Democratic Presidential Candidate

[clujer420]

I'm not sure if this really has anyything to do with it but the United Nations is severely under financed right now and has been severely restricted in their activities.  And in fact more that half of the debt owed to the United Nations is owed by the United States.  So in my opinion the Bush administration cannot place any of the blame for the WMD issue on the United Nations.  I'd also like to add that the United Nations is far from being perfect and they have made some very poor decisions in the past.

Blix said that they were making gains in their search but Bush and Co. kept pressuring that we needed to invade and not allow the search. In later interviews, Blix has called Bush and Co. "bastards" for subverting their search attempts at every point.

 

Bushie was the one who went over the UN and said we were invading despite what Blix did or said. Let's not forget that the blood of the 200+ dead US soldiers is on Bush's hands.

Which Bush? The one from 1991 (I think) who failed to overthrow Saddam the first time? Or do you mean Clinton who had ample time and support to do the same in the 90's?

 

Let's not blame the deaths of our soldiers on 1 man, OK? Take off your liberal colored glass (LOL, HSC reference) and look at the polls that showed a majority of Americans as supporting the war. If you're going to blame someone, blame your fellow Americans -- not the man with the guts to finally take action.

 

If only Harry Truman were alive...

[clujer420]

I'm not sure if this really has anyything to do with it but the United Nations is severely under financed right now and has been severely restricted in their activities.  And in fact more that half of the debt owed to the United Nations is owed by the United States.  So in my opinion the Bush administration cannot place any of the blame for the WMD issue on the United Nations.  I'd also like to add that the United Nations is far from being perfect and they have made some very poor decisions in the past.

Blix said that they were making gains in their search but Bush and Co. kept pressuring that we needed to invade and not allow the search. In later interviews, Blix has called Bush and Co. "bastards" for subverting their search attempts at every point.

 

Bushie was the one who went over the UN and said we were invading despite what Blix did or said. Let's not forget that the blood of the 200+ dead US soldiers is on Bush's hands.

The UN wasn't going to find anything because their searches were a f***ING JOKE. If you can't see that, you are a fool. Saddam knew ahead of time where and when they were going to be searching. How hard is it to move stuff from one place to another? Not very. And how many places did the UN want to go and Saddam wouldn't allow access? The only way anything that may be there was ever going to be found was to have our boys in there will full and complete access. Even then, it may take a very long time, as it's a huge area to search. Ever hear the term "needle in a haystack"?

[KipWellsFan]

The UN wasn't going to find anything because their searches were a f***ING JOKE. If you can't see that, you are a fool. Saddam knew ahead of time where and when they were going to be searching. How hard is it to move stuff from one place to another? Not very. And how many places did the UN want to go and Saddam wouldn't allow access? The only way anything that may be there was ever going to be found was to have our boys in there will full and complete access. Even then, it may take a very long time, as it's a huge area to search. Ever hear the term "needle in a haystack"?

 

I don't think it would be fair to call anyone that thought the searches were thorough or useful a fool. The truth is very few people actually know what went on over there during the searches and frankly I don't even know what to think of the searches either. I had seen and heard positive and negative reports on television, radio and internet on the searches effectiveness and haven't come to a conclusion on the searches. A fool maybe, but even more foolish are Blair and Bush for what is I guess you could say guaranteeing (for lack of a better term) the presence of WMD if finding them would be in fact like searching for a needle in a hay stack.

[clujer420]

I don't think it would be fair to call anyone that thought the searches were thorough or useful a fool.  The truth is very few people actually know what went on over there during the searches and frankly I don't even know what to think of the searches either.  I had seen and heard positive and negative reports on television, radio and internet on the searches effectiveness and haven't come to a conclusion on the searches.  A fool maybe, but even more foolish are Blair and Bush for what is I guess you could say guaranteeing (for lack of a better term) the presence of WMD if finding them would be in fact like searching for a needle in a hay stack.

I don't recall Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Powell, or ANYBODY saying that this was going to be a fast procedure. Bush said COUNTLESS times that this was going to be a long, long encounter, and that we would not leave until the mission was complete. Goal #1 was to remove Saddam, and that has been done. Goal #2 will be to eliminate the resistance that still remains, and at the same time they will be working towards Goal #3 of finding and taking control of any WMD that may be on Iraqi soil.

 

Patience, my friends -- we haven't been there that long.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

When was the mission declared accomplished?  I don't really recall that.  But, I do recall that the object of the mission was to overthrow Saddam's regime, and I haven't seen him or his cronies doing much lately.  And many of his henchmen have either been captured or have surrendered.  Sounds like a fairly successful mission up to this point.

 

And of course our soldiers are dying -- it's war dude.  And they're being shot at from buildings full of citizens.  What do you think is going to happen?  And like I said, with every death being front page news (unlike wars in the past due to a lack of extensive media outlets), of course people are going to be up in arms.  And Rumsfeld, in a sick and cold way, is right.  Stuff does happen, and it's unfortunate that Saddam had to bring it to this point.  But, hopefully we will never have to deal with that sick motherf***er again.

May 1, the day Bush played dress up and flew into the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in the flight suit. There was a giant banner on the carrier that declared "Mission Accomplished" [a la Triumph of the Will]

 

We have yet to capture Saddam like we stated was the goal of the mission. We have yet to find ONE WMD which we said was a goal of the mission. We said they had WMD's so where are they? We said we knew where they were.

 

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/0...06_mission.html It is a piece from Buzzflash about the Bush war aims and how they haven't achieved any of them. From the research I've done, the reason America turned against Vietnam was the in depth media coverage that showed the death and destruction we were facing there and what we were doing to the Vietnamese people.

 

Bush saying a year before that his aim was "f*** Saddam. We're taking him out." and even before that on the morning of 9/11, CBS discovered that Rummy made plans to attack Iraq. Bush was the aggressor, not Saddam.

[clujer420]

Bush was the aggressor, not Saddam.

Yeah, you're right -- 20 years of maiming and killing tens and thousands of his own people had nothing to do with it. Oh wait, let me guess -- that's another lie by the Bush administration, right?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Which Bush?  The one from 1991 (I think) who failed to overthrow Saddam the first time?  Or do you mean Clinton who had ample time and support to do the same in the 90's?

 

Let's not blame the deaths of our soldiers on 1 man, OK?  Take off your liberal colored glass (LOL, HSC reference) and look at the polls that showed a majority of Americans as supporting the war.  If you're going to blame someone, blame your fellow Americans -- not the man with the guts to finally take action. 

 

If only Harry Truman were alive...

King George II of the United States is the Bush I was discussing.

 

Bush and Co lied and people died. Every poll I saw said that the MAJORITY DISAPPROVED of going alone without UN approval. Why not take the conservative blinders off and check that. K thx.

 

And pre-emptive wars of aggression are following Nazi doctrine. I'd rather not ascribe to that.

 

And Cluj, who gave Saddam the gas that he used to kill his own civilians in 1988? The UNITED STATES. And how many countries condemned it when it happened? ZERO.

[clujer420]

Which Bush?  The one from 1991 (I think) who failed to overthrow Saddam the first time?  Or do you mean Clinton who had ample time and support to do the same in the 90's?

 

Let's not blame the deaths of our soldiers on 1 man, OK?  Take off your liberal colored glass (LOL, HSC reference) and look at the polls that showed a majority of Americans as supporting the war.  If you're going to blame someone, blame your fellow Americans -- not the man with the guts to finally take action. 

 

If only Harry Truman were alive...

King George II of the United States is the Bush I was discussing.

 

Bush and Co lied and people died. Every poll I saw said that the MAJORITY DISAPPROVED of going alone without UN approval. Why not take the conservative blinders off and check that. K thx.

 

And pre-emptive wars of aggression are following Nazi doctrine. I'd rather not ascribe to that.

 

And Cluj, who gave Saddam the gas that he used to kill his own civilians in 1988? The UNITED STATES. And how many countries condemned it when it happened? ZERO.

Yeah, we should be reactive and allow things like 9/11 to take place. That makes much more sense. Wrong or right, I'd rather attack and be sure than sit back and wait and see. Call me selfish, but I value the life of my neighbor far more than someone 10,000 miles away.

 

And I would like to see the poll that showed the majority of Americans voting no to the war if the UN isn't involved. Unless I'm going senile at the age of 22, I don't recall ever seeing 1.

[clujer420]

Which Bush?  The one from 1991 (I think) who failed to overthrow Saddam the first time?  Or do you mean Clinton who had ample time and support to do the same in the 90's?

 

Let's not blame the deaths of our soldiers on 1 man, OK?  Take off your liberal colored glass (LOL, HSC reference) and look at the polls that showed a majority of Americans as supporting the war.  If you're going to blame someone, blame your fellow Americans -- not the man with the guts to finally take action. 

 

If only Harry Truman were alive...

King George II of the United States is the Bush I was discussing.

 

Bush and Co lied and people died. Every poll I saw said that the MAJORITY DISAPPROVED of going alone without UN approval. Why not take the conservative blinders off and check that. K thx.

 

And pre-emptive wars of aggression are following Nazi doctrine. I'd rather not ascribe to that.

 

And Cluj, who gave Saddam the gas that he used to kill his own civilians in 1988? The UNITED STATES. And how many countries condemned it when it happened? ZERO.

And did you not see me tell you that I'm independent? Either you chose to skip over that or you're calling me a liar -- which is it?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

During the buildup to war, every media outlet [CNN, MSGOP, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.] stated that over 60% did not want the US to go alone. Hell, George HW Bush came out and told his son not to go alone. If you dig up the news reports [i would but I need sleep for work soon] you'll see the reports. I can go search them up tomorrow evening after I get off my shift at work if you would like.

[clujer420]

During the buildup to war, every media outlet [CNN, MSGOP, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.] stated that over 60% did not want the US to go alone.  Hell, George HW Bush came out and told his son not to go alone.  If you dig up the news reports [i would but I need sleep for work soon] you'll see the reports.  I can go search them up tomorrow evening after I get off my shift at work if you would like.

Yes, I would like to see that. I would also like to see how the questions were worded and the context in which they were asked. That's a big factor in how people answer.

[KipWellsFan]

Which Bush?  The one from 1991 (I think) who failed to overthrow Saddam the first time?  Or do you mean Clinton who had ample time and support to do the same in the 90's?

 

Let's not blame the deaths of our soldiers on 1 man, OK?  Take off your liberal colored glass (LOL, HSC reference) and look at the polls that showed a majority of Americans as supporting the war.  If you're going to blame someone, blame your fellow Americans -- not the man with the guts to finally take action. 

 

If only Harry Truman were alive...

King George II of the United States is the Bush I was discussing.

 

Bush and Co lied and people died. Every poll I saw said that the MAJORITY DISAPPROVED of going alone without UN approval. Why not take the conservative blinders off and check that. K thx.

 

And pre-emptive wars of aggression are following Nazi doctrine. I'd rather not ascribe to that.

 

And Cluj, who gave Saddam the gas that he used to kill his own civilians in 1988? The UNITED STATES. And how many countries condemned it when it happened? ZERO.

Yeah, we should be reactive and allow things like 9/11 to take place. That makes much more sense. Wrong or right, I'd rather attack and be sure than sit back and wait and see. Call me selfish, but I value the life of my neighbor far more than someone 10,000 miles away.

 

And I would like to see the poll that showed the majority of Americans voting no to the war if the UN isn't involved. Unless I'm going senile at the age of 22, I don't recall ever seeing 1.

I'm not saying that preventative action wasn't the right decision but what exactly has the War in Iraq done to stop a future 9/11 like act from happening? In my proffessional opinion I would think that the U.S. forces, going into the land that many middle easterners love (Afhghanistan and Iraq) would be a virus infecting the middle east region with a case of rage against western interests. Almost could you say provoking more attacks?

[clujer420]

Which Bush?  The one from 1991 (I think) who failed to overthrow Saddam the first time?  Or do you mean Clinton who had ample time and support to do the same in the 90's?

 

Let's not blame the deaths of our soldiers on 1 man, OK?  Take off your liberal colored glass (LOL, HSC reference) and look at the polls that showed a majority of Americans as supporting the war.  If you're going to blame someone, blame your fellow Americans -- not the man with the guts to finally take action. 

 

If only Harry Truman were alive...

King George II of the United States is the Bush I was discussing.

 

Bush and Co lied and people died. Every poll I saw said that the MAJORITY DISAPPROVED of going alone without UN approval. Why not take the conservative blinders off and check that. K thx.

 

And pre-emptive wars of aggression are following Nazi doctrine. I'd rather not ascribe to that.

 

And Cluj, who gave Saddam the gas that he used to kill his own civilians in 1988? The UNITED STATES. And how many countries condemned it when it happened? ZERO.

Yeah, we should be reactive and allow things like 9/11 to take place. That makes much more sense. Wrong or right, I'd rather attack and be sure than sit back and wait and see. Call me selfish, but I value the life of my neighbor far more than someone 10,000 miles away.

 

And I would like to see the poll that showed the majority of Americans voting no to the war if the UN isn't involved. Unless I'm going senile at the age of 22, I don't recall ever seeing 1.

I'm not saying that preventative action wasn't the right decision but what exactly has the War in Iraq done to stop a future 9/11 like act from happening? In my proffessional opinion I would think that the U.S. forces, going into the land that many middle easterners love (Afhghanistan and Iraq) would be a virus infecting the middle east region with a case of rage against western interests. Almost could you say provoking more attacks?

They hated us plenty long before we went into Iraq. They're tought from the time they're born to hate all the ideals that us Westerners have, and that's not something that's new -- it's been that way longer than any of us here have been alive, and it's not something that's going to go away on its own.

[KipWellsFan]

I understand that many are taught to hate or to a further extent be jealous, but I will never agree that going to Iraq will help keep Western interests safe. And on that I will agree to disagree with you Clujer, and I only hope you, to some extent understand my point of view on this subject.

 

*To think this topic started with talking about the Democratic Candidates, how bout them Democrats!

[clujer420]

I understand that many are taught to hate or to a further extent be jealous, but I will never agree that going to Iraq will help keep Western interests safe.  And on that I will agree to disagree with you Clujer, and I only hope you, to some extent understand my point of view on this subject.

 

*To think this topic started with talking about the Democratic Candidates, how bout them Democrats!

Yes, so much of politics today isn't what one party can do for the people...it's what the OTHER party has FAILED to do. That is so ass-backwards that it's beyond sad.

 

And yes, we will agree to disagree. And I too hope that you can understand my POV.

[southsider2k5]

So out of curiousity, Liberia. Do we send troops and why?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Yes, so much of politics today isn't what one party can do for the people...it's what the OTHER party has FAILED to do.  That is so ass-backwards that it's beyond sad.

 

And yes, we will agree to disagree.  And I too hope that you can understand my POV.

Cluj, I just got home from work. I'll PM you the poll stuff later this evening.

 

The politics in America is beyond pathetic. Half of the voting aged people don't even vote anymore for varying reasons [my personal one is a lack of real choice on the ballot] I personally think that there is no well defined cleavage between the two major political parties. Like in Britain, there is the rich in the Conservative party and the workers etc. in the Labor party. There is a well defined cleavage between the two sides there. In this country we have Democrats that vote like Republicans, Republicans that vote like Democrats and a mushy group of centrists that doesn't do a whole lot of anything.

 

Neither party has a well defined platform and as Cluj states it becomes, essentially, what the other party has failed to do vs the failing party claiming that they will do better. There are no real clearly defined differences that last between the 2 parties.

 

I mean, for example, the GOP used to be for less government yet they passed the PATRIOT Act to get more intrusion of peoples' privacy and they also want to enforce "deviate sex act" laws against homosexuals [funny note: in the now defunct Texas "deviate sex act" statute, bestiality is not considered deviate] And the Democrats like Lieberman who use the PMRC to censor stuff when the Democrats are usually for free speech. Pa-thet-ic = American politics.

[Heads22]

Apu,

 

What do you think about Harkin possibly being a VP candidate?

[DonkeyKongerko]

More than 1 American dies per day in the US. I think its safer to live in Iraq right now.

[KipWellsFan]

More than 1 American dies per day in the US.  I think its safer to live in Iraq right now.

I don't understand what you are saying donkey, of course more than 1 person dies a day. Or are you just making a joke that is way too intellectual for me.

[DonkeyKongerko]

I don't understand what you are saying donkey, of course more than 1 person dies a day.  Or are you just making a joke that is way too intellectual for me.

Subtle humor. I am more of a realist than some. It's just the best I can do to not sound callous when I say the number of Americans killed in Iraq has been small so far. And like most recent engagements, a large number have been killed in accidents and an ambush or two.

[Be Good]

I support Hilliary Rodham Clinton all the way

 

BE GOOD

[clujer420]

I support Hilliary Rodham Clinton all the way

 

BE GOOD

Uhmmm....you can leave anytime if you are being serious.