power. Because even now discussions have begun to try and drop the reparations owed. Should one be mad about an economic motive like this? Hell I'm not, you watch out for your country first, and France and Germany's stake wasn't for this war. Basically my point is that the belief in WMD or other certain agents was also held by western nations that opposed going to war. The truth is that someone fucked up real bad in the intelligence community, and the people supporting the war are the ones who look stupid now, but other nations did believe in them. However, I guess you could make the point that it wasn't sufficient, and the supporters were just to adamant. As much as the supporters have been the ones made to look like their decisions are based on economic motives.... many decisions, even opposition have economic basis (not some idealistic humanitarian basis).

supilot - if you think osama is behid the WTC attack then your a fool...


The us let it happen so it would have an excuse to do many things (iraq, pipeline in afghanistan, Patriot act)


and by 'let it happen' i mean did it themselves.
_________________
Personaly I believe my short term memory has been affected but that is the main side effect and I also think maybe my short term memory has been affected.

Pimpin since Pimpin be Pimpin been Pimpin - Dedicated to Mr Caylor.

FUCK BUSH!!!! HE's a fucking idiot




-getting an inch of snow is like winning 10 cents in the lottery-

yea i dont have time to write all that id like to, so im just going to say that if i was old enough to vote, i would not vote for that retard


Anti-Flag

-Whats so fucking wrong, and whats so anti-establishment about the idea of peace? Why is wanting to know the truth so anti establishment?

These aren't anti-establishment ideas, these are Pro fucking peace ideas-

If the forefathers of our nation were still alive theyd be shakin their heads. the president has entirely too much unchecked power. That and in the last 50 years we have fucked over many countries in turn fucking ourselves. Did anyone know that the US gave Iraq its weapons in the 70s so they could pick a fight with Iran. This country is run by rich aristocrats who represent big corporations and powerful people. Not the majority. We need a candidate who represents the people. And Kerry is a hipocrit who botoxed his forehead to look try to look like robo cop or somthing.

So VOTE FOR ME





I got Jerry Garcia in a pouch man!!

Just do what Chong would do.

U.S. politicians have almost always been rich aristocrats. That's not a startling new development.

My brother heard this personally from congressman Earl Bluemenaur. The reason that he did not vote for going to war on Iraq was because the head of the secret service sent all the congressmen a letter saying that the claim that Iraq had WMD's was based on faulty evidence. There was not Western Intelligence proving that there WMD's. Also, you can't compare the war in Iraq to WWII. In WWII, there was a force trying to take over the world. Millions of Jews were dying because of what was happening. We went into war with Iraq because we thot they were dangerous to the world, even though they hadn't threatend any1. We have liberated Iraq from an evil dictator, but if we are going to go to every country where there is an evil dictator, we would never stop being at war. Our job is not to police the rest of the world. If anyone, that is a job for the UN.
i slept with your mom last night

SUPilot...your comparisons between past wars and this 'war' is stupid. Those wars (except Vietnam) involved very real threats. Are you kidding about WWII? We HAD to intervene otherwise the outcome of the earth would be very different now. This isn't a 'war on terrorism', i can't believe someone of your intelligence would eat that shit up. It is war on Islam.
`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`-=`


'haha he told his parents ahbout his ginormous cock.... what a fag' - linemaverick540

Of course there wasn't Western intelligence proving it. If it had been proven, they'd exist. The intelligence simply pointed to the high probability; that coupled with other variables (such as bad information), made it probable enough for WMD to exist, and western intelligence then decided to posit that they did exist.

Just to make it clear, I'm not vouching that a just war occurred here. I'm just saying that similar intelligence existed for many western nations and each nations interpretation differed.

As much opposition existed, the intelligence other nations had and their interpretation led them not to refute U.S. moves, but instead offer assistance .These allies include Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Holland, Honduras, Hungary, Italy (which has contributed some 3,000 troops), Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain and Ukraine.

Why would the secret service send a letter out? That has nothing to do w/ the role of the secret service. Now I could understand a letter being sent out, but it would surprise me that the USSS would get their nose wet in internal politics.

Anyway, I'm not really taking any side here, I'm trying to expose how grey areas do exist. I can't honestly say things are clear cut in any way.

Many of you said that the war was good because we took out a vicious dictator that killed hundreds of thousands of people. That may be true, but what did Bush feed you? He told you that they had 'weapons of mass destruction.' Has anyone found anything of the sort yet? Sorry, but empty canisters that MAY be used for bombs really don't count. The point is, Bush lied to you, like so many other politicians. Your justifying the war on something the president didn't (in my knowledge, at least) say a thing about in his initial reasons for attacking Iraq.

On the economy. Simple explanation here. Clinton (who wasn't exactly a model president) left the country with a surplus in the billions. Bush's 'tax cuts' have caused a deficit in the billions, and are projected to cause a deficit in the TRILLIONS. That's a shit load of money.

I've also seen one or two comments on bias in the media. That is positively ridiculous. While there may be many companies that do have liberal bias, think of the Clear Channel, which filters bias to the right to millions of people a day. And then there's Fox News Channel A.K.A. Faux News Channel. 'Fair and Balanced' my ass. Rupert Murdoch(name?), donates huge sums of money to rightist groups every year.

And on a sidenote to the war, many people, including Bush himself, have said that al Queda(sp?) and Saddam have ties. Completely fictious!

Also, something that hasn't been brought up. Have you forgotten about the Patriot Act? I would put up a link to the sheer invasion that this is, but I can't find it anywhere. Someone should put it up and show everybody how much the government invades our privacy.

Good night now.

Don't forget that Clinton had the luxury of enjoying the prodigy that was the boom of the business internet. So many of these dot.com companies have fallen off the face of the earth, and the apparent success of Clinton's economy was based on false profits form these dot.com companies. Clinton's fiscal policy isn't what created the strong economy. It was the technology developed to do business across the internet.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. I'll take liberation any day over WMDs. Whether they were there or not is irrelevant, but I KNOW can't prove it yet that they had wmd's. for christ sakes the iraqis have it documented that mustard gas was used on the kurds. thats a chemical weapon right there. I can w/out a doubt say the mobile WMDs are in Syria. We will find them and until we do all of you naysayers wont be happy. We freed a country so I already am happy.
Taste Death. Live Life.

supillot we are outnumbered. Literally in the community we live in, what kind of response do we think we are going to get. people still talk about the tax cuts, the deficit, and the war. when i have answered all those concern and proved those arguments wrong. They obviously don't have a fucking clue what they are talking about. And the people who say, yes fuck bush, hes a chimp... and post gay pictures then fuck them because they don't have anything intelligent to say anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------
I agree. Especially Gay pride. There's gonna be a war over that one soon. Unfortunately, one of the armies will spend way too much time designing their military camo, and this will prove their downfall... -J.D._May

oh, thats dissapointing, i thought by the title that we were bashing france-skierdudeguy, in the 'stupid People' thread

Even though I've generally leaned to the conservative side, I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate a little bit with you SUpilot. I think when the oppostion brings up the cause for us going to war isn't justified by the end (the lack of finding WMD), they aren't necessarily saying this war was been pointless, but that the we (the U.S.) as a nation have set a pretty bad precedent. It doesn't sit well with me that we can give one reason for doing something and then change that reason as we go along. Who knows, maybe this is for the best in this situation. But there could be situations down the road where that precedent could set the U.S. or some other nation up for disaster.

There can also be a strong argument made that even if we have supposedly crippled Al-Qaida. Our policies, and active persecution of these cells could cause an Islamic backlash that could possibly invite more terrorist attacks upon our soil or among our allies.

Just to point out, because Gravteck mentioned all the US allies... the coalition of the ''willing'' was a joke. I posted a link to another thread somewhere on the last page where I go over all that, refer to it if you want a bit of enlightenment. I don't like making the same argument over and over again...skiinstead knows what I'm talking about ;)


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83

Yes I mentioned them as allies, but I didn't exactly mean to portray those nations as being militarily significant. The premise I was trying to reinforce that these nations did make some form of cognizant decision to be 'supporters' of U.S. endeavors. With the Iraqi effort, support or opposition, even nominally, has seemed to carry weight. I was attempting to illustrate the idea of differeing interpretations from the same or similar intelligence.

Well the thing is, in the vast majority of those countries the vast majority of the population was against the war. So they weren't really supporters.


J.D.'s Hall of Fame for Stupid Posts:

''mad trix is a gay name. go with the k2's.'' -Linepunk

''Dude, Americans or Canadians didn't invent english, the British dudes did.'' -Chauncy

On San Francisco: ''that was like the starting place of gayness and aids in the eighties.'' -Tandan83

^ Which is true for large portions of the U.S.. I actually don't know what the statistics are currently for support of the war. I'm saying that these were administrative decisions. I really don't know what stakes all of the administrations of the 'supporting' countries have in nominally being our allies, so I can't really begin to decipher it.

you dont need to send troops into iraq in order to support the war on terror, although many did. you can freeze assets, send humanitarian aid, which to me is more important, in many cases, than sending troops. to say countries supporting the war were small, unimportant, and basically not helpful just doesnt make sense at all. it takes as much for a small country to donate a little support as it does for a large country to donate alot of support. anyways why do you go cry about your boy clinton? shit his sanctions on Iraq in just 97'98' caused the death of nearly have a million iraqis. to me thats not wise policy...wise policy is going in there and removing the sob killing his own people because of US sanctions. you people have no idea and i guarantee you that your opinions would differ had you actually visited iraq in pre-war days. it wasnt pretty. you all say the world hates the US now. frankly i dont give a shit who hates us or not. do you have any idea as to how many terrorists have made attacks on our soil since the afghan and iraqi war? NONE! our intelligence has foiled everything. there is weapons in the middle east, which were undoubtly in iraq at one time. what will you say once they show up in syria?
Taste Death. Live Life.

^SUpilot u r my best friend. :)

Hey everyone I have a Downhill bike for sale a Intense M1 it has XT and Race face componets plus brand new Monster T this is a no joke bike and Im selling for cheap!!!!

^same here!



BannerTall='Where did you get this guy(spokaneskier)'
Powderdayz= 'He seemed cool but he freaked!'

thanks...now we sit and wait for JD May to make a personal attack on me because he can argue about the task at hand. i'm ready JD May...
Oh, please do lower your speech to my humble level, oh great and intellectual one, for I am unworthy to bear witness to the truths you speak! Since I am clearly your inferior, you must write in very lowbrow terms or I'll never understand. --JD May

SU: The political decisons do not necessarilly (and didn't) reflect the citizens of those countries (included in the coalition of the willing).

The war in Iraq was waged on three points; WMD, support of terrorism, and criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. The threat of points #1 and #2 have been proved to be unfounded (and/or blown out of proportion).

Wolfowitz himself said; 'The third one (that is, rescuing the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein) 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'

This hasn't been a shift in American Foreign Policy MADE for the benefit of the Iraqi people.



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

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

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

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

I'm with ya SU



Drivin that Train

'The threat of points #1 and #2 have been proved to be unfounded'

You cant prove a law. You can only disprove a law. That theory can be applied here. Whether you think WMDs are/were present is your opinion. Whether you think Iraq did or didn't harbor terrorists is your opinion. My opinion tells me that they did/do have weapons and that they did harbor terrorists. I can't prove my opinion, just as you can't prove yours. BUT we can attempt to disprove each others theories. Fact is we still dont know if WMDs were present because we havent found them yet, but that doesnt mean they werent there or that they were there. you see? same holds true for harboring terrorists.

Regardless of the outcome of #1,2...#3 takes precedent. We must be humanitarians first and the US know that this is their primary object, which is why so much technology goes into our weapontry...we want to minimize civilian casualties. You say the americans should not have to put their lives on the line for this? That again comes down to opinion. I personally would risk my life for the greater good of several others.
Oh, please do lower your speech to my humble level, oh great and intellectual one, for I am unworthy to bear witness to the truths you speak! Since I am clearly your inferior, you must write in very lowbrow terms or I'll never understand. --JD May

You are correct in saying that much of that comes down to matter of opinion... though Paul O'Neil and David Kay would admit that this had been blown out of proportion and unfounded.

'You say the americans should not have to put their lives on the line for this?'

No, that is what Paul Wolfowitz had to say. (that is included in HIS quotation)



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

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

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

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

^roger that. sorry for the confusion.
Oh, please do lower your speech to my humble level, oh great and intellectual one, for I am unworthy to bear witness to the truths you speak! Since I am clearly your inferior, you must write in very lowbrow terms or I'll never understand. --JD May

If we were to be the humanitarians of the world, the constant struggle for democracy and justice throughout the world would never end. It is not the US's job to police the world just because we are the dominant nation here. If we go into countries just on the basis of a cruel government, we would be waging wars with North Kokea, the Congo and loads of other countries. I know that its hard to stand by and watch the world suffer, but we have suffering people in our country too.

Also, we did not sacrifice 600 soldiers or so for the liberation of a whole country. All is not well in Iraq. We have killed many innocent as well as guilty people. People are still dying because of violence in Iraq. There are many people in Iraq who never wish the US came, and although i know no facts of this, i wouldn't be surprised if there was a majority against the US. I dont think we realized what problems we would face after we had taken down Saddams regime.
i slept with your mom last night