# Iraq a year later



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Criticism about Bush, Iraq war won't stand over time</p><blockquote>

While the war has not yet uncovered stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it did help reveal them in Libya, Iran and Pakistan.</p>

Cynics cannot dispute that Libya has had WMDs because Moammar Qaddafi now admits building them, and has agreed to get rid of them. The Iranians have admitted the advanced state of their nuclear development to the International Atomic Agency, a United Nations organization they previously had fooled. The Pakistani role in providing nuclear technology to rogue states has now been stopped, thanks to the courage of President Pervez Musharraf.</p>

[...]</p>

[Bush's] policy, of course, was not all that new. It was the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, signed by President Clinton, that first called for "regime change" to prevent the spread of terrorism. Clinton's speeches then sound very like those made by his successor since 9/11. The main difference is that Bush followed through.</p></blockquote>


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

A bit out of touch with Canadians? ....








You have an out of touch fan on S.S.I. though ...  



> *Canadians believe war in Iraq was mistake.*
> 
> Prime Minster Paul Martin said Sunday Canada will maintain a heightened vigilance in view of the terrorist bombings in Spain. He also reiterated his support of Canada's decision not to send troops to Iraq, a view shared by 74 per cent of Canadians in a new CTV/Globe and Mail/Ipsos Reid poll.
> 
> ...


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1079323590730_54/?hub=Canada


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

so then, all the WMD have been cleaned up in that region, eh?
oh wait.
nevermind


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It conveniently overlooks the point that the immediate threat of Iraq using WMDs was the prima facie case for justifying the invasion. The subsequent back-pedaling to find other justifications only occured after the rather obvious lack of material evidence for the supposed threats.

That the Hussein regime is deposed is a good thing. That over 10,000 Iraqi civilians died to achieve that deposition is not. Nor is the now festering unrest in the region between the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds, not to mention the influx of cretins attracted by the opportunity to blow up US soldiers. Meanwhile, the whole issue is back-burnered by the White House which is now pre-occupied with turning J F Kerry into a smouldering hunk of flesh.

One year later....


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

jwoodget,

What about the lives saved by deposing Saddam? While Iraq Body Count estimates that 8,500 to 10,500 civilians died in the Iraq war and occupation[1], UNICEF estimated that 5,000 children a month died due to sanctions. Since the sanctions have been lifted, presumably 5,000 children a month are no longer dying due to sanctions.

Ignoring the other ways Iraqis died under Saddam (such as at the hands of his "justice" system), shouldn't the number of Iraqis that have died because of the invasion be negative (say, -30,000 to -40,000)?

[1] I'm not convinced either number is correct, mind you.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

It's lousy math either way jfp. Lives are not a currency that should be traded. The fact is that Bush did not invade Iraq to save Iraqi lives. The fact that Iraqis are being killed by bombs rather than by starvation and Husseins death squads is not much consolation. Let's hope things do imprve. Iraqi people have suffered for too long.


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Life in Iraq better, wide distrust remains...

This serious on-the-ground poll makes interesting reading. 

For the purists, here is a link to methodology.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

However and whatever it took to break the UN gridlock and get this done...it was well worth it.

Ask any Iraqi.

Most of the Iraqi dead (most of the American and coalition dead too) have been at the hands of fellow Arabs (many from outside of Iraq) who are desperately trying to destabilise that country so that they can sieze power and use the vast oil wealth to mount an even greater jihad against pretty much everyone on the planet who is doing better than they are. Which is pretty much everyone outside of a few scattered nations and a goodly chunk of Africa.

If the US were to cut and run due to the terrorist attacks...the way that Spains newly elected Socialist Government seems ready to do...then the message would go out to these hideous vermin that "This WORKS!!"

And we'd see a whole lot more of it. In a whole lot more places. Real soon.

Trust me on this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Heres' one for macspectrums conspiracy theory - I agree with macnutt (!). I think the most significant and troubling development in Spain is the appearance that a terrorist act changed the political process in a country. If the outcome of the election was affected by the bombings, then terrorism has "worked".

The new government was too quick in suggesting they will pull troops out. It will encourage the bombers to blast civilians in the other coalition countries (not that they needed much encouragement).

I seriously wonder what the consequences of a serious strike in the UK would be. Blair is hanging by a thread and the Madrid attack must be giving London's 5 million commuters insomnia.

It's time for the UN to step in and for all countries to stand together to rebuild Iraq. That would send a very powerful message to the people of Iraq and knock some of the stuffing out of the jubilant terrorists.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

The US invasions in the middle east predictably have unleashed the Sharia law of blood revenge.

This will be the long term tragedy where all civilians of the "coalition" partners are deemed legitimate targets for terrorist acts in perpetuity.

Civilians in the Israeli conflict have suffered this lethal cycle of violence for several decades.



> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-spain16mar16,1,4559987.story
> 
> EDITORIAL
> 
> ...


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> the blood lust from the middle east was already blasting away at all sorts of soft targets a long time before Iraq was invaded.


Dead right macnutt, that's why it is called a cycle of violence ... Bush couldn't wait to jump in.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hate to break this to you macello, but the blood lust from the middle east was already blasting away at all sorts of soft targets a long time before Iraq was invaded.

It happened in Africa and Europe and in Asia and even in the USA. Each attack was worse than the next and all were mounted by cowardly bombers on peaceful civilian populations. Death is their currency and their packing quite a roll right now.

JWoodget is exactly right. There are several major elections coming up in Europe in the near future. Want to bet that we won't see some major explosions in crowded places in the days before the elections?   

And don't any of you feel smug about being safely tucked away here in peaceful Canada. Usama bin Laden has named our country as a target in one of his Al Jazira audio tapes.

Welcome to the real world, fellow infidel. We are ALL soft targets as long as these cretins are still out there planning mayhem.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Yes, macello...Bush just wanted an excuse to go out there and maim and kill just like the Islamic terrorists, right?























Actually it sounds to me like he's doing rather a good job at ending the "cycle of violence" by removing the insigators and cutting off the sources of their funding.

It's going to be a long fight, but the cvilised world has gotten a good start on it.

Too bad some of us are too busy whining to actually see this simple fact.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Once Again, a conversation about Iraq inevitably turns to terrorism. They are not related or at least weren't until the US invaded. Now, there are terrorists where none existed before.
Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt, but not a terrorist. The US have now fed generations of terrorists where there was once none.
I guess they wrestled the Oil in Iraq from the French, Germans and Russians.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Saddam was a bad guy, no doubt, but not a terrorist*

Wasn't he paying $25000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and wouldn't that count as being a terrorist?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Precisely, PosterBoy.

He was doing a whole lot more than that too. As we will no doubt find out during his public trial. Plus, his oil wealth was feeding the North Korean factories and his demise has caused a whole bunch of rogue states to rethink their shopping lists. North Korea is now teetering on the brink of a big change, instead of busily building weapons to sell on the open market.

These are all big positive changes. No doubt about it. And that's just the short list.

But don't expect the Bush bashers to ever acknowledge any of this. They seem to practise a certain form of selective vision whenever they look at the US or George Bush. 

Removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam and his Baathist Party from Iraq were terrible blows to the terrorist networks all over the middle east. It made all sorts of other dicatators sit up and take notice. They are all busily reviewing their former support for the stateless murderers, as we speak.

Too bad some people don't seem to be able to see that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and how do palestinian suicide bombers affect the security of the U.S.?
did palestinians fly the planes on Sept. 11?
I thought it was Saudi nationals

palestinian suicide bombers affect the security of Israel
if you want to make a link between Saddam and Israel's security, you may have a point

it's great that you "connect the dots", but it would be better if they were connected in sequence eg 1 -> 2 ->3


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

While removing Saddam and the Taliban are both "good things", but acting unilaterally is not exactly the best way to drum up international support.

While probably lots of dictators have stood up and taken notice of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are probably hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east getting angrier with every civilian death, and placing the blame (and their hate) squarely on the US (whether they are really to blame or not).

So while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have helped cut down on the support systems for terror, they may well have helped step up recruitment of foot soldiers.

At least, that is the impression I get.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*how do palestinian suicide bombers affect the security of the U.S.? [...] palestinian suicide bombers affect the security of Israel*

While they don't affect the security of the US directly and didn't fly the planes into the WTC, the US is Israels biggest ally.

But the question was whether Saddam was a terrorist or not, not who he was terrorizing. Unless the definition of terrorism has been changed so that it only counts if it is against the US, then funding Palestinian suicide bombers counts as Saddam being a terrorist.


----------



## godot (Jan 17, 2004)

Why was the U.S in such a hurry to occupy Iraq?

According to Rumsfeld it certainly wasn't because there was an immediate threat.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

now that is the $64,000 question
rummy really got caught with his pants down on this one
very few argue about the invasion of Afghanistan
very little upset in the world about that
most people understand the U.S.'s need to invade Afghanistan since 9/11 was perpetrated by members of al-qaeda who were based in Afghanistan

the answer to the queston of why Iraq was invaded has not been answered to most of the world's satisfaction

first the persident of Spain goes against the will of his people and particiaptes in the war on Iraq, he has now been replaced by the will of the people

tony blair is not far behind

could dubya be next?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Thanks Godot,

Bush's "Polygraph" spot is next in the series.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*Osama 8 months later:*

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
-- George W. Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- George W. Bush, May 13, 2002


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macspectrum...

"..first the President of Spain is replaced.."
"Could Dubya or Blair be next?"

Or...how about the President of France? He and his administration have angered the whole Muslim world by enacting new laws that forbid religious headgear in public. The European papers have been full of published threats against the French government in recent weeks.

Since the Spanish terrorist attcks were such a roaring success, then why would they not continue on this path, and blast away at us until we do exactly what they want?

Looks like we'll be able to enjoy a whole new world in the early 21st century. Public policy that is decided from some distant cave in another country. Policy that WILL be obeyed, unless we want thousands of our citizens to be blown up in some public place.   

If they don't like our current leader then BOOM! A bunch of people die. If they don't like what we're doing or even what we're wearing or which God we choose to worship, then BOOM!   

Eventually, they'll have us all trained to automatically do whatever they want, whenever they ask. 

Lovely.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

One thing is for certain, even if Bush loses the next election. While invading Iraq may not have been the best idea, pulling out now would probably be even worse.

Of course, maybe a change in management would be for the better, but if they left Iraq now it'd be one big, unstable, vacuum and who knows who'd take over.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Exactly.

There has been much progress made toward a democratic state in an area that's characterised by violence and despotic Presidents-for-life. To turn away at this point would be sheer nonsense.

A lord only knows what we'd have facing us then. While sitting on the second richest suply of oil wealth in the world.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Pulling out of Iraq is not an option. While I disagree with the war in the first place, if you're in there for a penny, you better be in there for a pound.

I also agree that the war has caused states to rethink weapons programs and transparancy. This is a good thing. But again, what will that do to stop terrorism? I suspect, nothing.

Now, what I am going to say may stir controversy. Please, please do not take these statements as anti-semetic or anti Israel. Are not the Palistinians and Israelis at war? Do they view Israel as an occupying force? While thier tactics are tactics of terror, are they the same as WTC or Spain or Bali. Hirosima and Nagasaki were then the ultimate terrorist attacks. I suppose the end result doesn't justify the means. Does Saddams support of Palistinians count as terrorism? It probably should, but in the strictest definition, does it qualify.

Am I missing the point here. 

Also, the US clearly stated that Iraq was a threat for terrorism to the American public. They were in cahouts with Al Quaida and would eventualy supply them with WMD. None of which is true to this point.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Cheney today reiterated the administrations point of view that Iraq is a nest of terrorism, the front where terrorism must be fought. What he failed to mention is that until the invasion, Iraq had nothing to do with sponsoring terrorism (symbolic gestures of support for the PLO aside - since the PLO is supported to a much greater extent by Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia). Iraq was only interested in stubbing out cigarette butts on its own people.

There are enormous holes in the entire rationale of the Bush administration for invading Iraq. There will be no easy, clean or rapid solution unless the US invites the UN to take over as the interim force while self-government is established (as it ain't going to happen in time for the elections). But it isn't going to happen because George W. doesn't believe in the UN, even if it will save his precious butt.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

The current version of the UN is not actually able or willing to do anything decisive these days. Note how quick off the mark they were when millions were faced with genocide in Rawanda and, much more recently, how they instantly stepped in and put an end to the Haitian riots and looting.

The UN is in gridlock these days and that won't change until a few key members get tossed off of certain key councils. They have been letting their own navel-gazing self interest get in the way of solid decisions for far too long, and it shows. We are far more likely to see "studies" and toothless resolutions by the fistful out of this august body, than we are to see any real action.

Too bad. It could have...should have...been an organisation that projects a conscience on the world's trouble spots and one that solves disputes with the minimum application of force.

Perhaps, one day soon (after Saddam's public trial has exposed the culprits?) the UN will umdergo some serious reform. And once again be an organisation that we will all look up to and call upon when countries are in conflict...or when an evil dictator is badly mistreating his hapless subjects.

Right now, the UN is often controlled by those same evil dictators. They exert an influence on some of the key members because they have, quite simply, bought them off. (When you are the sole "owner" of a country then you control all of it's wealth. That makes you a whole LOT richer than the elected official from a democracy that is sitting next to you at the UN council meeting. The dictators of even the world's poorest countries regularly live like kings.)

I have no doubt that George W. would love to turn over the transition of Iraq to the UN. Perhaps he will....

But, with the current situation in that particular organisation, it might seem a bit like letting the fox take care of the chicken house.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> *The symmetry is almost taunting. The bombs which killed almost 200 Spanish commuters and wounded another 1,200, some horrifically, on 11 March were detonated exactly 911 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington last year.*


Miami Herald

A year later, democracy in Europe says to Bush *"Your War, Our Dead!"*

Thanks GratuitousApplesauce







http://www.ehmac.ca/cgi_bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=001948;p=1#000000 

Europe would be justified in further distancing itself from the Bush fiasco in order to defend it's own citizens.

"Your War, Our Dead" in becoming the slogan of European dissenters suggests that Bush in raiding the Islamic world has unleashed AlQaida in Europe.

The question is: How soon will America stand alone in the world?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macello...

Again your timelines are coveniently scrambled. The radical Islamic brand of terrorism has been operating in Europe for decades, and there have been numerous attacks on civilian soft targets in European cities, long before George W. went pro-active. Long before he even thought about running for the Presidency, in fact.

And..just to re-enlighten you...Spain was a part of the coalition that invaded Iraq. This hardly equates to "your war".









What's more...the whole continent of Europe had been blasting away at each other for most of the past century or two until the US stepped in and ended it once and for all. They then went in and rebuilt the agressors lands and set up a peaceful prosperous democracy. At great cost to their own nation, BTW.

Guess what? No more European wars. Surprise! 

Which is precisely what they are now attempting to do in the middle east.

The sooner everybody figures this out and the sooner that they all stop letting the terrorists bombs decide what they are going to do and who they are going to vote for, the better off we will all be.

And I mean ALL of us.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

_Au Contraire_ Petie.

The average resident of the middle east wants just exactly what we already have. Peace, prosperity, running water, a nice place to raise their kids and a brighter future for those kids. They see this stuff on sat TV and THAT'S when the problems arise. They begin to ask themselves "why is the infidel blessed with so much prosperity and we live much as we did centuries ago...despite all of the oil wealth?"

Why, indeed.

Prosperous democracy will take care of this disparity, over time. Just as it has in most of Europe. (the poorest and least democratic parts of Europe are still having problems, though).

As for "cultural differences" being a deterrent....

I recall back in the late eighties having a conversation with one of my more leftist buddies about China. He told me, with great confidence, that the people of China were never going to abandon their state socialism and enforced "equality" in favor of a modern western lifestyle. No cellphones or private cars or fancy houses for the Chinese. Too many "cultural differences" he said. Besides..they were really happy with their system, according to him. (arf arf arf).

Funny...he doesn't like me to bring that up these days. When I mention it he quickly changes the subject or suddenly remembers that he has some laundry to do or something.

Go figure.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

China is a poor example to quote in the same breath as democracy. I have been to China, (one year ago) and it is a very neat place. They have made strides in market economy that are stunning. They are, however, nowhere near a democracy. In fact, have made it clear they will go to war with ROC (Taiwan) if elections are scheduled or held. Long and short - don't confuse a market economy with democracy.

Second, should democracy not yeild very quick results, and I mean within a year to five, religious groups will rapidly take over the country. Remember, that while all of this is going on they are already bombing there own police and infastructure. And again, while it is for the most part foreigners, they are fundamentalist. for the fundamentalists, Iraq is like the Yukon during the gold rush. Now that Saddam is gone, it represents there single largest opportunity.

If you can't provide stability and safety, the masses will run into the arms of another dictator or Ayotollah. We can't provide the western world with safety from terror. How do you think we're going to do it there?

So, only time will tell. I have yet to read anything from any expert in the region that thinks democracy will work.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> And..just to re-enlighten you...Spain was a part of the coalition that invaded Iraq. This hardly equates to "your war".


Just to remind you macutt that *the politically suicidal Aznar ignored the wishes of 90% of the Spanish population in siding with Bush.*

Like Martha Stewart, *he hung himeslf with his own rope!*


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Sorry Macnutt, my Europe includes what was Yugoslavia! So, there has been war in Europe since ww2. There are more examples, if you would like.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Further to my previous post.

Europe was and still is a predominantly similar culture. What worked in Europe will not work in the Mid-East. There is a massive difference in Religious culture and history. The people in the Mid-East don't subscribe to western aspirations or values.

The mistake we make is our lack of recognition or lack of willingness to accept it.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Macnutt:


> What say we all stop ragging on the people who are sacraficing a lot to make it happen












Nothing you have said in the past year has convinced anyone here of your rabid right-wing stance, but keep trying ... these folk need you desparately:


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Back to communicating your thoughts to all the rest of us with silly pictures and cartoons, macello? Not able to mount a real argument uising words? Not able to articulate to the rest of the citizens of ehMac by using real language? 









Kind of sad, really.

I had hoped you'd gotten past this current phase. I was looking forward to debating you as an equal, once again...once you'd come back.

I still hold out this hope, old friend. 

Looking forward to it. Honest.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Macnutt said,

"But..strangely enough...none of the countries who were formerly under the bootheel of a dictator have ever used their free votes to return to dictatorship. Or Communism."

Haiti?, in fact Macnutt, there are dozens, if not hundreds of examples over history. Not freely, but by force or revolution.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Macnutt Said,

"Turning this violent, war torn region of the planet into a "happy and productive part of our modern society" will be the biggest single improvement this generation could possibly give to our children. And to THEIR children."

Sorry to keep harping on you Macnutt, but this attitude is precisely why we have so many problems in the region. While the west thinks this to be true, to many groups in the region will fight this one until the end of time itself.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't have time to run the google search right now, but I'm quite sure there have been at least two governments in the former Socialist Bloc in which the people voted the Communists back into power, dissatisfied with the social and economic destruction wrought by the "transition to capitalism'.

There is also the long-running example of Kerala, the Indian state which has been communist for decades, and has the best socio-economic indicators in the country.

M.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

macnutt FYI:

Rick Salutin in today's Globe and Mail: "This must be seen in the context of the defeat for democracy embodied in Spain's entry into the Iraq war. Ninety per cent had opposed it, but their elected leaders ignored them. Ninety per cent is close to unanimity. You get a few per cent saying yes to anything." 

It's interesting that in 2000, 49% of the American population who voted, voted for Bush and that set in place a mandate for unilateral actions. Yet >80% opposition to the participation of Spain in the invasion of Iraq is questioned.... ??

I was initially disappointed in the new leader of Spain for immediately calling for the pullout of Spanish troops from Iraq by June unless the UN takes over. But that was his campaign pledge, stated long before the terrorist attack. Is he supposed to change his tune in light of the bombings? Isn't that bowing to the terrorists too? We are lucky we didn't engage in this "fiasco" and we are not in a position to judge what the Spanish people should do with their soldiers. It is for them, and them alone to decide.

I think this point is best summed up by a letter from the Spanish Ambassador in Ottawa:

By JOSÉ IGNACIO CARBAJAL
Ambassador of Spain to Canada
Friday, March 19, 2004 - Page A18 

Ottawa -- Re Spain's Zapatero Should Reconsider (editorial, March 16): Allow me to remind you that in general elections with a record voter participation of 78 per cent, 16 million Spaniards have elected the parties that were against war in Iraq, as opposed to nine and a half million votes for the Popular Party in favour of the war. The winning Socialist party, with almost 11 million supporting votes, had announced, as part of its electoral platform, long before the perpetration of any terrorist attack, that it would pull Spain's troops from Iraq unless the United Nations took control of the multinational forces before June 30.

Would it now renege on its electoral mandate on the basis that it could be interpreted as a triumph for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism? Could it not be argued on the contrary that, were it to fail to fulfill its own electoral program, it would then surrender to terrorist blackmail?"


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

UtbW,
there you go again
confusing the issue with facts
   

perhaps dubya would do well to heed the advice of keeping campaign promises
Daddy learned his lesson well;

"Read my lips. No new taxes."
one term wonder


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

used to be jwoodget:
Quote:


> were it (Spain)to fail to fulfill its own electoral program, it would then surrender to terrorist blackmail?


Macnutt would have all democratic countries renege on democratic principles in exchange for an American world hegemony.










One year later, Canada's decision not to send troops to Iraq is shared by 74 per cent of Canadians.

One year later, the lone stranger from SSI still rides without a posse on these pages.
 

Relative Military Spending by the nations of the world/2003:









http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/usaworld.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

SSI circa 2004

Senor MacnUtt with as yet identified side kick may go by the name "shrub".


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, macello, it was closer to 80%. Glad to see you are back from cartoon limbo and are again able to communicate with us via words. We missed ya buddy!  

Petie...

Democracy is a hard road, and doesn't provide an instant solution to all the problems left over from a former dictatorship. Building a prosperous self-determining society from the ruins of tyranny can take a generation or so (just look at Russia after the fall of communism).

But..strangely enough...none of the countries who were formerly under the bootheel of a dictator have ever used their free votes to return to dictatorship. Or Communism.

Similarly, the Iraqis are very much interested in rebuilding their country and making it into a self-determining free state. They are just as horrified by the foreign terorists who keep blowing stuff up in the sunni triangle as we are. Just today, when a terrorist suicide bomber blew himself and his bomb-laden vehicle up in Baghdad, a man was seen running from the car....just before it exploded. The Iraqi citizens who witnessed this surrounded the guy and collectively beat him almost to death. He was, apparently, rescued by some British soldiers after being horribly injured by the angry crowd.

This incident, plus the anti-terrorist peace marches that have been going on in many of the Iraqi cities, should tell all of us just exactly where Iraq is, one year later.

They are trying to rebuild...and looking forward to having a say in the direction of their land (for the first time in history), whilst being terribly assaulted by people from outside of Iraq who are bent on destabilising the budding democracy for their own selfish reasons.

Day one on the rocky road to a modern democracy. I wish them well...and I think we should ALL work as hard as we can to help them attain this goal.

If it is successful...and I think it will be...then it will be the beginning of a totally new reality for the whole region. A much better one than they have had up till now.

Turning this violent, war torn region of the planet into a happy and productive part of our modern society will be the biggest single improvement this generation could possibly give to our children. And to THEIR children.

What say we all stop ragging on the people who are sacraficing a lot to make it happen..and start helping the process along. Just a bit.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Since our blindsided macnutt can't even seem to understand a cartoon, 










perhaps he will argue against THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE for our benefit:


> THE STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE AT THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE
> RELEASED A STUDY HIGHLY CRITICAL OF BOTH THE IRAQ WAR
> AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM.
> [source: Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, Dec, 2003]
> ...


http://www.jameswickstrom.com/news_links/strategic_studies.htm

We await macnutt's refutation ........ hmmm  

(Thanks Brainstrained







)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> perhaps he will argue against THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE for our benefit:


that bunch of peacenik, anti-american, left-wing, commie, pinko, weed smoking, tree hugging, hybrid car loving bunch?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Today's CNN's leading story:

"Antiwar rallies were being held around the world today, one day after protests in Baghdad marked the one-year anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Demonstrators against the war gathered in London; Tokyo, Japan; New York, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and the United States."

Not the sort of recognition George may have hoped for. BTW, CNN seems to think New York is not a part of the USA.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Can someone explain to me why oil prices are so high when Iraqs oil is now available. Sniff sniff what's the smell.......??


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Ask Google News and ye shall receive! From The Seattle Times:

<blockquote>U.S. demand for energy has risen steadily as the economy has improved, but supplies of crude oil are tight, and likely to get even tighter if the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) goes ahead with planned production cuts next month. Terrorism fears and political unrest in Venezuela, the world's No. 5 oil exporter, have further rattled investors, and the prospect of continued rising demand from China has contributed to price gains.</blockquote>


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Who d'a thunk it eh?



> Support for the war in Iraq has eroded significantly in President Bush's home state since the conflict started almost a year ago, with nearly 60 percent of Texans registering disapproval with the way things are going, according to a statewide survey released today.
> 
> 
> The latest Scripps Howard Texas Poll, conducted for the Star-Telegram and other Texas news organizations, shows that while a majority of Texans still stand behind the president in his overall handling of the war, they are increasingly uncertain about instability in Iraq and the length of the U.S. occupation.


Ft.Worth-Dallas


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

In a similar vein ... 

SGS Artwork - Political and Editorial Cartoons


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

A few photos from the Halifax Peace March

m.


----------



## Brainstrained (Jan 15, 2002)

Former president Jimmy Carter slammed Bush and Blair in The Independent for the Iraq war.

I particularly liked:


> "I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq."


This. of course, comes on the heels of counter-terrorism specialist Richard Clarke describing the White House pre- and post 9/11 in Newsweek and 60 Minutes.



> Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22).


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So all of you Bush bashers out there _WILL_ let the rest of us know when the US begins "stealing the Iraqi oil", won't you?

Just so's we can all jump on the bandwagon and start booing and hissing the Americans.









You guys crack me up.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> So all of you Bush bashers out there WILL let the rest of us know when the US begins "stealing the Iraqi oil", won't you?


Macnutt, try reading the news!







...... It started ten months ago .....







...duh!!!

http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/07/30/rtr1043699.html



> *U.S. gets first shipment of Iraqi oil since May.*
> Reuters, 07.30.03, 2:25 PM E
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Hard to Classify as stealing.

Prior to the war, Iraq exported to US in the "Oil For Food and Medicine" humanitarian program. Now I beleive it is going to be classified as "Oil for Reconstruction" program. 

The US has been getting the Oil all along. What is worrying is that the US will now dictate the quantities and export destination. Whereas in the past, Iraq did. Iraq had entered into large contracts (Oil for Food and Medicine) with the French, German and Russian governments. I believe the US has deemed these Null and Void although I can't find any supporting data.

Things that make you go hmmm.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> Hard to Classify as stealing.


...try appropriation by military invasion.


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt, you're a year and more behind. 

"Oil for Food" stopped a year ago.

Iraqi oil is being shipped to the US since May 2003 at a rate of about 300,000 bpd.

Apart from Cheney's friends selling some of it back to Iraq at a 150% profit (now under investigation) it is Bush's for the taking.

As you have read above*, Bush's administration tracks the oil traffic from Iraq very closely.

*


> oil production averaged 1.1 million barrels a day (bpd) last week, Bush administration officials told Congress


It's not about oil??????








(Reuters)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Fair enough, macello.

Post a link here that PROVES that the Americans are actually _STEALING_ the Iraqi oil. And NOT paying for it. At the going rate. Or one that proves that they are NOT using the proceeds of the oil sales to actually pay for the rebuilding of that former despotic dictatorship.

Despite all of the terrorism that is coming at them from the outside. The sort of terrorism that is designed to destabilise the newly-liberated land and leave it wide open for a brand new warlord or dictator to take over. The sort of terrorist activity that has cost many times the amount of American lives that were lost during the actual liberation of that ravaged country. Not to mention THOUSANDS of innocent Iraqi lives. Many of them children!   

There is a fight for the whole future of the middle east going on over there right now. Either the good guys will win, and we will have a whole new world for this whole region, not to mention a MUCH easier time of it for the rest of the planet...or the terrorists will win. 

Which means we will ALL lose. BIG TIME!

Who are you actually supporting in this? You really need to explain this to all of us. Just so's we all know what side you are really on. 

Balls in your court, old buddy.  

[ March 23, 2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

macnutt, all here know this: I don't support war ..... where have you been?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Paying for it does NOT constitute "stealing" in my world, macello.

Not sure about yours, though.
















I should also note the the now defunct Iraqi "Oil for Food" program is currently under investigation...by the UN, no less! It turns out that Saddam was siphoning off billions from this plan and using this money to bribe certain countries into supporting his position whenever the UN made any major decisions regarding Iraq.

SURPRISE! The main countries that are being mentioned as having recieved some of this bribe money in order to influence their votes are France, Germany, Russia and China.

Is it any surprise that these same countries were so vehement in their opposition to the invasion of Iraq?

DUH!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

So...does this mean that you would rather that Saddam was still in charge of Iraq? And still killing and torturing masses of his own people each year?

This would be the "status quo" before the "war". It certainly wasn't "peace". At least not to the Iraqis. Or anyone else in the region, either.

Or...does this mean that you support the terrorism that is currently going on in Iraq? The kind that kills FAR more Iraqis than American/Coalition "invaders" while trying to destabilise that country?

The kind of terrorism that blows up power plants and water lines and kills masses of Iraqi policemen? The kind that attacks UN aid agencies and hospitals and schools? The kind of Arab terrorism that kills far more Iraqi children, than US soldiers?

This would be the "status quo" for the external forces of terrorists who "opposed the war" and who are busily creating their own bloody conflict in order to sieze power in Iraq right now. They have killed and maimed far more non combatant civilians than were killed and maimed in the actual "war", by the way.

Or do you favor the American led (and largely Iraqi-supported) movement towards a free democracy in this former dictatorship? Which is, currently, a militarily enforced peace that is regularly interrupted by terrorist attacks on soft targets in order to destabilise the country before it can form it's own government.

Care to clarify?

A simple one line answer that claims you are "against war" doesn't even come close to describing this complex situation.

No use hiding behind some silly platitude or catch phrase. You are far smarter than that.  

Show us that you are. Take a stand on this.

[ March 25, 2004, 04:54 AM: Message edited by: macnutt ]


----------



## blue sky (Oct 24, 2003)

Macnutt, I am curious as to what your thoughts are in regards to Mr. Clarke's assertions about the Bush administration and their focus during the time period leading up to 9/11.

Who is spouting the lies ?

If it is the Bushies, then all of your arguments about Iraq and terrorism and the benefits of the US occupation might come across as, let us say, misguided.

If it is Clarke who is speaking lies, then I would expect accusations that he is insane / being paid off by the Democrats / a supporter of al Quaeda / bin Laden's second cousin or whatever. 

Except, didn't Clarke state he is a registered Republican ? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I dreamed all this up that Bush has been fixated on Iraq, at all costs, and was helped along in his thinking (if one could call it that  ) by Mr. Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.

What would be happening now in Iraq if the US had really concentrated all its efforts on bin Laden ? Yes, Saddam might still be in power (not the best thing, I am inclined to agree), however what would be different in the world ?

Would we all not be better off if the efforts expended on Iraq had instead been directed against the more appropriate (again, in my opinion) target ?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Iraqis say life is better but want U.S. out: Poll
51 per cent oppose presence of coalition forces in country

Over 60 per cent lack confidence in civilian administration"

Iraq a year later 

*While half of those questioned believe the invasion was the right thing to do, compared with 39 per cent who said it was wrong, more than four in 10 said they had no confidence whatsoever in U.S. and British occupation troops, and 51 per cent oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq.* 

Even 40% of the Iraqi's know the invasion was wrong - why do you find it odd most of the rest of the planet does too.









Not so happy at home either - even the military families

US Families protest war 

Sow the wind....


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

*This from the Toronto Sun?* 

_"Richard Clarke, no matter his motives, has done his nation an important, badly needed service."_ 

Toronto Sun 



> *The 'war president' waged a war of lies*
> By Eric Margolis
> 
> Poland's president said he was "deceived" by Bush into sending troops to Iraq.
> ...


----------



## stinand (Jan 15, 2001)

"Iraqis say life is better but want U.S. out: Poll
51 per cent oppose presence of coalition forces in country

Over 60 per cent lack confidence in civilian administration"


Macdoc still up to the old tricks . The poll missed the question.

How many would like Saddam back? 

Then you have a real opnion poll?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

How many would like General Qaddafi gone?:

Everyone *except* Blair & Bush!









Some dictators are more "convenient" than others especially when they are short of cash and long on oil.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No Andy even a good portion of the Iraqis know that the end does not justify the means......especially in this circumstance.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_So all of you Bush bashers out there WILL let the rest of us know when the US begins "stealing the Iraqi oil", won't you?

Just so's we can all jump on the bandwagon and start booing and hissing the_ 

maybe playing snake time is at hand

*Hands Off Halliburton! 
In the past few months, the Pentagon has been pressured into fining Halliburton millions of dollars for "overcharging" for contracts in Iraq and Kuwait. * 

But then you'll likely claim overcharging isn't stealing so you are determined to remain upright....unlike shrub and co.


----------



## mactool (Jul 29, 2003)

> But then you'll likely claim overcharging isn't stealing so you are determined to remain upright....unlike shrub and co.


Overcharging is fine! Just look at the used Mac market!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That would be the free market there boyo - not a royal degree for pillage from Emperor shrub.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

let's also recall that Haliburton doesn't have much competition selling (aka overcharging) fuel to the U.S. military and they just happen to have one of their ex-executive officers as vice-president of the company, errr, country

now if Steve Jobs starts up a used Mac business where only he can sell used Macs, that would be a much closer analogy


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Is Richard Clarke telling the truth, or does he have some sort of hidden agenda?

Is he rolling the dice and hoping for a Democratic victory this fall? Would he like to have a prime spot on President Kerry's new staff?  

Strongly criticising a former right wing leader while sitting back and reaping the benefits of the hard policies that he introduced would be SOP for most of the aspiring and apolitical strivers of this current period, after all.

Just look at the Federal Liberal Party of Canada. They are past masters at this sort of legerdemain.

Certainly some of the more desperate American political hopefuls may have taken a page out of the Canadian Liberals tatty booklet of tricks. 

Interesting thoughts, eh?

Personally, I will be watching this situation with a VERY close eye. Who knows what will develop from all of this?

Stay tuned.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

poll as reported on Nightline
44% believe Clarke
46% believe Bush
53% believe Bush is hiding something

Clarke is a registered Republican and worked for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II

and now Condeleezza Rice has to *testify under oath* and not just conjure up facts in op-ed pieces and doing the Sunday morning talk show circuit

I sure as hell hope that she gets as much scrutiny as all the money spent on; "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

what was the bill for that little Starr report? $50 million?
and this was a sex scandal, not people being killed so this should be more important, right?
oh yeah, forgot, it's Amerika, über bowl breast causes more upset than the death of thousands...
never mind....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Lots of CEO's and Professors and Bosses are currently spending decades in jail for the same sort of abuse of authority over young women that Billy Blunt (nee Clinton) was guilty of.

Many more are in jail for extended periods of time for lying and perjuring themselves before a court of law.

Throwing aside the abuse of authority charges (on an unpaid female volunteer who was almost as young as his own daughter)...and dismissing the many previous sexual abuse charges that he had to settle for great sums of money...usually out of court...

There is STILL the fact that Bubba Clinton was convicted of lying before a Grand Jury and was only the second President in US history to actually be impeached. He even lost his licence to practice law once he left public office because of his despicable conduct.

No way to compare this to anything that Dr. Codoleeza Rice has ever done in her exemplary lifetime.

No way at all.


----------



## blue sky (Oct 24, 2003)

I look forward to Ms. Rice's testimony. As well, I look forward to the testimony of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, although there are some questions about their proposed testimony.

I heard that it may be withheld from the public and that Mr. Bush has asked that he not be asked to swear to tell the truth.

What message does that send ?


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

Many are questioning the Bush gang on the wisdom of diverting critical anti-terrorist resources from Afghanistan to Iraq ..... especially given scenes like those in Iraq today:



> FALLUJAH, Iraq — Jubilant residents dragged the charred corpses of four foreigners -- one a woman, at least one an American -- through the streets today and hanged them from the bridge spanning the Euphrates River. Five American troops died in a roadside bombing nearby.
> 
> The four foreigners were killed in a rebel ambush of their SUVs in Fallujah, a Sunni Triangle city about 35 miles west of Baghdad and scene of some of the worst violence on both sides of the conflict since the beginning of the American occupation a year ago.


AP 

Clarke .....


> proposed on Jan. 25, 2001, a series of measures to combat the al Qaeda terrorist network and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan, but the administration did not adopt a formal set of policies until the days before the attacks on New York and Washington.
> 
> Clarke pointed to this delay and other alleged incidents to bolster his argument that, while the Clinton administration made battling al Qaeda "the highest priority," the Bush administration "considered terrorism an important issue but not an urgent issue" during its first eight months.
> 
> While the Clinton White House held near-continuous meetings and actively sought information in response to warnings of a terrorist attack before the millennium celebrations, the Bush White House was more lackadaisical when confronted with similarly urgent warnings during the summer of 2001, Clarke has claimed.


WashingtonPost


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> No way to compare this to anything that Dr. Codoleeza Rice has ever done in her exemplary lifetime.


sexual harassment in the workplace is a bad thing
lying about it is also a bad thing

when Condie lies, thousands of people die.
war mongering is a very poor excuse for foreign policy and as a personal philosophy

thousands of people died when condie and her gang got involved
condie and her gang lied about why these people were killed
macnutt, are you saying that gov't sponsored murder is ok, but sex scandals are horrible?
if your SSI water has been checked out as clean, you really need to see your physician
your logic circuits are all snafu-ed


----------



## arminarm (Jan 12, 2002)

> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will continue despite the failure so far to find them but the focus now includes whether Saddam Hussein *intended* to develop such weapons, the chief U.S. arms hunter said on Tuesday


Reuters 03/30/04


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah most nations would celebrate a top leader who had enough energy left to have some fun.

Repressive childhoods one guesses.
The US right pysche is Soooooooo whacked.

Anyone watch Nixon...anatomy of a Republican


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

FWIW, Clarke has declared that he has no intention of seeking or accepting a position in a Kerry administration. He stated this when the chair of the 9/11 investigation committee said he had a credibility problem in having just published a book. That's when he also stated that he remains a registered and committed Republican. 

Clarke knows full well that in Bush's eyes you are either with him or you're against him. As a consequence, Bush has created a cadre of yes-men/women who bleat in chorus whenever their policies are questioned.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

The absolute, final nail has been pounded into the WMD coffin:

The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq has ended his hunt for weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately for both Iraqis and American troops, more nails are still to come:
<ul>
<li>Death Business Booms in Baghdad</li>
<li>Hundreds attend funeral for Haverstraw soldier.</li>
</ul>


M


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

" Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, but wanted them."

I feel for Saddam. I bet he never thought that his night time dreams and daytime longings would come to bit him in the arsse like they have.

Makes me wanna get rid of all of my "not so pristine" thoughts.!!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

gastonbuffet said:


> Makes me wanna get rid of all of my "not so pristine" thoughts.!!


Oh! I just had one using your post!


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

*Hey CubaMARX*

If you believe that...how's the saying go.... I got some ocean front property in Arizona.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ease up there Big Fella....Mark is one of the good guys. 

But I sometimes wonder if he'd prefer that we re-instate Saddam as the President of Iraq. Worries me sometimes....


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> But I sometimes wonder if he'd prefer that we re-instate Saddam as the President of Iraq.


Ahhh...the oft-said bogeyman response to anyone who opposed the invasion and occupation. Tell us once again, MacNutt...was the original reason to go in WMDs or "regime change"?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Regime change. So that Saddam couldn't threaten anyone else, so that we could begin to reform the now corrupted United Nations...a process that is now under way...and so that a brand new democracy could begin to help change the whole region from a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny into something a little less dangerous for everyone.

So far it seems to be on track, too.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Dudireno - you're right. I am certainly jumping the gun. Just because the investigators have finally given up looking for the WMDs, doesn't mean they won't be found. Indeed, now that they're not crawling all over like ants and getting in the way, there are fewer potential witnesses to catch the Black Ops personnel when they go in and bury the evidence that will be "discovered" in the months to come....

M.


----------



## enaj (Aug 26, 2004)

I don't believe they will find WMD anymore. The world doesn't care anymore and the US has shown they can invade ANYONE and no-one can do anything about it.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Regime change. So that Saddam couldn't threaten anyone else, so that we could begin to reform the now corrupted United Nations...a process that is now under way...and so that a brand new democracy could begin to help change the whole region from a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny into something a little less dangerous for everyone.
> 
> So far it seems to be on track, too.


Revisionist history at its best. Could have been written by Orwell. To jog the memory, here is the transcript of Colin Powells speech to the UN. 

A salient passage: "The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world."

This was the speech that precipitated the invasion. A speech replete with errors and deceptions. Presentation of that speech to the UN was an insult to the United Nations and an embarrassment to Powell and the USA. It is the antithesis of the eloquence of the Gettysberg Address.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Geopolitics often contains a fair amount of misdirection and legerdemain.

This is epecially necessary when the buying public still thinks that an august body like the UN is actually making every effort to solve a major crisis between nations. And when the public still thinks that The UN is still on the up and up. When, clearly, they were NOT.

Many key players in the United Nations had already been co-opted by Saddam's promise of instant wealth via the oil for food program...and by his promise of massive oil contracts "later on, when the sanctions have been eased".

Any question why those very same players voted _AGAINST_ invading Iraq and removing Saddam...even though he was publicly defying EIGHTEEN seperate United Nations resolutions against him demanding that he either produce the WMD's that the UN had recorded as being in Iraq...or produce evidence that they had been destroyed? With regime change being the penalty for not doing so?

Any question that those very same major UN players wouldn't have also been pushing hard to relax all restraints on Saddam and his sale of oil, had the invasion not happened? Especially since these same players had so much to gain if those restrictions were relaxed?

This is a no-brainer. 

The evidence that there was some fairly large scale corruption at the very highest levels of the United nations is evident in the current inquiries into the oil-for-food scam that the UN itself has been doing of late. So far it has implicated UN president Kofi Annan's own son as a participant, among others.

How's that for high-level UN corruption? 

And...you should stop and think about this:

What do you suppose Saddam would have done had he remained in power and if all of the restrictions on him had been relaxed? Would he have bought vast amounts of food and medical supplies for his long-suffering citizens? Would he have turned into a happy and very rich old retiree like the Prince of Monaco?

Or would he have embarked on his old crusade to be the absolute dictator of all of the middle east? No matter how many people he had to exterminate in order to do it.

And WMD's would have made him effectively "untouchable". Suppose he didn't know that? Suppose he didn't think about that almost every single day? 

Think about what might have happened if the invasioin of Iraq and the removal of Saddam hadn't taken place when it did.

THEN tell me all about "illegal invasions" and missing weapons.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Regime change. So that Saddam couldn't threaten anyone else, so that we could begin to reform the now corrupted United Nations...a process that is now under way...and so that a brand new democracy could begin to help change the whole region from a hotbed of terrorism and tyranny into something a little less dangerous for everyone.
> 
> So far it seems to be on track, too.


Regime change? *NO!* Why do you continuously lie instead of admitting when you're wrong?

Reforming the UN? Was that part of the agenda? *NO!*

Brand new democracy? I notice that you continuously avoid my posts on countries such as Saudi Arabia...where the vast majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from...where the government supports an extreme form of Islam...where more than half the population is not even allowed to vote let alone drive!

Interesting no?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Geopolitics often contains a fair amount of misdirection and legerdemain.


In other words, *lying*. 



MacNutt said:


> This is epecially necessary when the buying public still thinks that an august body like the UN is actually making every effort to solve a major crisis between nations. And when the public still thinks that The UN is still on the up and up. When, clearly, they were NOT.


A. So, that justifies the U.S. lying? Join the pigs in the mud, eh? 
B. Clearly, they were not? Really? At that time? No, just speculation.



MacNutt said:


> Many key players in the United Nations had already been co-opted by Saddam's promise of instant wealth via the oil for food program...and by his promise of massive oil contracts "later on, when the sanctions have been eased".


Are you talking about countries or are you talking about individuals? Better make that clear.



MacNutt said:


> Any question why those very same players voted _AGAINST_ invading Iraq and removing Saddam...even though he was publicly defying EIGHTEEN seperate United Nations resolutions against him demanding that he either produce the WMD's that the UN had recorded as being in Iraq...or produce evidence that they had been destroyed? With regime change being the penalty for not doing so?


Ahhh...you're talking about countries now? More *lies*. Actually, Saddam did produce documents and he did allow inspectors back in but the U.S. did not take that into account because the plan was to invade no matter what. So much for listening to the UN...all of that corruption talk was simply FUD.



MacNutt said:


> The evidence that there was some fairly large scale corruption at the very highest levels of the United nations is evident in the current inquiries into the oil-for-food scam that the UN itself has been doing of late. So far it has implicated UN president Kofi Annan's own son as a participant, among others.


Ahhh...current inquiries...but those findings weren't available three years ago were they? Convict without evidence? Sounds like it.



MacNutt said:


> What do you suppose Saddam would have done had he remained in power and if all of the restrictions on him had been relaxed? Would he have bought vast amounts of food and medical supplies for his long-suffering citizens? Would he have turned into a happy and very rich old retiree like the Prince of Monaco?
> 
> Or would he have embarked on his old crusade to be the absolute dictator of all of the middle east?


So...using your so-called "logic"...once a criminal always a criminal? Have you ever gotten a ticket for speeding? Why not go easy on you and simply take away your driver's license rather than throwing you in jail for life. 

That reminds me, I'm still waiting for that Liberal quote on how building more prisons is "politically incorrect"...I doubt that you will produce anything but what the hey, eh? 



MacNutt said:


> And WMD's would have made him effectively "untouchable". Suppose he didn't know that? Suppose he didn't think about that almost every single day?


It makes the U.S. untouchable. 



MacNutt said:


> Think about what might have happened if the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam hadn't taken place when it did.


Yes...several tens of thousands of people would still be alive...the U.S. economy would probably be much much stronger...Islamic extremists wouldn't have more of an excuse to hate the U.S.....I can think of quite a few things.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Gee, MacNutt changes the subject. Quelle supris.

Please supply some sort of evidence to back up your claim that the primary justification of the invasion, prior to invasion, was for regime change (aside from your many own posts on the topic in which you were personally convinced such WMDs existed and were an imminent threat to the stability of the world). 

Human rights considerations were tertiary at best although they did become promoted to the "new truth" in the revisionist stance of the White House when it became clear, after the invasion, that the primary motivations held absolutely no oil..... Tell me, why did the US spend 2 years and millions of dollars on an intense search for evidence of WMDs??? Why did the reports into the invasion state that the action was based on biased and incorrect intelligence?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Regime change was the underlying reason. WMD's...past present or future acquisitions was the stated reason. It's like chess or even fistfighting...you feint left and then strike right.

Getting rid of Saddam was the second step in a multi step process to fundamentally alter the violent middle east after the attacks of 9/11. (Afghanistan was the first step, BTW). Iraq is a lynchpin country, and military action to remove Saddam and replace him with a brand new democracy in this key country was crucial to the reform of the whole region.

The citizens of Iran are already on the brink of creating their own democracy. It would NEVER have happened had Saddam remained in power. Syria would be fundamentally weakened as a supporter of violence, without Saddam. Much more so if they had a new democracy on their back doorstep. That has happened.

We have all seen what Libya decided to do, right after the sucessful invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam.

Even the citizens of Saudi Arabia are now regularly meeting to decide what, if anything, to do about the direction of their own country. This is a first.

The whole region is still in turmoil, but there are definite signs of improvement. And the future looks a lot better than it did a few short years back.

You might also notice that, while all of this has been going on in the hotbed of terrorism....nothing has blown up in the USA. ZIP. NADA.

Which also might explain why George W. got himself re-elected with an even stronger majority than before.

Like the premise or not, bemoan the methods or not, it DOES seem to be working.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

More blarney...you don't address any points at all but go on and on and on. Hrmm...maybe I should do that? See how u like it? 

BTW, how did you like that Syrian WMD post on the other thread?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

*We Know What They Are Choosing!*



MacNutt said:


> The citizens of Iran are already on the brink of creating their own democracy.
> 
> The whole region is still in turmoil, but there are definite signs of improvement. And the future looks a lot better than it did a few short years back.


Yes, it looks like they may be going for *civil war!*  

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BAK623643.htm


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

> Regime change was the underlying reason. WMD's...past present or future acquisitions was the stated reason. It's like chess or even fistfighting...you feint left and then strike right.


Err.... so who was GWB trying to feint? His own people? Y'know, those on the hook for $150 billion.

Please point to the evidence for Iraq being behind *any* terrorist activity in the US or Europe. Since the invasion, there have been more terorist incidents worldwide than before the invasion.

Afghanistan was an entirely different ballgame. Pretty much the entire world supported removal of the Taliban. There was no need to fake the data and the connections to world terrorism were clear (as they were before 9/11 but that's another matter). Iraq changed all of the rules and was a unilateral action. The justifications were pitiful. Bush chose not to plead his case based on rapid toppling of a brutal regime. Why? Only he can answer but it probably has something to do with the many other brutal regimes that are propped up by US money (including the US support of Iraq until the invasion of Kuwait).

I agree that its early days for the "new" Iraq. I deplore the on-going bloodshed. I also hope they choose democracy instead of theocracy and that its stable. However, the chances of creating a new Iran are significant. Indeed, creation of a fused "Iranq" led by Mullahs is a possibility. That's a scary thought.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> You might also notice that, while all of this has been going on in the hotbed of terrorism....nothing has blown up in the USA. ZIP. NADA.


Nothing in the US has been attacked, but global terrorism is at it's highest since they started keeping score. Oh, and because of that they aren't publishing the statistics anymore.



MacNutt said:


> Which also might explain why George W. got himself re-elected with an even stronger majority than before.


Not hard, considering that he lost the popular vote before, and only had 5 electoral votes more than Gore. But then, it was the closest election in US history.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

This crap about Iraq not having WMDs is so bogus. It is a last ditch effort of those to try and bring down the efforts of the war. Clinton (Your honest buddy) did air strikes on sites of WMDs in 1998. Does anybody remember that? No. Most of the world believed Iraq had WMDs before we went in. So just because there is none found at this time doesn't mean there was none. You have lost the argument. The War was a Success! Now the US is getting blamed for terrorism off their own soil. The US is not the ones you should be fighting. The world is safer without Saddam. You should be happy.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Not fighting, as always, we are questioning as is our democratic right. Seems you are on side with your government and the message they are sending out to you. Life is easier that way I suppose. The rest of us are still looking for a shred of evidence.


----------



## gastonbuffet (Sep 23, 2004)

Dudireno said:


> This crap about Iraq not having WMDs is so bogus.



Are you kidding?
or high?

of course he had no wmd. 
That was the excuse to kick Saddam's butt, and he had it coming, imho.
The US played that one beautifully, they are smart enough not to justify the invasion by saying " we don't like him, he's out of control, and he is sitting on a pile of wealth"; so they went with " he has the weapons, he is crazy enough to use them, he will kill millions". 
Was this good, bad, smart, dumb, necessary, profitable, worth it, etc., that, time will tell, but what it is clear, is that Saddam did not had the wmd when the shiet hit the fan. And anyone who honestly believes that he did or that they are still there, inho, is .................................... wrong.
The father got rid of the means, junior got rid of the man.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> This crap about Iraq not having WMDs is so bogus. It is a last ditch effort of those to try and bring down the efforts of the war. Clinton (Your honest buddy) did air strikes on sites of WMDs in 1998. Does anybody remember that? No. Most of the world believed Iraq had WMDs before we went in. So just because there is none found at this time doesn't mean there was none. You have lost the argument. The War was a Success! Now the US is getting blamed for terrorism off their own soil. The US is not the ones you should be fighting. The world is safer without Saddam. You should be happy.


Looks like another fat and juicy target! I wonder if it runs away as fast as MacNutt does?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yea I run. Only because of lack of time. Reading and writing on this forum can be a time consuming hobby. I definitly don't read everything and I jump in when I please. 

I was never for invading Iraq. I am not for any deployment of troops really. But I think it is obvious that the WMDs were there. If not I really don't care. Even though I am against the US foreign affairs I can admit when one is a success. You guys just don't want the US to be successful. Your hatred for the US is obvious. You are all just a bunch of socialists rooting and cheering for US failure. You will bash the US for doing to much and you will bash the US for not doing enough. I never see anybody (well excluding Macnutt and a couple sporadic posts) bash on the terrorists. And you actually have one freak on here who is Saddam friendly. You can argue about all the trivial details of this stuff all you want but the whole thing was a success. Any idiot can see that.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> This crap about Iraq not having WMDs is so bogus.


Got any proof yet? and pictures of pre-war Iraqi military installations doesn't count.



> It is a last ditch effort of those to try and bring down the efforts of the war.


That wasn't a war it was a total invasion of a 3rd world country.



> Clinton (Your honest buddy) did air strikes on sites of WMDs in 1998. Does anybody remember that?


Is there any evidence that they did bomb a WMD site and not another mistake where they bombed the pharmaceutical factory?



> Most of the world believed Iraq had WMDs before we went in.


No we didn't.



> So just because there is none found at this time doesn't mean there was none.


evidence please



> The War was a Success!


again what war?



> Now the US is getting blamed for terrorism off their own soil.


they went in and invaded now you have to deal with the consequences of your actions, what you think they would bend over and take it after the cease fire order came, YEAH right the US is in Iraq for good and as long as it maintains a military presence I'll guarantee you that the US will keep loosing troops to terrorist actions.



> The US is not the ones you should be fighting. The world is safer without Saddam. You should be happy.


Yes the world is safer without Sadam but the world would be even safer if the US would stop sticking it's nose into everybody's business.

Laterz


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> You are all just a bunch of socialists....


I don't see a problem with this.

Laterz


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

K_OS said:


> Got any proof yet? and pictures of pre-war Iraqi military installations doesn't count.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No

Ok wherever I said war insert invasion. Symantics anybody?

No. 

It was more than just Bush who thought so. It was more than just the US. It was even people toting your own party line.

Evidence of what? What part of "So just because there is none found at this time doesn't mean there was none" do you disagree with. Its a simple statement saying that lack on WMDs currently doesn't mean there was never a WMD in Iraq. I am sure you agree with that.

Insert Invasion. I really don't care what you want to call it. But since it bothers you I am more than willing to call it an invasion. 

You have a twisted sense of reality to suggest that the US is to blame for terrorist attacks. Thats whats wrong with yours and the likes opinions. Are you a terrorist supporter. If a bomb goes off in Europe and kills hundreds of people that is the terrorists fault. 

We agree on your last statement. The world is safer without Saddam and the US needs to pull all troops from everywhere. Especially if nobody is greatful. 


"I don't see a problem with this"

There shouldn't be. Its true. I'm a capitalist and you guys are socialists cheering for capitalist failure.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

It's black or it's white. There is no grey.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Dudireno...

On Canadian "socialist thinking".

Like most Canadian kids, I learned that socialism was "the very best way" from my teachers at school. Having a father and mother who were both lifelong union members only helped that valuable lesson take hold in my young mind. Capitalism is bad, socialism is good. It is practically drilled into us in a whole bunch of subtle ways up here. When I was young, I used to parrot that line just like everyone else.

But when I grew up I got a job that took me all over the world. Mostly to really marginalised countries which often have very active socialist movements trying to whip the poorest people into a froth. I watched what they really did...how they really treated these poorest of all people, not what they SAID they'd do....once they got into power. I was sorely dissappointed by what I saw. Horrified, sometimes.

So I learned and observed. And, eventually, I outgrew socialist thinking. Began to see it for what it really is. A pipe dream that looks great on paper, but can't work in practice. Never has, never will. Anywhere.

And leftist movements, whether near left (like in Canada) or far-left (like The Soviet Union, North Korea or Cuba) are, often as not, simply the means used for some truly crooked people to gain power and hold it. Note the fact that the top leftists always live like kings. And more often than not, steal everyone blind.

Nowadays, having recovered from my earlier conditioning, I crusade to help others learn the truth. I especially like to do this in places where there are high concentrations of the as-yet unenlightened. Like here at ehmac. 

There are other Canadians who have also outgrown this early conditioning and realised the truth....but not too many of them are here on this forum.

Interestingly, that DOES seem to be changing lately. Hope springs eternal.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Glad to see you came to the Dark side.

My dad always had a saying and maybe I heard it somewhere else too but it goes something like this:

If you are a Conservative before the age of 30 you are uncompassionate and if you are a liberal past the age of 30 you are retarded.

It sounds like you are compassionate and not retarded. Myself I am not retarded but I am uncompassionate.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Capitalism is bad, socialism is good.


I think the biggest problem is exemplified by this one statement. I think that, for some reason, most people seem to think that the two ideas are wholly incompatible, which just isn't so.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> Note the fact that the top leftists always live like kings. And more often than not, steal everyone blind.


I guess Bill Gates must be a top leftist.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

What I said was..."the top leftists always live like kings"
I did not say that "the top people who live like kings are all leftists"

Try to figure out the difference Ironmac...and then get back to me.

Better yet, don't.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Unfortunatly Apple are the leftists. But they make a good operating system.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Didureno,


> The War was a Success!


Really? How do you define "success"? Here's how the CIA describes it:


> Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank. <br><div align="right"><small>Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground - (Source)</small></div>



M


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

low number of casualties
taking bad men out of power
having elections
Reconstruction
Training Civilians

I call all those things Successful. What would it take for it to be considered successful for you? A communist leader? UN support?


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

Do you have kids? Would you send them over?


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Yes I do have kids. 2 boys.

I hope to convince them to never go into the military. Why you ask. Because I don't agree with what the US does with its forces. 

Look I didn't want this war(I mean Invasion) either. I don't want troops stationed all over the world. My reasons are probably different than yours. But I can look at what happened and see that it was a good thing. 

This is what it looks like to me. I am sitting around hoping that Iraq is a success for years to come and you guys are sitting around hoping its not so you can bash the US and Bush. As soon as something comes out like they can't find WMDs its "see we told you so". You have to be brain dead to not realize that the only news coming out of Iraq is negative and that its because only negative things are happening. Nobody wants to hear the good news.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> low number of casualties


 <b><i>What?</i></b> You consider 20,000 (minimum) to be a "low" number of casualties? That's 20-thousand <i>people</i>, who have been killed in the midst of a war that was foisted upon them by a <b>lying</b> regime in Washington.


> taking bad men out of power


There are a helluva lot of "bad men" in the world who should be removed from <i>power</i>, and not all of them are heads of state (although there is this guy from Texas....). The fact that Saddam was an evil, murderous ass is not in dispute, but the neo-cons can't seem to understand that those of us who opposed this war did not / do not support Saddam's regime. 


> having elections


Oh boy. Elections! Can you eat it? Will it heal the sick? Does it make up for the complete devastation of the national infrastructure, the massacre of thousands of innocents, and the occupation by troops from a foreign land who have all the cultural sensitivity of a concrete block?


> Reconstruction


 - Oh fart! Iraq had top-notch education, health, transport systems prior to the first Gulf War. GW II just finished pounding everything into the ground, destroying any gains that had been made in the previous decade.


> Training Civilians


 -- That seems to indicate that you believe Iraq was just another developing nation full of uneducated camel herders or something. I daresay that "success" does not apply when you're talking about fixing things that you yourself destroyed.


> What would it take for it to be considered successful for you? A communist leader? UN support?


Where is this communist stuff coming from, Dudireno? As for the U.N. -it's hard to see how anything could make a "success" out of his unholy mess. The entire situation was unneccessary.

M


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

I do consider it a low number. 


"The fact that Saddam was an evil, murderous ass is not in dispute, but the neo-cons can't seem to understand that those of us who opposed this war did not / do not support Saddam's regime."

If you don't support Saddam then shutup. Its OK to say you were against the war(I mean Invasion) to begin with. Its OK to think we shouldn't have done it. But your nit picking on every little detail of negativity just shows you are bias. I was against the war(I mean Invasion). If I had to do it again I would still be against it. But you know what, it worked out. Just deal with it. Iraq is better off. No result would be good enough for you unless it started with an agenda you and the socialists agreed with. Anything the US touches can't be good. 


"Oh boy. Elections!"

Oh boy! No WMDs! BFD!


"That seems to indicate that you believe Iraq was just another developing nation full of uneducated camel herders or something. I daresay that "success" does not apply when you're talking about fixing things that you yourself destroyed."

What do you call training a police force? Failure?


"Where is this communist stuff coming from, Dudireno?"

You CUBAMARX! You practically where it with a badge. Why does it bother you? Socialist Communist don't split hairs its all the same. I'll use socialist if you like. My neighbors to the north are generally socialists. Do you deny you are a socialist?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> What I said was..."the top leftists always live like kings"
> I did not say that "the top people who live like kings are all leftists"
> 
> Try to figure out the difference Ironmac...and then get back to me.
> ...


Your worst nightmare comes true! I'm getting back to you! 

Ok, you're right about that...but what about the people who do live like kings?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> low number of casualties


That's a relative term. 



Dudireno said:


> taking bad men out of power


And what gives you the right to judge who is bad or good and then carrying out the sentence?



Dudireno said:


> having elections


Nothing wrong with that. 



Dudireno said:


> Reconstruction


But, you broke it in the first place! 



Dudireno said:


> Training Civilians


To do what??? 

Let me make it simple enough for you to understand...the end does not justify the means.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> What do you call training a police force? Failure?


They had one.



Dudireno said:


> Socialist Communist don't split hairs its all the same.


That's the problem...ignorance! 

I would consider myself a social liberal...with a strong bent towards fiscal conservative.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

> You CUBAMARX! You practically where it with a badge. Why does it bother you? Socialist Communist don't split hairs its all the same. I'll use socialist if you like. My neighbors to the north are generally socialists. Do you deny you are a socialist?


Hah! "CubaMarx" - that's cute. Socialist? Hmm... I certainly do lean toward the collective rather than the individual as a basis for a healthy society. I strongly believe that a globalized economy is not an inherently good thing - local economies must be the basis of all trade (it makes <b>no sense</b> to buy frozen chicken imported from Uruguay in place of your local farmers. It makes <b>no sense</b> to allow zoning for big-box stores at the expense of local retailers.). Economic efficiency is not always a good thing for the human beings who must work within an economy. The greatest economic fib of the past century was the description of the Asian "Tiger" economies (there's that word again) as being a great example of rampant capitalist development. Anyone with half an analytical clue will recognize the huge role that government spending, protectionism and policymaking played in, for example, the success of Singapore. That wasn't "socialism", but it was in no way a "free market" making decisions and generating wealth. It was <i>exceptionally well-planned</i>.

Meanwhile, back in Iraq....


> Iraq's Al-Yawar Says Sunnis May Withdraw From New Government<br><div align="right"><small>Source</small></div>


Yup - a real <i>success</i>.

M


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

If you changed the words shiites, kurds, sunnis with democrat and republican you would think it was a article about Washington DC. At least they have three parties. 

Did you think all those groups are going to get along hunky dory. I'm not quite sure yet what you socialists are expecting to happen. Maybe because all you do is point the finger at bad things. Should I search high and low for all the good things going on in Iraq? Would that change your opinion. So I am not quite sure if you think an article like this is going to change mine. 

So let me get this straight. You didn't like Saddam but its not better now. So was it better with Saddam? What exactly do you want. A Liberal Prime Minister would that be success? A fidel Castro? 

This is what I know of your opinion:
Saddam was a murderous leader
The war had too many casualties
Iraq had a fine infrastructure
You don't support Saddams regime
Its worse with Saddam gone
Bush lied about WMDs
Elections are not good enough

I still think you are just bitchin and moanin. The Conservatives are gaining support and instead of showing that you have good ideas you are just bashing the US. Bush didn't bend over and listen to the rest of the world and that pisses you off. He didn't have to get your socialist opinion before he reacted. Saddam was warned, he didn't comply with the UN, he was paying off the UN, Other countries are just as shisty as the "Bush WMD lies", and other countries supported and participated in the war. Yet its all about the bad bad man from Texas with you and we know that Saddam is worse.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> Yet its all about the bad bad man from Texas with you and we know that Saddam is worse.


I don't know...they both could be hauled up before the World Court to be tried as war criminals...but neither leader recognizes that body.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Ooookay... never thought I'd see someone as unhinged as our west-coast pal...

Just heard on Global news: U.S. officials in Iraq says daily attacks by insurgents holding steady between 50-60, same as a year ago.

To take the optimistic view: at least it's not getting "worse" .....

And on the other side of the pond, Tony Blair is having a new hole ripped....


> The legality of the Iraq war exploded on to the agenda last week, causing chaos to Labour strategy. Here we reveal the key US officials who persuaded Britain that invasion was legal - and the astonishing reaction from our military chiefs.<br>
> <div align="right"><small>Read all about it</small></div>


M


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I still think you are just bitchin and moanin. The Conservatives are gaining support and instead of showing that you have good ideas you are just bashing the US. Bush didn't bend over and listen to the rest of the world and that pisses you off. He didn't have to get your socialist opinion before he reacted. Saddam was warned, he didn't comply with the UN, he was paying off the UN, Other countries are just as shisty as the "Bush WMD lies", and other countries supported and participated in the war. Yet its all about the bad bad man from Texas with you and we know that Saddam is worse.


might be a good idea to ask the families of the 1500+ dead u.s. soldiers and almost 12,000 wounded if it was a good idea to invade Iraq
and all because "the commander in chief" said there were WMDs in them thar hills
well, there weren't any and u.s. soldiers paid the price
what ever happened to 'the buck stops here'?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> might be a good idea to ask the families of the 1500+ dead u.s. soldiers and almost 12,000 wounded if it was a good idea to invade Iraq
> and all because "the commander in chief" said there were WMDs in them thar hills
> well, there weren't any and u.s. soldiers paid the price
> what ever happened to 'the buck stops here'?


Apparently "the buck stops here" resulted in an even greater majority for George W. Bush than he had before he went after Saddam. Same for the Prime Minister of Australia.

But our own sainted Liberals suffered a massive loss of seats in the elections following THEIR choice to turn away from the rest of our traditional allies on this.

That tell you anything?

It should.

And I stand in total awe at the American families who have given their sons and daughters to this thankless struggle. A battle against evil that we won't even begin to see the full benefits from, for a decade or more.

And I also hope and pray that the Americans don't ever get totally fed up at all of the sniping and nonsense that they seem to be getting from the peanut gallery. If they do...and they decide to pull back and isolate themselves from everything outside of their own very comfortable homeland...then we will ALL be much worse off.

And we will have to begin to deal with this stuff ourselves. Or NOT deal with it, and suffer the eventual consequences of that studious inaction. 

You Do NOT want to go there. Trust me on this.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

For all of the lousy decisions that Jean Chretien may have made, NOT joining the coalition of the willing/duped was a superb one that a large majority of Canadians agreed with. The fact that we did not join had absolutely nothing to do with the subsequent loss of seats - as you well know. If you doubt this, just check any poll on the question of Canada's participation in the invasion of Iraq. Better yet, ask people on this board.

As you stand in awe, perhaps you can also praise the US for the beef import ban and the softwood lumber ban? I don't think Americans need our reassurance to make their own decisions - at least the Bush administration doesn't act as if it does.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Jim...you need to visit the "This is really gonna piss MacNutt off" thread. Specifically, post #27.

Sorry old buddy. I just couldn't resist.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> might be a good idea to ask the families of the 1500+ dead u.s. soldiers and almost 12,000 wounded if it was a good idea to invade Iraq
> and all because "the commander in chief" said there were WMDs in them thar hills
> well, there weren't any and u.s. soldiers paid the price
> what ever happened to 'the buck stops here'?


Believe me if the families of the US soldiers visited this forum they would be disgusted. And they wouldn't be disgusted with my comments. If you haven't figured it out yet the Right wingers tend to be the ones in the armed forces. The Socialists are in the Universities.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

<i>"....and he sayd to her thus:—Dame, by your enformacyon, and in your quarrell, I do put my lyfe in adventure, as to fyght with Jacques le Grys; ye knowe, if the cause be just and true.'—'Syr,' sayd the lady, 'it is as I have sayd; wherefore ye maye fyght surely; the cause is good and true.' With those wordes, the knyghte kissed the lady, and toke her by the hande, and then blessyd hym, and soo entred into the felde."</i>
<div align="right"><small>Project Gutenberg</small></div>

<i>"If the cause be just and honorable, I am prepared to give my life for it."</i>
<div align="right"><small>Henry V.: Shakespeare</small></div>

M.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Dudireno said:


> Believe me if the families of the US soldiers visited this forum they would be disgusted. And they wouldn't be disgusted with my comments. If you haven't figured it out yet the Right wingers tend to be the ones in the armed forces. The Socialists are in the Universities.


Would they be as equally disgusted as the families of the Canadian soldiers who died at the hands of a trigger happy Amercian pilot in Afghanistan? You can label Canadians all you want... it just makes your point of view weaker when you resort to painting a nation with a single stroke. I think most would prefer the term "open-minded."


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*U.S. soldier speaks out against "corporate war for oil"*

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1388068/posts
is he a "socialist" too?
_
ITHACA NY--The first soldier jailed for not returning to fight in Iraq discussed his struggle to participate in a war he did not believe in yesterday. Camilo Mejia spoke out against serving in a war he calls "a corporate war for oil."

Mejia said it is extremely difficult for soldiers to say they disagree with war on moral grounds, as this is perceived as unpatriotic.

"No one wants to make the unpopular decision and say 'This is not a good war'," he said. "Out of fear of challenging U.S. leadership, people just go along."

A soldier's sense of right and wrong often conflicts with his military duty, Mejia said.

"[But] sometimes it is more important to be a good human being than it is to be a good soldier," he added.

Returning for a brief furlough in the U.S. after six months in combat, Mejia was sentenced to one year in prison in March 2003 after refusing to go back to Iraq. Released this past February, he said no particular incident prompted his decision not to return to fight. Rather, it was based on a number of experiences he witnessed, including the maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners, the abuse of power by U.S. military leaders and the disregard for soldier and civilian life.

"[Military leaders] put civilians and soldiers in harms way to advance their own causes," he said. "The war became a personal war for [individual] glory more than a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission," he said.

Mejia said the abuse of Iraqi prisoners was well-known by high military officials.

"It was systematic, allowed and encouraged," he said.

Although not a pacifist when he first joined the military, Mejia said he is now a conscientious objector who opposes all wars.

"Before [Iraq] I was unattached to the reality of war," he said. "You watch CNN and don't see people dying, the suffering of the Iraqi people and the soldiers' families ... the media is not showing these things. You just see the numbers."

Born in Nicaragua, Mejia was exposed to politics at a young age by his parents who were revolutionaries attempting to overthrow the Somoza dictatorial regime. During his childhood, Mejia moved around several times between Nicaragua, Costa Rica and the United States. As a result, he said he often lacked a sense of belonging. In a desire to connect with more people and "find a family," he joined the military. Although Mejia said he knew the risks of military life, he had no idea of what the impact would be on other countries.

"When you're 18 or 19 years old you have no idea what you will end up doing in the future," he said.

Mejia served as an infantry man from 1995 to 1998 and later as a reservist in the Florida National Guard so that he continue with his education. His contract with the military was set to expire in May 2003. However, a semester shy of graduating from college in Miami, Congress passed laws which allowed the military to extend soldiers' contracts and bound Mejia to continue his role in the infantry.

Isaac Bowers '07 law, responded favorably to Mejia's talk. "He really showed the moral struggle when your conscience dictates something and the military dictates another," he said. "It is unfortunate that more people don't make the same decision he did."

Tom Scherer '07, who also attended the lecture, thought Mejia did a "good job" of getting at the heart of issues about corporate greed associated with the war in Iraq. He hopes Mejia's talk will influence others.

"There are three main things that will end the war," he said. "Resistance by the occupied country, a national anti-war movement and people inside the military speaking out. With more men going around and talking like Camilo, hopefully something will change."_


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*U.S. Veterans against Iraq War*

more socialists?

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php
_
Veterans Against Iraq War is a coalition of American veterans who support our troops but oppose war with Iraq or any other nation that does not pose a clear and present danger to our people and nation.

Until and unless the current U.S. Administration provides evidence which clearly demonstrates that Iraq or any other nation poses a clear, direct and immediate danger to our country, we oppose all of this Administration's pre-emptive and unilateral military activities in Iraq. Furthermore, we cannot support any war that is initiated without a formal Declaration of War by Congress, as our Constitution requires.

Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation.

Finally, we believe that a doctrine of pre-emptive and unilateral U.S. military attack on Iraq or any other nation is illegal, unnecessary, counter-productive and presents a truly dire and distressing threat to our vital international interests and basic national security. As military veterans, we have a unique understanding of war and know the many hidden truths that lie behind war's easy theories and promises, as well as behind the tragic consequences that even, "victory" brings. We therefore call on all like-minded veterans and family members to endorse this statement and support us in our efforts to help avert, mitigate or stop a national tragedy and an international calamity.

We ask that you support our troops, by demanding that they be brought home from Iraq immediately. We ask that you support our nation's vital interests, by demanding that our troops should never be placed in harm's way except to meet and defeat any direct and immediate threat to our people._


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*U.S. ex-Marine against war in Iraq*

look more "socialists"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/11/10_400.html

_
*When Hoffman arrived in Kuwait in February 2003, his unit’s highest-ranking enlisted man laid out the mission in stark terms. “You’re not going to make Iraq safe for democracy,” the sergeant said. “You are going for one reason alone: oil.* But you’re still going to go, because you signed a contract. And you’re going to go to bring your friends home.” Hoffman, who had his own doubts about the war, was relieved—he’d never expected to hear such a candid assessment from a superior. But it was only when he had been in Iraq for several months that the full meaning of the sergeant’s words began to sink in.

“The reasons for war were wrong,” he says. “They were lies. There were no WMDs. Al Qaeda was not there. And it was evident we couldn’t force democracy on people by force of arms.”

When he returned home and got his honorable discharge in August 2003, Hoffman says, he knew what he had to do next. “After being in Iraq and seeing what this war is, I realized that the only way to support our troops is to demand the withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq.” He cofounded a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) and soon found himself emerging as one of the most visible members of a small but growing movement of soldiers who openly oppose the war in Iraq.
_


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

At first glance I would say the guy in the first post probably is a socialist. The "a corporate war for oil." is a dead give away

The second post. No I don't think so. It is a group of Veterans against the war so I am sure there are socialists in the group but their statements don't sound socialist. If you guys could form your arguments against the war like they do you would have never heard from me. Notice how they don't bash the US with some kind of agenda when they talk about the war. War is War and they leave it at that. Although I would say just leaving Iraq now seems a little worse at this point. 

Third one. Sounds like a socialist.


Why is that a problem for you? Are you not a socialist? You don't like being called a socialist? Would collectivist be better for you? Does that sound less offensive? Is socialist offensive to you? You can call me a capitalist. I would love it.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> You can call me a capitalist. I would love it.


i am self employed and run my own business servicing corporations
that makes me a capitalist
since i am agains the war, you think that makes me socialist

if i would call you anything, i would call you mis-informed


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Why do we have to label people based on their beliefs?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...I'm tempted to label someone for how old they appear to be, based upon the things they write...

M


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Why is it so sensitive? You guys make it sound like I am saying a racial slurr. Everybody labels people. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Conservatives, Liberals, etc. 

Its not a big deal. If you look at my posts I never said anyone in particular was a socialist except CubaMarx. And he admitted it. So I don't see the problem. Its no different when someone refers to neo cons and what they think. Where are all the people saying "do we have to label people" when someone says neo con? 

I think it is obvious whats going on. People are offended by the word socialist. Thats too bad. Thats what I think most of you are. Those who bash the US tend to be socialists. And people on here tend to bash the US. 

Its just really weird it creates such a stir.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

CubaMark said:


> ...I'm tempted to label someone for how old they appear to be, based upon the things they write...
> 
> M



I don't really see the difference between actually doing it. But I guess thats your maturity shining through.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dudireno said:


> I think it is obvious whats going on. People are offended by the word socialist. Thats too bad. Thats what I think most of you are. Those who bash the US tend to be socialists. And people on here tend to bash the US.


Actually, I think it's the ignorance that's showing through here.

On another tack, where I come from, there's a saying that (very roughly translated) goes like this..."so stupid/dumb that they can't die".

Great news, Dudireno!!! You're *immortal!!!*


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Exactly what part that you qouted is ignorant?

That I think people are offended
Because I think most of you are socialists
Because I think US bashers tend to be socialists
Because I think most people here bash the US


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Hey, D! It's you!

Still standing up for that dirty little pecker Bush and his gangster friends? (Just a joke!)

Why do people get labelled "US bashers" when it's the US that's doing all the bashing?

Seriously though, it must be very difficult for you to visit these forums and read all the socialist (communist is so 'yesterday') propaganda spouted by US-haters. After all, there's nothing wrong with conducting foreign policy by proxy via bombs from 20,000 feet.

Honestly, the scales on some peoples' eyes must be really thick, eh?


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

Dudireno said:


> Because I think most of you are socialists


Why Thank You. 

Laterz


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Because I think most people here bash the US


See, Dude, that's where I personally think you're wrong. IMHO, Canadians aren't bashing the U.S., it's your current government people have issue with. Their reasoning and methods are suspect. But I guess it's only okay to criticize Bush et al as long as a) it's just after another narrowly winning an (re)election; b) you're John Stewart; or c) you live in the U.S.A.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, a national poll reported Tuesday.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults."


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> See, Dude, that's where I personally think you're wrong. IMHO, Canadians aren't bashing the U.S., it's your current government people have issue with. Their reasoning and methods are suspect. But I guess it's only okay to criticize Bush et al as long as a) it's just after another narrowly winning an (re)election; b) you're John Stewart; or c) you live in the U.S.A.


Actually Manny, Bush won his re-election with the largest majority of the popular vote in the history of the United States. FAR bigger than Clinton's very best showing, BTW.

Not only that...he also won a larger majority in all levels of the American government. And the house minority leader Tom Daschle (the leading democrat in the US government) got trashed in the very same election. All of this stuff is precedent setting. History-making, actually. Whether you like it or not.

And We Canadians have NO time to spend on Bush bashing. Especially since we currently have the most demonstrably corrupt Canadian government in the history of the country.

We need to clean up and dispose of the horrible mess we have here at home...THEN we can look outward and feel secure when we criticise other foreign governments.

Especially other foreign governments that were elected to such a noteble majority by the voters in that country.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Not only that...he also won a larger majority in all levels of the American government. .... History-making, actually. Whether you like it or not.


MacNutt, as a Neo-Con you leave out:
- Kerry, however, also received more votes than any candidate in any previous U.S. election, though not as many as Bush in this election.
- Bush won with the smallest margin of victory for a sitting president in U.S. history in terms of the percentage of the popular vote. 
- Furthermore, more votes were cast for candidates other than the winner than in any previous U.S. presidential election.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004)

History making in the sense that it was so close and divided the electorate.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Actually Manny, Bush won his re-election with the largest majority of the popular vote in the history of the United States. FAR bigger than Clinton's very best showing, BTW.


We've been over this.

Bush won the popular vote by 3,012,497 votes, and won by 35 electoral votes in 2004.
Bush <em>lost</em> the popular vote by 543,895 votes, and won by just 5 electoral votes in 2000
Clinton won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes, and won by 220 electoral votes in 1996.
Clinton won the popular vote by 5,805,911 votes, and won by 202 electoral votes in 1992.

In other words, Clinton's <em>worst</em> showing was almost 3 million votes better than Bush JRs <em>best</em> showing at the polls.

The widest popular margin in US history was during the 1964 election, which Lyndon Johnson won by more than 15 million votes.

Where do you get your information from? I prefer reputable sources, myself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1964


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Like I said, Bush won by the largest margin in American history. He also won ALL the important levels of government in the USA by a larger margin than he'd had in his first term. Pretty much NO other American President has ever done this. And, it's a VERY important milestone in a government that is made up of TWO bodies. Unlike our own feeble Canadian stab at democracy, which turns out to be pretty much a dictatorship for up to five years at a stretch.

Meanwhile back to Iraq (the subject of this thread):

There is some indication that Al Queda is suffering from low morale and several major players have been arrested lately. Also...a couple of attacks on Iraqi crowds by so-called "insurgents" have been foiled by Iraqi citizens of late. In one case, a couple of "insurgents" jumped out of a car and began sparying automatic weapons fire at a lineup of civilian Iraqis. They were subsequently gunned down by some of these civilians and summarilly ripped to pieces by the angered crowd.

Now that the Iraqis have a freely elected government in place, some of them are beginning to get a bit cheesed by all of the murder and carnage that is going on all around them. And these well-armed Iraqis are beginning to stand up and take matters into their own hands.

Just a week or so ago, a bunch of "insurgents" who'd downed a civilian helicopter were turned in by Iraqi civilians. After they'd roughd these "freedom fighters" up a bit, of course.

Watch for more of this in the near future.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Like I said, Bush won by the largest margin in American history.


MacNutt, how about backing up one of your fantastic claims - 
It would be great to debate you but I have yet to see you back up anything thing that you spew...


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Like I said, Bush won by the largest margin in American history.


Like I said, you are wrong, so very, very wrong on this point. Do you even bother to read what other people write?



MacNutt said:


> He also won ALL the important levels of government in the USA by a larger margin than he'd had in his first term. Pretty much NO other American President has ever done this.


I'm pretty sure that's not true either, but how about you back up your claims for once?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Read em and weep, nitpicker.  

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/002795.html


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Why would I weep? What bearing does the fact that there were more votes cast in the 2004 US election have on the fact that the margin by which he won was actually quite small (not counting 2000, the smallest margin since Carter in 1976)? Or are you trying to retcon what you meant? Or do you just not know what margin means?

I was wrong about one thing though: Johnson's record of a 15 million vote margin was later broken by Reagan, who had over 16 million in 1984.

Oh, and "Blogs for Bush"? Not exactly an unbiased, reputable source.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No...but the data IS valid. 

And George W. Bush actually beat Ronald Reagans record winning performance, BTW. 

He also took ALL the important levels of the US government with a pretty sizeable majority. This is unprecedented. Mostly, the US electorate has always given the administration to one party, and the House and senate to the other.

But not this time. Not by a long shot.

It was a big win. HUGE! No matter WHAT sort of spin the bitterly defeated left/lib types try to put on it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

So what you're saying is that you don't read what other people write?

We already established that Bush broke records with the number of popular votes he received. We weren't talking about that, though. Were were talking about how much he won by, which is not much.

He got more votes than Reagan did in 1984 but Reagan won by ~18% of the vote. Bush won by 2.4% of the vote.

If the results of the 2004 US election is indicative of anything, it's that the nation is pretty sharply divided.

And while there was an increase in the two houses of congress, they were pretty small. They are basically in no greater position than they were before (the biggest thing they had to gain was complete control of the senate, which they didn't). You'll probably write this off as spin, but so is calling the results of the house/senate elections unprecedented, or calling them major increases.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Name another time in history when an American president has gotten complete control of all levels of government? Name another time when that same president asked for and got the electorate to toss out the minority leader in those same elections?

THEN stop and think about how "horribly unpopular" we were being told George W. Bush was, just before the election. 

Now try to put a spin on THAT!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> There is some indication that Al Queda is suffering from low morale and several major players have been arrested lately.


Yeah, but where is Osama? It's interesting that the world's only remaining superpower cannot seem to find one man...of course, the fact that this man's close personal family ties to the POTUS has absolutely NOTHING to do with his continued freedom to maim and kill innocent civilians.

Although...the similarities are striking aren't they?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Name another time in history when an American president has gotten complete control of all levels of government? Name another time when that same president asked for and got the electorate to toss out the minority leader in those same elections?
> 
> THEN stop and think about how "horribly unpopular" we were being told George W. Bush was, just before the election.
> 
> Now try to put a spin on THAT!


biggest $ deficit in U.S. history
http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html

macnutt, don't you always complain about the Liberals being a dictatorship in Canada?
seems to me if the Congress, Senate and White House are all held by Republicans, that pretty much is the same thing, eh?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Name another time in history when an American president has gotten complete control of all levels of government?"

Macnutt, I shall include only those presidents that had "complete control" of the White House, House of Representative and Senate since the time of Lincoln. Before then, certain of the parties that exist today did not exist back then (e.g., the Whig and Federalist party). 

Next time, think before your post some outlandish statement. Merci.

For the Republicans -- Lincoln, Grant, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, G.W.Bush.

For the Democrats -- Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter and Clinton.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

*Congratulations Dr. G.*

Dr. G.,
You have silenced that hard core right-wing voice from Salt Spring Isle. Hard facts in the face of whimsical fiction seems to have silenced (embarassed) him. I shall make a note.

My kudos and congratulations on your success.

I shall mark this day on my calendar as "The Day the Mouth Didn't Roar"

Bravo Dr. G., bravo.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

As I said, GW Bush is now in the same position as he was in his first term. The only thing that he probably really would liked to have gained is total control over the senate, which he didn't. Republicans have 55 votes, it's true, but they need 60 to override a filibuster.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, thank you for the kind words. However, to silence Macnutt would take a greater force than this humble servant of ehMacLand could ever muster. I say what I feel and stand behind my words.

PB, it is true that Bush may have 55 Republicans in the Senate. However, one need not always vote with his or her party. Republicans have voted with the Democrats and Democrats have voted with the Republicans on numerous issues. You are not thrown out of the D or R party based on certain votes. Every six years the voters of your state have their say as to whether or not they approve of the way you voted.


----------



## Dudireno (Jan 17, 2005)

Whats the difference. Other than Military what makes bush look conservative? As far as I am concerned he spends like crazy, soft on the borders, and is pandering to the left. In my book he might as well be a liberal. I don't think it really matters who is in the Senate, House, Supreme Court, or the Yankees bullpen.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Dr. G: All of this is also true. My only point is that if the republicans voted as a whole against the other 45 seats in the house, there still is at least one (fairly important) thing they can't stop.


----------

