Rumsfeld is stepping down....

[Tru2Chevy]

Just announced a few minutes ago, Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down as Defense Secretary. Robert Gates, former head of the CIA is set to replace him.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/rumsfeld.ap/index.html

- Justin

[Tsar]

and his reason for stepping down is?


i dont feel like reding :lol:

[Tru2Chevy]

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld stepped down Wednesday, one day after congressional elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican Party losses.

President George W. Bush said he would nominate Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

- Justin

[shane27]

donald was decent, idk enough about him to say much tho.
just what was needed after a crappy election i guess
no matter tho i bet manendez will get indited in a few months

[Savage_Messiah]

shane download firefox 2 and for the love of god use spellcheck

[Knipps]

shane download firefox 2 and for the love of god use spellcheck

i think shane's a lot better than others right now

[shane27]

irefox andi have fshane download firefox 2 and for the love of god use spellchecki have firefox 2.0
and i dont care enough about my spelling on the internet to care

[GP99GT]

i correct his spelling constantly, it never seems to get through to him though

[LuvMyF8LWS6]

Rumsfeld was hot when he was younger. I did a google image search of him!

[jims69camaro]

alrighty then.

the country is being ripped apart at the seams over the war. damn bush and his lack of exit-strategy. btw, i voted strictly democratic this year, considering most, if not all, of the incumbents were republican.

oh, and our sheriff here in ocean county is 77 years old, voted in for another 4 year term which will make him 81 at the end of his term. highly effective, donchathink? it's his subordinates doing all of the work and he gets all of the credit. *sigh*

[NJSPEEDER]

i like how bush is the only cause of the war to so many people. did he fly a plane into the towers? did he threaten the us with chemical weapons?
anyone who knows **** about how the government works should also be aware that the prsident does not decide troop movements or how to fight a war. he is informed of the goings on, but they have experts that develop actual battle field strategy.
i am so sick of the way people use the ****in headline spin on the evening news and the papers to decide how to vote. did anyone notice that 62% of the democrats in office when the war started voted for it? oh, i guess everyone missed that article cause it was all the way back on page 5. :roll:
blindly voting for one party is retarded. maybe try informing yourself about the cadidates instead of following the knee jerk reactions of the popular press.

[JL8Jeff]

Yeah, the attitude of voting democratic just to teach Bush a lesson is the most moronic thought process people could have. Yup, it's really going to show him. It's not like he's done after this term anyway, duh. But we do need a good balance to keep the whole system floundering so this should get interesting. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with any of the people running for office, what a lame excuse for the dems. I still wish we could get a really strong 3rd party established so it's not just 2 sided all the time. With 3 strong parties it wouldn't be as negative but more positive about what your candidate is going to do. I also hope that we change some laws regarding advertising and it's limited to the people running and not "sponsored by the northwest European gem growers association"!:-x

[NJSPEEDER]

i woudl rather see politacl parties vanish all together than to have a third party. look at the troubl ethe brits are in with all their different parties. they now have the highest tax rate of any developed nation.
the truth about politics is that many of the people seeking office are just on a power quest, the press spins everything so they can sell another issue or a reporter can grab another by-line off the wires, and the only people who can afford to make policy are the ones who can afford to avoid suffering from it anyway.
at least on our local level we had a true independant run. he only got about 650 of the under 10k votes cast(yes kids, only about 40% of our township made it to the polls), but it was still nice to see.

[Teds89IROC]

i like how bush is the only cause of the war to so many people. did he fly a plane into the towers? did he threaten the us with chemical weapons?
anyone who knows **** about how the government works should also be aware that the prsident does not decide troop movements or how to fight a war. he is informed of the goings on, but they have experts that develop actual battle field strategy.
i am so sick of the way people use the ****in headline spin on the evening news and the papers to decide how to vote. did anyone notice that 62% of the democrats in office when the war started voted for it? oh, i guess everyone missed that article cause it was all the way back on page 5. :roll:
blindly voting for one party is retarded. maybe try informing yourself about the cadidates instead of following the knee jerk reactions of the popular press.


so true

[Tsar]

i like how bush is the only cause of the war to so many people. did he fly a plane into the towers? did he threaten the us with chemical weapons?


haha someone told u you had a giant boner for bush :lol: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 that was afganistan, and if remember correctly no one bitched when u decided to go all high and almighty on their asses. chemical weapons? mustard gas? :rofl: okk chief. i can name a handful of other countries who got some real **** and you'll never invade them no matter what they do



and now ill just sit back and :popcorn:

[NJSPEEDER]

we went through this before dude. it is all about getting rid of terrorist organizations. not borders or what **** head puppet leader of what **** wad country they are hiding in. these people don't jsut stand around waiting for their ass kicking to come, they run and hide.
apparently that is too big a concept for you to get your head around.
i would also like to say that i am not much of a gw fan. i think his international policy leaves a lot to be desired and he certainly could be getting more done to help the middle class.
what he has going for him is that he is not afraid to make decisions. while a lot of presidents, george the first and willy clinton for example, were hardly ever caught making a decision they couldn't weasel out of or entirely hide from. if they did claim a decisio as their own you could count on it being something that the whole world coudl agree on the answer

[johnjzjz]

THE PROBLEM IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS SOME THINK -- 2 YEARS FROM NOW FU%&$ HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WITH TODAYS MINE SET -- MY GRAND KIDS AND ( YOUR kids ) ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE ISSUES AND FOR THE BUNCH THAT THINKS ITS AFGANNA / IRAK OR ANYTHING THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 100 YEARS IS MISTAKEN -- the crusades were fought in the 12th century over the same issue Muslims hate Christians and anyone else that itsent Muslim -- they are going to strike us again - as soon as the liberals start impeachment of bush because he talks funny or any reason - be afraid very afraid - jz

[BigAls87Z28]

Obviously that voting the Dems in did do something. If the Reps remained in control, they would be able to continue to keep Rumsfeld in his seat.
Rumsfeld is a jackass, and has done nothing but cause a Vietnam 2.0 over there. Lack of body armor and continious blowing of smoke up the asses of America about how bad it is, when the Generals are saying other wise.
Bush is a lame duck, he cant go on, but he took out Rumsfeld because he had to appease both the Dems AND the Reps that crossed over. Bush did this so that he could hope to gain back some Republicans that voted Dem.
Bush is clueless, and now we have the former CIA director, probably the same guy that let that memo about Islamic Fundementalists taking flying lessons in Florida, slip through his ****ing hands. This mid term election was about the peopel being fed up with the same nonsense for the past 6 years. Still suffering at home, and more and more troops are dying in the middle of a civil war. Bush IS the #1 Military man in the land. There is no one higher. He is the "6 star" General. Commander in Chief, leader of the US Armed Forces, Gerorge W Bush.

[BigAls87Z28]

-- they are going to strike us again - as soon as the liberals start impeachment of bush because he talks funny or any reason - be afraid very afraid - jz

Any reason?
How about...oh, i dont know..


INVADING A ****ING SOVERIGN NATION, UNPROVOKED AGAINGS THE WILL OF THE REST OF THE FREE WORLD?? RING A BELL??
Saddam did that in 1990
Hitler did that in 1938 to 1941
Bill Clinton got a blow job and lied about it, and he brought up on charges. YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!
Any reason? Give me a ****ing break. Im surprised they havent marched his ass down to the Hague.

[Knipps]

"There were different factors that determined the outcome of different races, but no question, Iraq was on people's minds," Bush said. "And, as you have just learned, I am making a change at the secretary of defense to bring a fresh perspective as to how to achieve something I think most Americans want, which is a victory."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.bush/index.html

:popcorn:

[Tsar]

we went through this before dude. it is all about getting rid of terrorist organizations. not borders or what **** head puppet leader of what **** wad country they are hiding in. these people don't jsut stand around waiting for their ass kicking to come, they run and hide.
apparently that is too big a concept for you to get your head around.
i would also like to say that i am not much of a gw fan. i think his international policy leaves a lot to be desired and he certainly could be getting more done to help the middle class.
what he has going for him is that he is not afraid to make decisions. while a lot of presidents, george the first and willy clinton for example, were hardly ever caught making a decision they couldn't weasel out of or entirely hide from. if they did claim a decisio as their own you could count on it being something that the whole world coudl agree on the answer
terrorist organization my ass. you would be in Lebanon, Africa, Philippines, Russia, North Korea (whole state is BLACKMAILING you, and you just give it everything it wants.) and majority of South America too. Instead you're platying a "police" force and perhaps accomplishing some long term goals and settling some old score... i dont know what terrorism is, alright bud. I would say that ive seen **** blow up with my own eyes, or ive was in Moscow with my mother when terrorist attack in Russia happened in 1999 (august/september) but then again you'll have no clue what im talking about without actually looking **** up. kthxbye thanks for trying.

[NJSPEEDER]

you are still failing to see the point here. this has nothing to do with you,your mom,or that sad sack former super power you are from.
terrorism is a world wide problem, this is something we all know already.
america is the worl's police. it is one of the ****** side jobs of being the last standing super power in the world. the US currently has troops deployed every place you just mentioned, some fighting terrorists, some working as occupying forces, some doing **** the government doesn't let us know about. that is the way it works.
our military takes the fight to their back yard to keep them from getting to ours. the people who hate america jsut because it is america enough to want to attack us are the people the military is after. it has nothing to do with what country they are standing in or where they are from, it is about getting to the people who want to attack us and those who make it possible for them to try.
**** them terrorists! USA FTMFW!!!!

[Knipps]

oh *****
:fight:
:helmet::popcorn:

[jims69camaro]

just in case i wasn't just called a retard and a moron, i apologize.

i never said i voted dem down the line because of what bush was/is/will be doing. i voted dem down the line because all of the repubs affected by this race have become complacent. i voted dem because most, if not all, incumbents, who have done **** for us lately because they thought as long as they were incumbent they could just continue to hold office until the cows came home, were republican. maybe i should have spoon fed it to you, and you talk about people not getting it? true, sometimes i am cryptic and vague in my statements, but i don't think the latitude you took has anything to do with me. you've spoken with me in person; do i really sound like one of the baying sheep that follows the headlines with anything more than a passing fancy?

i should never have included the following statement in this thread, because it only confused you: "this country is being ripped apart at the seams over this war. damn bush and his lack of exit-strategy." what this means, for those of you in the back row, is that i think it's deplorable to vote one way or the other without doing your homework just because someone is in the same party of a person holding office (in this case, president). it's hard, i guess, to see the sarcasm dripping from statements on the internet, and i rarely spend enough time online to draw things out beyond a one or two line response.

i'm surprised that i got railed at all. hey, at least i executed my right to vote. that already makes me better than 65% of the people in this state, no matter what excuse they use for staying home.

[Tsar]

you are still failing to see the point here. this has nothing to do with you,your mom,or that sad sack former super power you are from.
terrorism is a world wide problem, this is something we all know already.
america is the worl's police. it is one of the ****** side jobs of being the last standing super power in the world. the US currently has troops deployed every place you just mentioned, some fighting terrorists, some working as occupying forces, some doing **** the government doesn't let us know about. that is the way it works.
our military takes the fight to their back yard to keep them from getting to ours. the people who hate america jsut because it is america enough to want to attack us are the people the military is after. it has nothing to do with what country they are standing in or where they are from, it is about getting to the people who want to attack us and those who make it possible for them to try.
**** them terrorists! USA FTMFW!!!!
yea, so when are you taking out terrorists in saudi arabia? who pretty much openly sponsor terrorism and supply your oil? oh thats right you're not. You pick you battles just like you picked Iraq with their mustard gas. And if you do remember correctly the whole thing with Iraq got started BECAUSE BUSH SAID THAT IRAQ WAS A THREAT AND HAD WMDS.... and don't even try to flip this in any other way. it had nothing to do with terrorism at first, then somehow he jumped terrorist bangwagon after Blair said that documents about WMDs that were presented were made up. (ohhh noooes, how convenient)


and no there're no American troops stationed in Lebanon, North Korea or Russia. And last time i heard Americans didn't want nothing to do with africa, **** you even said it yourself in the last thread we had this discussion that you got nothing in Africa and they should do their own ****. The only thing you got in Africa is military exercises once in awhile. Maybe you wanna get your facts straight and stop GW nutswinging.


but hey nice try to avoid answering my questions, and just restate the same thing all over again. cookie, top shelf, go now.

P.S. sad sack of **** former super power of mine can still make any country in the world into a radioactive golf course for the next 10000 years, which is more then 99% of the world can do. :shrug:

[Savage_Messiah]

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.

If you need cliffnotes... get out of this thread, go buy a dictionary, and go finish high school.

we went through this before dude. it is all about getting rid of terrorist organizations. not borders or what **** head puppet leader of what **** wad country they are hiding in. these people don't jsut stand around waiting for their ass kicking to come, they run and hide.
apparently that is too big a concept for you to get your head around.
i would also like to say that i am not much of a gw fan. i think his international policy leaves a lot to be desired and he certainly could be getting more done to help the middle class.
what he has going for him is that he is not afraid to make decisions. while a lot of presidents, george the first and willy clinton for example, were hardly ever caught making a decision they couldn't weasel out of or entirely hide from. if they did claim a decisio as their own you could count on it being something that the whole world coudl agree on the answer

Getting rid of terrorist organizations is simply not possible. Ever heard the phrase "can't please all the people all the time?" Yea. No matter what someone will hate someone else, whther out of jealousy, spite, or principle (if this wasn't a sad fact then Communism would have been the ultimate answer a long time ago). And guess what... the more we "hunt down" the terrorist organizations, the more people will be pissed off that we're invading their country and join with the other side, againt America... and there we have more "terrorists" and "insurgent groups."

Maybe Bush isn't afraid to make decisions, but he obviously doesn't show much if any intelligence with them. Bush only cares about being the tough guy and taking out all those "bad" and "evil" people. Clinton on the other hand kept us pretty much out of conflict, got us out of devt, created jobs... aka WORKED ON FIXING AMERICA BEFORE TRYING TO FIX THE WORLD. We have a president of the United States, and he should worry about our own country before trying to be the world's hero.

the crusades were fought in the 12th century over the same issue Muslims hate Christians and anyone else that itsent Muslim -- they are going to strike us again - as soon as the liberals start impeachment of bush because he talks funny or any reason - be afraid very afraid - jz

Please don't take this too personally, as Melissa has spoken very highly of you so I doubt having this conversation with you in real life would be like it is here, but that has to be one of the most blatantly ignorant and paranoid things I have ever heard. Muslim people and fanatical Muslims are completely different, as are Christians and Christian fanatics, Jew and orthodox Jews, etc. Granted this country was founded on Christian principles, yet (and our founding fathers embraced the necessity of change) with the melting pot principle we have become much more over the years. Oh and by the way, the Christians went and fought on Muslim turf in the crusades, so it would be the Christians who "struck" back then.

Impeaching Clinton for his personal life was complete stupidity, as it did not affect the running of this nation in any way. Bush has been caught out in the open on more lies, and his lies COST THE LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS AND OUR INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. I think that's a whole lot worse then denying a BJ.

Obviously that voting the Dems in did do something. If the Reps remained in control, they would be able to continue to keep Rumsfeld in his seat.
Rumsfeld is a jackass, and has done nothing but cause a Vietnam 2.0 over there. Lack of body armor and continious blowing of smoke up the asses of America about how bad it is, when the Generals are saying other wise.
Bush is a lame duck, he cant go on, but he took out Rumsfeld because he had to appease both the Dems AND the Reps that crossed over. Bush did this so that he could hope to gain back some Republicans that voted Dem.
Bush is clueless, and now we have the former CIA director, probably the same guy that let that memo about Islamic Fundementalists taking flying lessons in Florida, slip through his ****ing hands. This mid term election was about the peopel being fed up with the same nonsense for the past 6 years. Still suffering at home, and more and more troops are dying in the middle of a civil war. Bush IS the #1 Military man in the land. There is no one higher. He is the "6 star" General. Commander in Chief, leader of the US Armed Forces, Gerorge W Bush.

thank you.

Any reason?
How about...oh, i dont know..


INVADING A ****ING SOVERIGN NATION, UNPROVOKED AGAINGS THE WILL OF THE REST OF THE FREE WORLD?? RING A BELL??
Saddam did that in 1990
Hitler did that in 1938 to 1941
Bill Clinton got a blow job and lied about it, and he brought up on charges. YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!
Any reason? Give me a ****ing break. Im surprised they havent marched his ass down to the Hague.

Thank you x2.

you are still failing to see the point here. this has nothing to do with you,your mom,or that sad sack former super power you are from.
terrorism is a world wide problem, this is something we all know already.
america is the worl's police. it is one of the ****** side jobs of being the last standing super power in the world. the US currently has troops deployed every place you just mentioned, some fighting terrorists, some working as occupying forces, some doing **** the government doesn't let us know about. that is the way it works.
our military takes the fight to their back yard to keep them from getting to ours. the people who hate america jsut because it is america enough to want to attack us are the people the military is after. it has nothing to do with what country they are standing in or where they are from, it is about getting to the people who want to attack us and those who make it possible for them to try.
**** them terrorists! USA FTMFW!!!!

Hm, sounds like somebody needs to get Bush's dick outta their mouth and his balls off of their chin.

[johnjzjz]

Impeaching Clinton for his personal life was complete stupidity, as it did not affect the running of this nation in any way. Bush has been caught out in the open on more lies, and his lies COST THE LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS AND OUR INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. I think that's a whole lot worse then denying a BJ.

spoken buy a real life liberal with out any real idea about war and why the US gets involved -- i had forgotten about what it was like to be NAIVE and full of self purpose and RHETORIC -- over education is serving you well --- more name calling than a barrel of monkeys COOL DUDE -- jz

[BigAls87Z28]

Dont change the subject!! Bush lied on the WORLD stage, along with dragging his little crew in front of the UN, asking to attack Iraq. The UN did not agree, so we invaded another country, unprovoked, on false pretenses. Now dont tell me they found X amount of mustard gas shells, whoaaoaoaoaoa. They were talking about Anthrax, VX, Atomic wepons. Serious BioChem stuff, in stock piles, hidden from us. When nothing was found, the tone changed from getting the WMD's to we went in there to take out a deadly leader. And again, we said that when Saddam was gone, Iraq would be a peaceful place where everyone would just fall into harmony. They would gather around to vote a unified goverment that was free of terror, flowers in there hair ohhhhh it was so magical a picture. When we tore down that massive statue of Saddam, we pictured it would be so easy, but since America is a blip on the radar of Civilization, we have ZERO clue about the culture and conditions of what is going on over there.

So, if Clinton can get brought up on perjury chargers for lying about having sex with some ugly girl, and lock up the US Goverment with that, I think that lying about going to war and wasting BILLIONS of American dollars, Thousands of young teenagers lives, all while smirking about it and saying everything is ok, stay the course crap attitude...I think that just might merit an impeachment. Only reason they wont, is that there is a bigger, even worse guy that would take his spot.

[Savage_Messiah]

Impeaching Clinton for his personal life was complete stupidity, as it did not affect the running of this nation in any way. Bush has been caught out in the open on more lies, and his lies COST THE LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS AND OUR INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS. I think that's a whole lot worse then denying a BJ.

spoken buy a real life liberal with out any real idea about war and why the US gets involved -- i had forgotten about what it was like to be NAIVE and full of self purpose and RHETORIC -- over education is serving you well --- more name calling than a barrel of monkeys COOL DUDE -- jz

If I have no idea about war or why we get involved, then why don't you tell me about it.

[Tsar]

yes please enlighten us, cuz we're young and dumb and dont know jack ****.

[NJSPEEDER]

kasey, i know not everyone will be happy with the US and we will certainly always have our enemies. that is not really the point here.
the need to disarm and prevent people with the desire and backing to attack us on our own soil is very important to me, as it should be to you. the simple truth is that we were attacked, we the citizens. we elect leaders and hold a standing army in this country to protect us and try to prevent such events.
if you think the solution to another attack on american soil is to stand around with our hands in our pockets you are sorely mistaken.
we hold higher technology and further reaching resources than any nation in the world. putting these thigns to good use to prevent the deaths of thousands more citizens is by design of the government, not the decision of a texan.
you guys can spend all the time you want picking and choosing who is good or bad in government. this is about the safety of a nation and the ability to be a true world leader. not about what you personally think of the president.
it amazes me that 62% of the dems in office voted to go forth with this same war, yet everyone wants to act like GW made the decision all by himself. many people here clearly have more information based on old rhetoric than on how our government and world wide politics actually work.

[Tsar]

the simple truth is that we were attacked, we the citizens. give me a link to an article that says IRAQ attacked the United States of America and i wont argue anymore.

P.S. once again you've failed to answer any questions, u just keep restating the same thing all over again...

[johnjzjz]

First off ---HAHHAHHAH....actually George Washington's fairwell address was #1 Potomac view terrace, Mount Vernon,Va.--- but than again that is the same way you have chosen to argue -- pick out while standing on the sidewalk what you see is an un truth and soap box it -- my take on your rant is ( you cant see the forest for the trees ) --- I carried WITH ME IN VIETNAM a cig lighter with the inscription --- ( FREEDOM HAS A TASTE THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW ) IT IS AS TRUE TODAY AS IT WAS IN 1968 / 69 -- JUST DIFFERENT YOUNG PEOPLE SAME MIND SET ( CLOSED TO ANY ONE ELSES OPINION ) -- JZ

[Tsar]

someone translate.

[johnjzjz]

someone translate.

you have to read between the lines - jz

[Tsar]

you have to read between the lines - jz
wow thats soooooooo original, at least us young folks who dont know jack **** dont need to tell each other to **** off. :lol: way to go old man, dont break your hip on your way down the stairs. :rofl:

[johnjzjz]

wow thats soooooooo original, at least us young folks who dont know jack **** dont need to tell each other to **** off. :lol: way to go old man, dont break your hip on your way down the stairs. :rofl:


WISHING SOMEONE A MISFORTUNE -- THAT MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE A BIGGER LITTLE BOY NOW DOES IT -- WOW I AM IMPRESSED -- JZ

[NJSPEEDER]

give me a link to an article that says IRAQ attacked the United States of America and i wont argue anymore.

P.S. once again you've failed to answer any questions, u just keep restating the same thing all over again...


the attack was executed by al quida, not a country, but an extremist organization that exists and is supported in many many nations. that is what i keep restating because that is the truth.
i don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand. it is nodifferent that a common criminal leaving the area to avoid the cops, al quida jumps borders to try to get away from everyone who is lookin for them.

[Tsar]

the attack was executed by al quida, not a country, but an extremist organization that exists and is supported in many many nations. that is what i keep restating because that is the truth.
i don't know why that is so difficult for you to understand. it is nodifferent that a common criminal leaving the area to avoid the cops, al quida jumps borders to try to get away from everyone who is lookin for them.
But you attacked Iraq, not al-queda. You removed Saddam from power, not Bin-Laden. Bin-laden is no where to be found - well actually alot of inteligence said he was in Pakistan but Americans didnt want to go there and remove Pakistans prime minister in the name of "war on terror". Why is that? Bin Laden also used to be a Saudi citizen, is he the only terrorist that came out of saudi arabia? not even close. Maybe you want to count the number of highjackers on 9/11 that came from Saudi Arabia? nahh you probably dont. Saudi Arabia is still here tho, and there's not even a slightest hint that you'll go in there and "make their life better, by removing all the wrong-doers". Why arent you going to war with Saudi Arabia?

Little refresher in History, just because it seems like certain people can use it. Iraq kicked out UN inspectors and almighty Bush threated Saddam with war if he didnt allow them to get back. Saddam told Bush to lick his balls. Bush made up "axis of evil" that was soon forgotten. Then Bush SENT HIS ARMIES TO IRAQ TO REMOVE SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER (and find wmds and make the world safer of course), SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AL-QUEDA, who attacked you on sep 11th. I wont even talk about "wmds" aka mustard gas ( :lol: ) cuz that's just pathetic. Or the fact that bush LIED about the documents that talked about their existance. How do i know he lied? Blair, who gave him those documents, later admitted in front of British Parlament that they were made up. ohh nooes...

[Tsar]

WISHING SOMEONE A MISFORTUNE -- THAT MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE A BIGGER LITTLE BOY NOW DOES IT -- WOW I AM IMPRESSED -- JZ
actually if you had any reading comprehension i said "don't". Which means do not. which also means that i was not wishing you any misfortune. Falling and breaking a bone happens to be the most common injury among people of dinasour age, such as yourself. How do i know, i have to deal with people like you everyday. But i know you have a hard time reading and comprehending sentences, so why dont you just go away. kthxbye.

[johnjzjz]

who attacked you on sep 11th. I wont even talk about "wmds" aka mustard gas ( ) cuz that's just pathetic. Or the fact that bush LIED about the documents that talked about their existance. How do i know he lied? Blair, who gave him those documents, later admitted in front of British Parlament that they were made up. ohh nooes...


hey oh smart one -- ( who attacked you on sep 11th. ) That should be us or are you illegaly in the united states -- ( existance -- and Parlament )--are spelt EXISTENCE -- PARLIAMENT -- BTW -- and i am sure you would want me to point that out to you - cuz - u youngens r smart u said -- jz

[Tsar]

who attacked you on sep 11th. I wont even talk about "wmds" aka mustard gas ( ) cuz that's just pathetic. Or the fact that bush LIED about the documents that talked about their existance. How do i know he lied? Blair, who gave him those documents, later admitted in front of British Parlament that they were made up. ohh nooes...


hey oh smart one -- ( who attacked you on sep 11th. ) That should be us or are you illegaly in the united states -- ( existance -- and Parlament )--are spelt EXISTENCE -- PARLIAMENT -- BTW -- and i am sure you would want me to point that out to you - cuz - u youngens r smart u said -- jz
do you want to turn this thread into a spelling bee contest? because i can pick apart everypost you made and find more mistakes in one of your senteces then in my whole paragraph. But hey, at least you were able to understand what i was typing, unlike you gibberish. As far as "us" and "you" go, I have a dual citizenship. I'm a citizen of the United States of America and Russian Federation. Therefor i'm allowed to interchange as many times as i please. thanks for playing, you lose again. Better luck next time.

[WayFast84]

tsar cmon, spelling bee contest? its spelling bee

[johnjzjz]

I'm a citizen of the United States of America and Russian Federation.

CANT BE BOTH DUDE - LIKE A GUY WITH BOOBS - YOU ARE OR YOUR ONE OF THEM -- HOPE THAT ENGRESS IS SIMPLE ENOUGH 4 U -- JZ

[WayFast84]

this reminds me of lethal weapon "diplomatic emunity" bang "its just been revoked"

[Tsar]

I'm a citizen of the United States of America and Russian Federation.

CANT BE BOTH DUDE
dude you have no idea what you're talking about. :rofl:

[BigAls87Z28]

You can have dual-citizenship.

This could go forever, point being that we invaded a soverign nation who had no direct ties to funding anything with the events of 9-11, removed the goverment from power, turned it into a police state, and we kind of expected everyone to be happy, form a new goverment, and we could leave, bing bang boom.
We stepped in a big pile of ****, and now we have to clean up the mess we made. Dems arent going to just yank the army out of Iraq. They cant give it a deadline becaue then the bad guys will wait till we leave to ransack the damn place. We will be there forever, in some form. Untill there is a goverment that is strong enough to keep the peace, US troops will be stationed in Iraq for the better part of the next decade.

[johnjzjz]

WHAT IS IT AGAIN CARTMAN SAYES ---- DUDE THATS WEAK ---

[JL8Jeff]

Saddam attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There were terrorist training camps found in northern Iraq with chemical and bio weapons found. This guy was another Hitler. Do you really think we should have just sat around and done nothing? If we did sit around and he killed thousands more then other countries would be complaining that we didn't do anything. It's a no win situation. The UN is a bunch of wussies who don't want to offend anyone so we had to go it alone. But it wasn't just Bush, Congress and the Senate voted that we should go in. Both democrats and republicans voted that we should go in. But all of the sudden the dems turn around and say it was a bad idea so they could get a majority elected. Whatever, it will backfire. I just hope they don't try to remove the troops before the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own.

[BigAls87Z28]

Whats weak? That he can have dual-citizenship or that we will be there forever?
Dems wont impeach Bush because they dont want to look like bullies and use there newly gained power to upset the people. They will do what must be done to get changes made, and set the stage for the Presidential election in 08. IMO, if Bush wanted to save Congress, he should have kicked Rumsfeld out LONG ago.

[johnjzjz]

Saddam attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There were terrorist training camps found in northern Iraq with chemical and bio weapons found. This guy was another Hitler. Do you really think we should have just sat around and done nothing? If we did sit around and he killed thousands more then other countries would be complaining that we didn't do anything. It's a no win situation. The UN is a bunch of wussies who don't want to offend anyone so we had to go it alone. But it wasn't just Bush, Congress and the Senate voted that we should go in. Both democrats and republicans voted that we should go in. But all of the sudden the dems turn around and say it was a bad idea so they could get a majority elected. Whatever, it will backfire. I just hope they don't try to remove the troops before the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own.

ITS HOPELESS TO TRY TO REASON WITH PEOPLE WHO ONLY WATCH THE DRIVE BUY LEFT TV - THEY GET OFF ON MAKING BELIEVE THEY DONT UNDERSTAND -- THEY HAVE NO ANSWERS JUST RHETORIC, CLICHES, AND SOUND BITES -- THEY THINK IS THE TRUTH -- JZ

[johnjzjz]

Whats weak? That he can have dual-citizenship or that we will be there forever?
Dems wont impeach Bush because they dont want to look like bullies and use there newly gained power to upset the people. They will do what must be done to get changes made, and set the stage for the Presidential election in 08. IMO, if Bush wanted to save Congress, he should have kicked Rumsfeld out LONG ago.

LETS HOPE WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE USA -- NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR ANYONE PARTY -- I AM AN INDEPENDANT WHO WOULD LIKE TO THINK I WILL BE VOTING FOR THE BEST ONE FOR THE JOB BOTH SIDES SUCK AT MODS DONT YOU THINK -- JZ

[BigAls87Z28]

Saddam attacked his own people with chemical weapons. There were terrorist training camps found in northern Iraq with chemical and bio weapons found. This guy was another Hitler. Do you really think we should have just sat around and done nothing? If we did sit around and he killed thousands more then other countries would be complaining that we didn't do anything. It's a no win situation. The UN is a bunch of wussies who don't want to offend anyone so we had to go it alone. But it wasn't just Bush, Congress and the Senate voted that we should go in. Both democrats and republicans voted that we should go in. But all of the sudden the dems turn around and say it was a bad idea so they could get a majority elected. Whatever, it will backfire. I just hope they don't try to remove the troops before the Iraqi people are ready to stand on their own.

If you are so worried about Hitler-esque cleansing, take a gander at Africa. There are SEVERAL nations killing millions of people a year. Not like 1 or 2, like 10-11 million people. But hey...why go there?
Republicans keep coming up with distractions.

We went into Iraq to (fill in the blank)

1- Saddam had WMD
So does N.Korea, and they are testing them and threating to use them.
2- Saddam is killing his own people
Several countries in Africa are doing the same, by the millions
3- Saddam backs terror
So does Saudi Arabia, Parts of Africa, Syria, Palastine, Lebanon....

Keep coming up with reasons that we went in, and I could find you a better way of doing things. We all went in on it because we were all duped. We were behind our hurt nation, behind our "great" president, telling the world that he mus tbe stopped. We belived in him. As Lewis Black said in his new show, "We gave him a lot of rope, and he hung all of us with it."

I would like one solid reason, outside the ones listed above, why we picked Iraq to remove from power, when we all know there are far worse enemies.

[johnjzjz]

I would like one solid reason, outside the ones listed above, why we picked Iraq to remove from power, when we all know there are far worse enemies.[/QUOTE]

IT WAS THE SAME REASON THEY USED VIETNAM TO START A WAR WITH -- IT APPEARED TO BE AN EASY TARGET KNOWING FULL WELL OTHER TARGETS WERE MORE DIFFICULT - BUT THE IDEA IS VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND -- WE THE USA WERE LOOKING FOR A FRIEND IN THE IRAKY PEOPLE -- A STRONGHOLD TO LAUNCH OPERATIONS ONCE THAT COUNTRY WAS STABILIZED ------------------------- BUT THAT IS SO FAR OUT THEIR NO ONE ON THE LEFT GETS IT -------- AND BUSH LIED HE WAS TOLD BUY THE US SECRET SERVICE THEIR WERE WMDs -------- AND HE KNEW HE WAS LIEING BUT HE DID BECAUSE THE VICE PRES THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA ------------- AND ENGLAND THE USAs WORST FRIEND ======== TOLD HIM IN A WHITE HOUSE BATHROOM ABOUT THE WMDs ----- SO IT HAD TO BE A LIE SO BUSH LIED ----------AND DRUG US INTO A WAR WE CANT WIN SO THE DEM'S COULD WIN THIS ELECTION I EVEN GET IT NOW --------- JZ

[johnjzjz]

To realize
The value of a sister
Ask someone
Who doesn't have one.



To realize
The value of ten years:
Ask a newly
Divorced couple.




To realize
The value of four years:
Ask a graduate.




To realize
The value of one year:
Ask a student who
Has failed a final exam.




To realize
The value of nine months:
Ask a mother who gave birth to a stillborn.




To realize
The value of one month:
Ask a mother
who has given birth to
A premature baby.




To realize
The value of one week:
Ask an editor of a weekly newspaper.

To realize
The value of one minute:
Ask a person
Who has missed the train, bus or plane.




To realize
The value of one-second:
Ask a person
Who has survived an accident.



To realize that President Bush might have thought what he was doing was for the good of the country ( nah he lied ) -jz

[NJSPEEDER]

If you are so worried about Hitler-esque cleansing, take a gander at Africa. There are SEVERAL nations killing millions of people a year. Not like 1 or 2, like 10-11 million people. But hey...why go there?
Republicans keep coming up with distractions.



my question to you is simple al, would you rather have the us military walking around protecting people in africa or eliminating the people that are a direct threat to you and me?
the us has sent military forces to africa before, they got kicked out by the local government. although i am sure hte sentiment has changed a bit since that happened in the late 80's, it can't be easy to jsut show up and offer to play cop for a puppet government and some well armed loonies.
i don't see any problem with who the US has gone after, however i do certainly question some of the methods and timing. of course, it is easy to question the situation when we are only offered whatever version of the "truth" is offered from the governments spin and then filtered through teh spin of thepopular press.

[Tsar]

my question to you is simple al, would you rather have the us military walking around protecting people in africa or eliminating the people that are a direct threat to you and me?


How was SADDAM HUSSEIN and his armies were going to attack you? :scratch:

any one still failed to respond about North Korea, they have nukes (actual WMDs), they've killed MILLIONS of their own people, they keep threating USA, they kicked out UN inspectors. All of the things Saddam has done, only worse. But there's still no action :shrug:

[Ian]

my question to you is simple al, would you rather have the us military walking around protecting people in africa or eliminating the people that are a direct threat to you and me?
the us has sent military forces to africa before, they got kicked out by the local government. although i am sure hte sentiment has changed a bit since that happened in the late 80's, it can't be easy to jsut show up and offer to play cop for a puppet government and some well armed loonies.
i don't see any problem with who the US has gone after, however i do certainly question some of the methods and timing. of course, it is easy to question the situation when we are only offered whatever version of the "truth" is offered from the governments spin and then filtered through teh spin of thepopular press.

the US military got booted from a terribly poor third world part of the planet and yet we managed to over take all of Iraq while going against the UN....I dont know, that just doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.

and why protect the tens of millions of people getting killed in africa? well you said it yourself. We're the worlds last standing super power and we have to go out and protect the world from itself.

We also need to spread democracy to every corner of the globe because whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Nevermind the slight resistance that we've been encountering the entire time we've been in the middle east, they'll thank us later after we break down their society and give them a society that we see for for them to live in. If our way of live works for us, the most powerful nation in the world, it will surely work in the middle of the desert.

I am not opposed to fighting terror. I do think that we should go out and kick some ass after being attacked. but the whole situation with the war in Iraq stinks to high hell!

try thinking about it this way...
Suppose for a minute that America wasn't the greatest super power in the world. lets say for now that we were somewhere around 5th. I'll just make up a country like panama to be number one (very hypothetical). well, say a small group of people from our country went out and attacked panama. every single other person in america didnt know that was gonna happen, save for a few politicians. but on crap! panama is pissed! the rest of the world knows that invading america and over throwing their government just because a select few officials granted the american terrorists a little freedom is not the right thing to do. the people of panama are outraged and want something done about this and rightfully so. so panama talks it over with the rest of the world and says they want to invade america and declare war on them. the rest of the world knows that all of america wasnt responsible, so they tell panama to cool their jets, come up with a plan and go after the organization that actually commited the acts. panama says F that, we're taking america over...and they do.

now think about how you would feel about all this. the greatest power in the world has just invaded your country, overthrown your government and hunted and captured your president. Now the people of america are starting to get pissed. how could panama be so irrational as to punish an entire nation for the acts of a select few? so the americans do what the feel is right...they fight back. I know I sure as hell wouldn't want soldiers walking around my town telling me what to do and pointing guns in my face. and panama is trying to setup a governemt that you dont want. great. we went from being content to being completely miserable because panama had a chip on its shoulder and instead of going after the real criminals, they changed every aspect of our american lives.

the end.





I wish to god that we had never tried to force our governmental systems upon the people of Iraq. I wish we spent more time getting useful intel (not torturing someone at gitmo until they lie just to make you stop). if the terrorists we were after crossed the border into afghanistan, why didnt we follow them there? we already invaded one counrty without a TRUE reason, why not another? America has the balls to completely change an entire country, but we cant track down a few terrorists. we send all those troops over there, but we negelct to send them with body armor. thousands of young americans killed and billions of dollars spent... what do we have to show for it?

[Tsar]

to add an evil spin to Ians post about Panama:
Hypothetical of course...

Who here thinks it would be OK for the world to bomb USA into an oblivion for mass murder of Indians?

Or that doesn't count, because USA is the almighty god of the world? :scratch:

[V]

wow, this thread has a lot of words, probably more already here then in the entire buddy list thread...lol

[JL8Jeff]

Let's try this again. Saddam was trying to get/build nuclear weapons. That makes him a threat to everyone in the world. Africa is not looking for nuclear weapons so they are not near the top of the list. Iraq is a smaller country with an ineffective military so they were the first target. Iran and North Korea are too big with too many people/military to just march in and do anything. Pakistan and India are way too big to try and do anything about them having nuclear weapons but they appear to have them just to keep each other in check. The rest of the world will put enough pressure on North Korea because they are a big threat to China and Japan so we don't need to go into North Korea. Iran will be the biggest problem, but since we now have a foothold in Iraq it gives us a much better ability to keep them in check as we rally the rest of the UN to try and deal with them. The idea is to try and let democracy grab a foothold in Iraq and hope some of the other middle east countries want the same thing. I seriously doubt that will happen in our lifetime but you have to start somewhere. The one thing you don't see on tv is how grateful the Iraqi people are that we came in and ousted Saddam. The media just spins the violence which is all they do for our own news as well.

[Tsar]

Let's try this again. Saddam was trying to get/build nuclear weapons. That makes him a threat to everyone in the world. Africa is not looking for nuclear weapons so they are not near the top of the list. Iraq is a smaller country with an ineffective military so they were the first target. Iran and North Korea are too big with too many people/military to just march in and do anything. Pakistan and India are way too big to try and do anything about them having nuclear weapons but they appear to have them just to keep each other in check. The rest of the world will put enough pressure on North Korea because they are a big threat to China and Japan so we don't need to go into North Korea. Iran will be the biggest problem, but since we now have a foothold in Iraq it gives us a much better ability to keep them in check as we rally the rest of the UN to try and deal with them. The idea is to try and let democracy grab a foothold in Iraq and hope some of the other middle east countries want the same thing. I seriously doubt that will happen in our lifetime but you have to start somewhere. The one thing you don't see on tv is how grateful the Iraqi people are that we came in and ousted Saddam. The media just spins the violence which is all they do for our own news as well.
So you're saying you attacked Iraq because they were the easiest target. and the rest is too much for you. great :rofl:

and of course Saudis have to much oil to **** with :lol:

[Ian]

I view north korea as a bigger threat than Iraq was before we invaded. hmm, hostile country that actually has nukes or a weaker country who doesn't have nukes...

[Tsar]

I view north korea as a bigger threat than Iraq was before we invaded. hmm, hostile country that actually has nukes or a weaker country who doesn't have nukes...
:werd: plus iraq has been crippled by years of sanctions imposed on them. their military was from 80s soviet era..

[Savage_Messiah]

If I have no idea about war or why we get involved, then why don't you tell me about it.

You still haven't answered.

First off ---HAHHAHHAH....actually George Washington's fairwell address was #1 Potomac view terrace, Mount Vernon,Va.--- but than again that is the same way you have chosen to argue -- pick out while standing on the sidewalk what you see is an un truth and soap box it -- my take on your rant is ( you cant see the forest for the trees ) --- I carried WITH ME IN VIETNAM a cig lighter with the inscription --- ( FREEDOM HAS A TASTE THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW ) IT IS AS TRUE TODAY AS IT WAS IN 1968 / 69 -- JUST DIFFERENT YOUNG PEOPLE SAME MIND SET ( CLOSED TO ANY ONE ELSES OPINION ) -- JZ

What does the location of the speech have to do with what I said? I quoted him to illustrate the negative impact of having parties, ESPECIALLY a two party system, how does "but than again that is the same way you have chosen to argue -- pick out while standing on the sidewalk what you see is an un truth and soap box it -- my take on your rant is ( you cant see the forest for the trees " have ANYTHING to do with that?

Funny how my father was in Vietnam as well, fully agrees with me politically and is even more vehement about the matters than I am.

who attacked you on sep 11th. I wont even talk about "wmds" aka mustard gas ( ) cuz that's just pathetic. Or the fact that bush LIED about the documents that talked about their existance. How do i know he lied? Blair, who gave him those documents, later admitted in front of British Parlament that they were made up. ohh nooes...


hey oh smart one -- ( who attacked you on sep 11th. ) That should be us or are you illegaly in the united states -- ( existance -- and Parlament )--are spelt EXISTENCE -- PARLIAMENT -- BTW -- and i am sure you would want me to point that out to you - cuz - u youngens r smart u said -- jz

Way to avoid a question yet again, please answer it.

I'm a citizen of the United States of America and Russian Federation.

CANT BE BOTH DUDE - LIKE A GUY WITH BOOBS - YOU ARE OR YOUR ONE OF THEM -- HOPE THAT ENGRESS IS SIMPLE ENOUGH 4 U -- JZ

Once again reinforcing my statement about your blatantly ignorant statements.

LETS HOPE WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT IS THE BEST FOR THE USA -- NOT WHAT IS GOOD FOR ANYONE PARTY -- I AM AN INDEPENDANT WHO WOULD LIKE TO THINK I WILL BE VOTING FOR THE BEST ONE FOR THE JOB BOTH SIDES SUCK AT MODS DONT YOU THINK -- JZ

I fully agree up to the part where you say you're an independant, that certainly made me laugh.

I would like one solid reason, outside the ones listed above, why we picked Iraq to remove from power, when we all know there are far worse enemies.

IT WAS THE SAME REASON THEY USED VIETNAM TO START A WAR WITH -- IT APPEARED TO BE AN EASY TARGET KNOWING FULL WELL OTHER TARGETS WERE MORE DIFFICULT - BUT THE IDEA IS VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND -- WE THE USA WERE LOOKING FOR A FRIEND IN THE IRAKY PEOPLE -- A STRONGHOLD TO LAUNCH OPERATIONS ONCE THAT COUNTRY WAS STABILIZED ------------------------- BUT THAT IS SO FAR OUT THEIR NO ONE ON THE LEFT GETS IT

Actually it has become the same reason... "We have to spread democracy because democracy is the best thing to ever happen to mankind! Oh wait, the natives don't like that we're here in arms to change their way of life? Oh they are kicking our asses? Oh, I guess is was stupid to come here at all, looks like they don't want our help!"

Some stronghold we have there.


The idea is to try and let democracy grab a foothold in Iraq and hope some of the other middle east countries want the same thing. I seriously doubt that will happen in our lifetime but you have to start somewhere.

Why can nobody understand that, while Democracy thrives here and works for us, that it can not work everywhere?? The Iraq situation has shown us that they simply cannot control themselves and are not ready for any form of democracy, and the same goes for most of the middle east.


I've realized that nobody has brought us the similarities of the two attacks on U.S. soil that have happened. Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbor, and used the attack as a reason to launch us into WWII. Our government had intelligence that said the 9/11 attack would happen, and that was used as a launching point to go off to war in the middle east. The difference being that WWII was a war that we NEEDED to get involved with right then due to the imminent threat of the Axis powers, where as (ignoring Afghanistan, where our soldiers are still being killed although nobody seems to think about that) Saddam Hussein was, honestly, no threat to us at all.

Bush wanted this war long before he was in office. Only it's not working out the way he thought it would... read (http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News%20Network%20-%20Bush.htm). And if you're going to say to say oh that's ********, blah blah blah.... then please accompany that with proof that it is.

[Savage_Messiah]

OK this is weird, I know I have brought up the question of who killed more Iraqi citizens on average, Saddam or the USA... I can't find where I said that now, but I know I did. Tsar found a nice little article about the deaths of the civilians whose lives we are supposedly there to protect...

http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News%20Network%20-%20Bush.htm

Iraqi Official: 150,000 Civilians Dead
By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war - about three times previously accepted estimates.
Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.
After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.
Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports. No official count has ever been available.
Health Minister Ali al-Shemari gave his new estimate of 150,000 to reporters during a visit to Vienna, Austria. He later told The Associated Press that he based the figure on an estimate of 100 bodies per day brought to morgues and hospitals - though such a calculation would come out closer to 130,000 in total.
"It is an estimate," al-Shemari said. He blamed Sunni insurgents, Wahhabis - Sunni religious extremists - and criminal gangs for the deaths.
Hassan Salem, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, said the 150,000 figure included civilians, police and the bodies of people who were abducted, later found dead and collected at morgues run by the Health Ministry. SCIRI is Iraq's largest Shiite political organization and holds the largest number of seats in parliament.
In October, the British medical journal The Lancet published a controversial study contending nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war - a far higher death toll than other estimates. The study, which was dismissed by President Bush and other U.S. officials as not credible, was based on interviews of households and not a body count.
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/icons/spacer.gif Al-Shemari disputed that figure Thursday.
"Since three and a half years, since the change of the Saddam regime, some people say we have 600,000 are killed. This is an exaggerated number. I think 150 is OK," he said.
Accurate figures on the number of people who have died in the Iraq conflict have long been the subject of debate. Police and hospitals often give widely conflicting figures of those killed in major bombings. In addition, death figures are reported through multiple channels by government agencies that function with varying efficiency.
As al-Shemari issued the startling new estimate, the head of the Baghdad central morgue said Thursday he was receiving as many as 60 violent death victims each day at his facility alone. Dr. Abdul-Razzaq al-Obaidi said those deaths did not include victims of violence whose bodies were taken to the city's many hospital morgues or those who were removed from attack scenes by relatives and quickly buried according to Muslim custom.
Al-Obaidi said the morgue had received 1,600 violent death victims in October, one of the bloodiest months of the conflict. U.S. forces suffered 105 deaths last month, the fourth highest monthly toll.
At least 45 Iraqis were killed or found dead in continuing sectarian violence Thursday, with 16 of the victims killed in bombings at Baghdad markets. For the fifth straight day, insurgent and militia mortar teams traded fire in the capital's northern neighborhoods.
Al-Shemari, while not explaining the death toll estimate, was more precise about the government's increasingly public and insistent demands for a speedier U.S. transfer of authority to Iraqi forces and the withdrawal of American troops to their bases and from Iraq's cities and towns.
"The army of America didn't do its job. ... They tie the hands of my government," said al-Shemari, a Shiite.
"They should hand us the power. We are a sovereign country," he said, adding that the first step would be for American forces to leave population centers.
Al-Shemari is a controversial figure and a member of the movement of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Some U.S. officials have complained that the ministry has diverted supplies to al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia.
In August, U.S. troops arrested seven of al-Shemari's personal guards in a raid on his office. The U.S. never explained the raid, but Iraqi officials said Americans suspected the guards were part of a militia.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who also has close ties to al-Sadr, told Bush in a video conference last month that he would make renewal of the U.N. mandate under which the U.S. keeps forces in Iraq conditional on a rapid handover of power.
Al-Maliki also said at the time that U.S. forces should clear out of Iraq's cities, according to top aide Hassan al-Suneid. He said the White House agreed, although that was never confirmed in Washington.
Last week, al-Maliki rejected a demand by a visiting top administration official that he move to disband Shiite militias by year's end. A senior al-Maliki adviser, who refused to be identified by name because of the sensitive nature of the talks, said the prime minister told U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte it would be suicidal for the Iraqi leader to move against the heavily armed militias.
The militias are a key player in the sectarian conflict in Iraq, having taken to the streets with extreme vengeance against Sunni insurgents and civilians after the February bombing of a Shiite shrine north of Baghdad.
The militias and their death squads are the armed wings of rival Shiite political parties. One of the militias, known as the Mahdi Army, is loyal to al-Sadr; the second, larger group is known as the Badr Brigade and answers to the SCIRI.
Al-Maliki's hold on power depends on the support of both political organizations and their fighters, hence his reluctance to move against the armed groups.
He also has balked at U.S. demands for passage of a series of laws that would favor minority Sunnis, a group that makes up the bulk of the insurgency that has been fighting U.S. forces and has killed tens of thousands of Shiites.
Sunni members of parliament over the past two days have threatened to walk out of the legislature and take up arms. They charge the Shiite-dominated government with refusing to meet their demands for a fair division of power and natural resources.
The dean of the Sunni politicians in parliament said Thursday there were attempts by Iran to run Sunnis out of the country. Adnan al-Dulaimi then called Arab countries to support Iraq's Sunni minority.
"There is a Safawi (Iranian) plan to root the Sunnis out of this country, and we are confronting it," al-Dulaimi said. "We call on our Arab brethren to support us and confront this Safawi plan."
His political group has five ministers in al-Maliki's Cabinet and al-Dulaimi again threatened to pull them out of the government.




So do you people see yet that democracy is not the answer for these people? They are too divided by centuries-old conflict to unite with one another... Saddam Hussein, as evil as he may be, kept the two sides from violent civil war, which broke out just about as soon as he was gone, and which we have seen in the past 40 something months we cannot stop. Vietnam all over again. We are getting involved in a situation much older than our country, and our presence there does nothing but make matters worse. There cannot be peace between the Iraqi sunnis and shiites, there's less hope there than there is for isreal/palestine peace. No matter how long we stay, we cannot coerce them to peace, and we sure as hell cannot leave any lasting form of democracy in their hands.

[NJSPEEDER]

I view north korea as a bigger threat than Iraq was before we invaded. hmm, hostile country that actually has nukes or a weaker country who doesn't have nukes...

let's see, a coutry with few to no loonies walking around in america and ONE successful ground test of a nuclear weapon(all reported flight tests have been failures in some way or another) vs. people walking around with bombs and elaborate plans to attack. gee, i wonder who is the bigger threat here :roll:

[NJSPEEDER]

to add an evil spin to Ians post about Panama:
Hypothetical of course...

Who here thinks it would be OK for the world to bomb USA into an oblivion for mass murder of Indians?

Or that doesn't count, because USA is the almighty god of the world? :scratch:


you have a nice way of blowing things out of proportion when you hope to make a point. i say hope because it is obvious your grasp of US and world history is clearly very weak.
the idealogy of the world, as far as exploration and expansion of nations, accepted the idea of overpowering and enslaving native cultures 200+ years ago. it was jsut an unfortunate part of culture back then.
you may have noticed that the world has changed a bit in the time since then. try to keep up with modern events and look beyond the pop culture spin of how bad everyone is and that the world would be a wonderful place if we all loved each other and hugged a bunny.
fact is people hate the US jsut because of who we are and what we have. they hate you and me and the fidget jsut teh same for the sole reason of where we live. these are the people the war was started and continues to be fought against.
everyone can bring up a leader or a nation here and there to use as an example, but there is still a prevailing failure to look at the global implications of what the US is doing, protecting itself. unless something has dramatically changed while i was aay last week, every human and every nation has the right to protect itself.

[NJSPEEDER]

"It is an estimate," al-Shemari said.

from reading the article it really sounds more like he guessed.

as far as one faction or another threatening to pull out of the government, i woudl take that with a grain of salt. the factions invovled all know that their best interests will remain in being invovled in the governmental process.
that article also seems to point towards some attempt by teh US to create equality among the factions

He also has balked at U.S. demands for passage of a series of laws that would favor minority Sunnis, a group that makes up the bulk of the insurgency that has been fighting U.S. forces

you can drop out all the who killed who crap that is attached to each side, these people have been at war with each other for 400 years, i am sure both sides have killed enough of the other to make a glorious sounding number by now.

[Ian]

let's see, a coutry with few to no loonies walking around in america and ONE successful ground test of a nuclear weapon(all reported flight tests have been failures in some way or another) vs. people walking around with bombs and elaborate plans to attack. gee, i wonder who is the bigger threat here :roll:

small groups of terrorists do NOT account for the views or actions of the entire country of Iraq! and saying that the Iraqis hate us and thats why we invaded them is a load of crap. just because someone doesnt like us doesnt give us the right to overpower them and force our views upon them. thats roman empire/nazi germany stuff right there.

[Savage_Messiah]

small groups of terrorists do NOT account for the views or actions of the entire country of Iraq! and saying that the Iraqis hate us and thats why we invaded them is a load of crap. just because someone doesnt like us doesnt give us the right to overpower them and force our views upon them. thats roman empire/nazi german stuff right there.

:werd:

[NJSPEEDER]

small groups of terrorists do NOT account for the views or actions of the entire country of Iraq! and saying that the Iraqis hate us and thats why we invaded them is a load of crap. just because someone doesnt like us doesnt give us the right to overpower them and force our views upon them. thats roman empire/nazi german stuff right there.

wow, you completely missed what i was saying. we went into iraq because of the governments open support of al quida. this was all happily reported by the press when the war started, but i guess that information has gotten lost since the war has lower ratings now.
what i was saying is that there are people who don't liek us all over the world. some of these people will get organized and work to attack the US on our own soil. these are the people teh military is after.
it isn't about a particular government or even an individual leader, it is about those who have the potential to threaten us on our own soil.

[Tsar]

you have a nice way of blowing things out of proportion when you hope to make a point. i say hope because it is obvious your grasp of US and world history is clearly very weak.
the idealogy of the world, as far as exploration and expansion of nations, accepted the idea of overpowering and enslaving native cultures 200+ years ago. it was jsut an unfortunate part of culture back then.
you may have noticed that the world has changed a bit in the time since then. try to keep up with modern events and look beyond the pop culture spin of how bad everyone is and that the world would be a wonderful place if we all loved each other and hugged a bunny.
fact is people hate the US jsut because of who we are and what we have. they hate you and me and the fidget jsut teh same for the sole reason of where we live. these are the people the war was started and continues to be fought against.
everyone can bring up a leader or a nation here and there to use as an example, but there is still a prevailing failure to look at the global implications of what the US is doing, protecting itself. unless something has dramatically changed while i was aay last week, every human and every nation has the right to protect itself.
ok so you're saying its ok for USA to kill and enslave. now and 200 years ago. i guess it was ok to help overthrow Columbian government to build a Panama canal, or bomb the **** out of Yogoslavia and use depleted uranium to do so (which also happens to be illegal), but thats alright too because you can do no wrong. Basically, in your eyes, USA can do no wrong. i get it. all your arguments are pretty weak, and actually i know my history pretty well unlike you.

Dude, north Korea doesn't have a technology to deliver a nuke to US soil argument is WEAK, you just shot yourself in the foot. N.KOREA has more **** then IRAQ ever did yet you don't consider them a threat cuz they cant bomb your ass? Not like Iraq ever could. and exactly how many suicide bombers were in Iraq BEFORE US got there? yea thats right, there's WAY more of them now because they want your troops to get the **** out of THEIR country which you invaded based on LIE that your president has told you!


Most of the world hates you for your arrogance, ignorance and assholeness towards other people. have you ever seen any US tourists and how they act? have you been outside the country? probably not.
Of course there're a FEW that hate you just because you were born here, but thats only a FEW.

[Ian]

Iraq did let terrorists in and out of their counrty, yes. But so did other countries. why havent we gone after the other countries since they aided terrorists too? lets invade pakistan and try to make them a democratic society. lets invade iran and force a new government upon them too. hell, even afghanistan will have to be converted to our super awesome, one size fits all democracy! but are we gonna do anything about north korea? no, jeff said the rest of the world would take care of them even though tim said we're the worlds police :scratch:

if you want to hunt terrorists, good, I'm all for it. but the way our administration has gone about it is costly and ineffective at best.

[johnjzjz]

Savage_Messiah --- TELL YOUR DAD FOR ME -- ( WELCOME HOME BROTHER ) -- HE WELL KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS -- I WAS IN COUNTRY FROM OCT 23 - 68 -- MY SECOND TOUR WAS CUT SHORT - TILL NOV 17 69 - C - MODEL HUEY GUN SHIP - WITH THE - 101st AIRBORNE - IN ( I CORP )

[NJSPEEDER]

tsar, north korea has very limited ability to hit a target witrh a warhead. yes, they do have better war heads, but the payload delivery is an issue they still have to contend with. without an effective payload system, they are still only an immediate threat to the nations they live next to that have less nuclear technology. we also live with teh grand advantage of them not being dumb enough to **** with us, cause they don't have teh fire power in teh arsenal to level us, but we can turn them to dirt several times over.

you also don't seem to have any grasp of the concept of time. comparing modern times to how governments acted 200 years ago is idiotic. would you also like to briong up the world wide slave trade and the fact that every other european nation that tried to expand throughout the "new world" leveled tribes too? cause then we coudl jsut past over england, france, spain, italy, portugal, sweden, and russia for the people they killed/enslaved/displaced too.

i wonder if my lack of world travel means i have never heard of the reputation of american toursits? umm, yeah, i pickeed up on that one. shoudl we also talk about the tourists i ahve dealt with and the people from other countries i see all teh time and the way they act? cause there are a lot of ******** from a lot of different parts of the world that we could have discussions about.

[NJSPEEDER]

if you want to hunt terrorists, good, I'm all for it. but the way our administration has gone about it is costly and ineffective at best.

this is a statement that i completely agree with. the need and desire to live in a safe and powerful nation calls for our military to be proactive in seeking out the extremists before they come to us.
it woudl be difficult on the best day to say there is an easy way to eliminate or at least limit the actions of some of these groups. the diplomatic policies of George teh first, willy clinton, and GW have all been weak in dealing with the supply lines of arms and finances from right here at home to those who woudl seek to destroy us.
the biggest problem i see in trying to deal with terrorism without a strong military force is that these people have such little regard for human life. you can really see the difference between a belief and crazy when some retard walks into a crowded shopping area and detonates the bomb he is wearing, killing himself and all around without regard for who does or doesn't agree with their point of view.

[NJSPEEDER]

there is one thing that i am surprised has not come up in this whole debate, the habit of the US to try to impose our form of government on other nations.
from some quick research i have come up with 21 instances of america trying to hand stack a representative democracy in other countries. so far this ongoing adventure has only lead to one successful government that stood for more than 20 years, our own. lol
you wold think after glorious failures like cuba and bosnia our government would be smart enough to jsut sit back and help as a police force in these troubled areas and help those who will be governed sort it out instead of telling them how they are going to sort it out.
some of the countries that we went into did eventually turn to some form of democracy, but it was something they came to in their own time. it is arrogant of this administration, just like all the ones that tried before, to think that we have the only governmental solution that is valid in the world. especially when we are dealing with areas of the world that have had ongoing clan/tribal/ethnic wars for longer than our country has existed.

[enRo]

This is why i flunked history class in high school :rofl:

My opinion... yank troops out of Iraq... let Iraq carbomb itself into oblivion instead of our soldiers... wait a cpl years until the population is cut in half, THEN air it on TV. Simple solution. On a serious note... I really dont see Iraq as a threat anymore without Saddam in power, which is why we shouldve withdrawn our troops the second we cought him. Let them pick out their government on their own... they had to when middle easterners made Iraq into a civilization in the first place, am i correct? Why arent we invading Cuba? They might not have WMD and the cigar prices might jump a bit, but hey, Fidel is a dictator too, right?

BTW, Politics suck.

[Tsar]

tsar, north korea has very limited ability to hit a target witrh a warhead. yes, they do have better war heads, but the payload delivery is an issue they still have to contend with. without an effective payload system, they are still only an immediate threat to the nations they live next to that have less nuclear technology. we also live with teh grand advantage of them not being dumb enough to **** with us, cause they don't have teh fire power in teh arsenal to level us, but we can turn them to dirt several times over.

you also don't seem to have any grasp of the concept of time. comparing modern times to how governments acted 200 years ago is idiotic. would you also like to briong up the world wide slave trade and the fact that every other european nation that tried to expand throughout the "new world" leveled tribes too? cause then we coudl jsut past over england, france, spain, italy, portugal, sweden, and russia for the people they killed/enslaved/displaced too.

i wonder if my lack of world travel means i have never heard of the reputation of american toursits? umm, yeah, i pickeed up on that one. shoudl we also talk about the tourists i ahve dealt with and the people from other countries i see all teh time and the way they act? cause there are a lot of ******** from a lot of different parts of the world that we could have discussions about.

My problem with north Korea is that, they actually have WMDs but Iraq did NOT. yet you still attacked it.

Ok, lets dismiss the old stuff for a second, what about use of Depleted Uranium (DU) in Yugoslavian and first Gulf war? that ive mentioned earlier? or is that going back too far for you too? even I STILL remember those wars, and i was a kid so it wasnt that long ago.
Maybe you need a little refresher course on what depleted uranium does?

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'.
are you above the law too?

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict. The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling. A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.

The Pentagon has admitted that *320 metric tons* of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war. In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert.
is that contemporary enough, or is that outdated too?
*I'm willing to convert tons into pounds for any retard that doesn't know metric system.


Your lack of travel around the world shows your lack of first hand knowledge about other peoples culture, and how they operate and think. Its actually pretty simple and self explanatory and i would compare that argument to taking sex advice from a virgin.

[NJSPEEDER]

my lack of world travel only shows that i am not rich and that i haven't come across the opportunity to travel. it has nothing to do with my ability to read about and comprehend what is going on in the world. using it as a basis for being an expert on the world woudl go further to show that you are narrow minded and don't believe that anyone can thik for themselves.

i certainly do remember the gulf war. i can tell you for a fact that when it started i was at a shooting range in flemington(Hunterdon Rifle and Pistol Club, Junior Club Weekly Meet). it was a normal night and i was 15 years old, at least it was normal until i mom came to pick me up and told my brother and i that we were at war. with a cousin on the ground and older friends enlisted, it was hardly a comfortable feeling and definately not one i will ever forget.

also, all of the elements of WMD's were found in Iraq by the UN inspection teams in Iraq. they found things even after Iraq went through every possible tactic to stall and delay inspections too. do you think they were workin on baking a cake and jsut happened to stumble across this stuff? maybe, or maybe they were trying to assemble a nuclear warhead and delivery system.

i do not understand why you are pointing at me for this. am i above the law? no, never said that i was. i also was never in the military and never acted as a military adviser to a president. so it doesn't look like i am the one to hold accountable for that.

information about radioactive tipped weapons has been out since long before the first gulf war. some sources say that it is enough to kill millions, others say that the area that it is spread out over and the conditions under which it is used make it harmless. you can find information from either side of that argument if you care to look around a little.

i don't agree with the use of any nuclear based weapon personally. i know what it does in large part though, how it effects the enviroment, how it effects birth rates, how it effects mental and physical development in children, how it effects life expectancy, and what it can do to the human body. why would i know that? cause i went to college and had to write a paper on it for a chemistry class.

[jimmyboy8301]

Rumsfeld was hot when he was younger. I did a google image search of him!


dear lord

[Ian]

there is one thing that i am surprised has not come up in this whole debate, the habit of the US to try to impose our form of government on other nations.
from some quick research i have come up with 21 instances of america trying to hand stack a representative democracy in other countries. so far this ongoing adventure has only lead to one successful government that stood for more than 20 years, our own. lol
you wold think after glorious failures like cuba and bosnia our government would be smart enough to jsut sit back and help as a police force in these troubled areas and help those who will be governed sort it out instead of telling them how they are going to sort it out.
some of the countries that we went into did eventually turn to some form of democracy, but it was something they came to in their own time. it is arrogant of this administration, just like all the ones that tried before, to think that we have the only governmental solution that is valid in the world. especially when we are dealing with areas of the world that have had ongoing clan/tribal/ethnic wars for longer than our country has existed.


actually I did touch upon that subject and I agree with you that the US should stop trying to force our governing system upon other nations.

[johnjzjz]

actually I did touch upon that subject and I agree with you that the US should stop trying to force our governing system upon other nations.

that being the case what do you suggest the USA do when a rogue country confronts America --- all i have read from most is what we are doing is no good --- if you can point a finger knowing thats its wrong -- show me what would you do or what do you think we should do exactly not fluff and grandstanding -- jz

[NJSPEEDER]

show me what would you do or what do you think we should do exactly

what the US should do is what is actually written in the UN charter. that is to bring together leaders of the waring factions adn explain to them the systems of governement, methods of lands division, and methods of resource sharing that can help them.
the idea is to offer as much info as possible to the most influential leaders and then have them sitting down and start working on it. a panel of international representatives would be there to assist.
in the mean time the UN woudl assmble a "peace keping" force and help to lead the nation and it's people based on international human rights law until a formal government and legal system is adopted.

[NJSPEEDER]

actually I did touch upon that subject and I agree with you that the US should stop trying to force our governing system upon other nations.

reread, must have missed it the first time through

[johnjzjz]

what the US should do is what is actually written in the UN charter. that is to bring together leaders of the waring factions adn explain to them the systems of governement, methods of lands division, and methods of resource sharing that can help them.
the idea is to offer as much info as possible to the most influential leaders and then have them sitting down and start working on it. a panel of international representatives would be there to assist.
in the mean time the UN woudl assmble a "peace keping" force and help to lead the nation and it's people based on international human rights law until a formal government and legal system is adopted.

THEIR IS NOTHING IN WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN I DONT AGGREE WITH -- BUT I DO NOT THINK THE WARING MUZZYS WHO HATE EACH OTHER AND KILL EACH OTHER FOR ANY REASON -- WILL BE AFTER THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF WARS -- WILL SIT DOWN FOR PEACE TALKS -- THAT WONT BE HAPPENING ANY TIME SOON -- THE REASON THE FIRST GULF WAR WAS TO GET THEM TO TALK AND CHANGE -- JZ

[NJSPEEDER]

the basis of thefighting with in the middle east is not a religious. it is tribal, ethnic, and social.
eventually every group at war figures out that peace is the better idea and sits down. it jsut takes longer in less developed nations because they simply don't have the information or resources that would help them seek out alternatives.

[Ian]

that being the case what do you suggest the USA do when a rogue country confronts America --- all i have read from most is what we are doing is no good --- if you can point a finger knowing thats its wrong -- show me what would you do or what do you think we should do exactly not fluff and grandstanding -- jz

constructive intervention and mediation. those are the things the US should be doing. dont go to someone elses country and tell them their way of life is wrong based on the fact that its not what our country does. in a war torn part of the world, democracy stand little chance of surviving. let them handle their own situations.

the US didn't like the way the brittish were running things so we fought for what we believed in. the people in the middle east are doing the same. I'm sure some of the iraqis want us there, but there are others that want us out. its their counrty, not ours. they have a right to run their country the way they see fit. we have no right trying to overtake them and setup our form of government for them.

If we had invaded them because they were fighting with eachother uncontrolably, I might think differently about the situation. But we went there looking for WMD, didnt find any and decided to change every aspect of their world for our benefit. sounds very irrational to me.

[johnjzjz]

constructive intervention and mediation. those are the things the US should be doing. dont go to someone Else's country and tell them their way of life is wrong based on the fact that its not what our country does. in a war torn part of the world, democracy stand little chance of surviving. let them handle their own situations.

the US didn't like the way the brittish were running things so we fought for what we believed in. the people in the middle east are doing the same. I'm sure some of the iraqis want us there, but there are others that want us out. its their counrty, not ours. they have a right to run their country the way they see fit. we have no right trying to overtake them and setup our form of government for them.

If we had invaded them because they were fighting with eachother uncontrolably, I might think differently about the situation. But we went there looking for WMD, didnt find any and decided to change every aspect of their world for our benefit. sounds very irrational to me.

IF THE REASONS YOU GAVE WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE MIX EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO AGREE -- THE PROBLEM IS OUR GOVERNMENT AND NO NEWS OUTLET GIVES US THE REAL DEAL - WE ARE FED WHAT IN THEIR OPINION IS WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW -- JUST LIKE THE PROFESSORS IN SCHOOL -- ON A NEED TO KNOW BASES AND YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW IN THEIR OPINION -- THE SADDAM'S ARMY DID IN FACT GAS ITS OWN PEOPLE -- THEY DID IN FACT SHOOT SCUDS AT OTHER COUNTRY'S ( WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN THEM ) IS A TOPIC YOU CANT IGNORE KNOWING WHAT THEY DID TO THEIR OWN PEOPLE -- AT THIS POINT SOME OF THE GUYS ON THIS POST WILL BE LOST AND POINT FINGERS -- YOU HAVE THE FLOOR YOU MAKE A LOT OF GOOD ARGUMENTS - BUT TO ME AND SOME OTHERS ITS ONLY 1/2 THE STORY -- I CAN ONLY HOPE THE CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMENT AS OFF LATE DOES NOT HAVE A NEG AFFECT ON OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES -- ONLY TIME WILL TELL -- SO MY TAKE IS AS HAS BEEN SAID YOU CAN NOT ASSUME ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TO US IT HAS -- BEING THE TWIN TOWERS TWICE THE FIRST TIME I REMEMBER HEARING IT WAS AN ISOLATED INCIDENT ON THE DRIVE BUY MEDIA -- THE HAND CARRIED NUKE ONTO A SUBWAY IN THE CITY IS OR SOME BIO LAB 2 MILLION DEAD IN A WEEK THING -- I HAVE READ IRAK DIDN'T ATTACK US -- TO ME AND OUR SYSTEM OF OF LAWS -- ONE GUY CARIES A GUN INTO A STORE BOTH GET CAUGHT AFTER THE CLERK DIES BOTH ARE GUILTY OF MURDER -- SADDAM FINANCED SCUM POSING AS MUZZYS TO KILL 3000 PEOPLE AND QUESTIONABLE AMERICANS CITIZENS DISAGREE -- NO DUDE THEY ARE BOTH GUILTY -- I AM AND NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYONES MIND ON THIS ALL THIS DOES IS SHOW EACH OTHER HOW DIFFERENT WE SEE THE SAME THINGS -- JZ

[Savage_Messiah]

there is one thing that i am surprised has not come up in this whole debate, the habit of the US to try to impose our form of government on other nations.
from some quick research i have come up with 21 instances of america trying to hand stack a representative democracy in other countries. so far this ongoing adventure has only lead to one successful government that stood for more than 20 years, our own. lol
you wold think after glorious failures like cuba and bosnia our government would be smart enough to jsut sit back and help as a police force in these troubled areas and help those who will be governed sort it out instead of telling them how they are going to sort it out.
some of the countries that we went into did eventually turn to some form of democracy, but it was something they came to in their own time. it is arrogant of this administration, just like all the ones that tried before, to think that we have the only governmental solution that is valid in the world. especially when we are dealing with areas of the world that have had ongoing clan/tribal/ethnic wars for longer than our country has existed.

dude I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT THE ENTIRE DAMN TIME!!!

[Savage_Messiah]

NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYONES MIND ON THIS ALL THIS DOES IS SHOW EACH OTHER HOW DIFFERENT WE SEE THE SAME THINGS -- JZ

Yea, I finally agree with you over something :lol:

[Batman]

:soapbox: Wow I just started reading this thread, pretty heated stuff. The only thing I am going to say is that a good chunk of you need to open your eyes a little and stop listening to the Communist News Network....err I mean CNN. Reading alot of your posts it almost shames to see how indoctrinated most of you have become by what you see on TV (like 85% of the US). I've been to ALL the places you guys are talking about and let me tell you it is nothing like you see on TV. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for or like because as far as I am concerened the all have an agenda and work it to their means. But if you can honestly tell me Afghanistan was better off witht he Taliban in charge and Irag with Saddam then you are a fool. I encourage you to take aride across the river to manhatten and look at the gargantuan hole in NYC and think about the 3000+ people that died(18 of mmy friends and colleagues BTW) and tell me we aren't better off with those regime's out of power? I would much rather fight these bastards all over the world then in my backyard. None of you will be happy till someone parks a Nuke in downtown Baltimore and kills 5 million people then you will all realize they want to kill YOU, YOUR FAMILIES, YOUR KIDS hell probably even your dog. And id doesn't matter if you think they are getting a bum rap. First chance they get they would gladly cut off your head and sell it on Ebay. Whether the decision was right or wrong doesn't matter now, it is in the past and can't be changed. We need to finish what we starte. Stop listening to the propaganda and take a good look at the world. Most of our parents and grand parents (WWII era) are disgusted with the lack of backbone this country has now and eventually our "Political correctness" and be nice to everybody attitude is going to kill this country because guess what? we are the only ones reading from that book. So keep your skewed views of the world and your TV spoonfed political beliefs because dammit it's a free country and as long as people like ME and not people like most of you are willing to stand up, no matter what and at whatever cost for it, it will continue to be free. :soapbox:


PS: I seem to remember another war kind of like Iraq, lots of Guerilla warfare, thousands dead on both sides and it dragged on for years and years.Maybe you have heard of it? No not Vietnam. I think it was called the American Revolution?But what do I know, I am going to go turn on the news to see what is REALLY happening

[johnjzjz]

It takes someone who has been their to have the kind if understanding you express -- it is the reason in Israel they have a military that is one hundred percent of the boys and girls i think 18 must join no matter what you think you believe -- everyone is taught combat everyone and all are used by their government in those rolls -- no one has an excuse not to serve OR FIGHT -- this country did the same thing - you are with us or you are with them and you are dead 200 years ago -- the drive buy media is - and the higher education liberals in school are at fault for their mind set -- ( THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO ) comes to mind -- and with my writings they - so as to make believe they don't understand or just throw slander -- shame you will have to be the one to brake it to them -- and they will turn on you as well -- two minutes in a combat zone and all their soap box education will be thrown aside and they will be looking for a real combat solder to hide behind -- you be carefully if you end up back in the zone stay sharp LRB -- AIRBORNE

[Batman]

-- you be carefully if you end up back in the zone stay sharp LRB -- AIRBORNE

Thanks, heading out that way Friday.