|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted November 30, 2002 07:59 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 30 Nov 2002
|
Talk about hypocrites….GERMANY and specifically German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder ….here his Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin likened US President George W Bush's political methods over Iraq to those of Hitler. More precisely she (and by association Schroeder since he didn’t condemn her words) accused Bush of wanting regime change solely to distract from the USA's economy.
LOL…what a joke …as she and Schroeder were the ones displaying those Hitler like tactics they accused Bush of…..reported today by Reuters “German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, facing a barrage of criticism for breaking his campaign pledge not to raise taxes”. Further it reported “After the election the government said worsening fiscal conditions made it necessary to raise taxes on many items as well as pension and health insurance payments, angering taxpayers”. See Schroeder was using his “anti regime” change stance to distract the voters from Germanys failing economy. Bunch of double speaking politicians…shame on them!
Furthermore I am happy to report that those back stabbers and hypocrites extraordinaire have been falling in disfavor as reported “Schroeder's center-left coalition has fallen further in opinion polls in the two months since September's election than any other post-war government. A song ridiculing Schroeder's broken promises has shot to the top of the pop charts and has now sold a half a million copies.”
Also just out of curiosity why is this lame jerk on his 4th wife? Why would the Germans elect someone to the highest office who so continuously fails at civilizations most basic and fundamental institution…marriage! Did the other 3 wives die or did he drop them by the wayside whenever he got sexually excited by a new woman? Sure some reasonable people can make a mistake in marrying the “wrong” person…but 4th wife…my gosh….so much for commitment.
Many Europeans didn’t seem to comprehend the American reaction and disavowal to Clintons sex scandals and perjury….bottom line is the world needs to understand that character counts! No wonder 2 months after being elected Schroeder shows that he was lying about not raising taxes to begin with….heck if he can break his marriage vows so repetitively no wonder he breaks his other promises.
Moreover about Germany….I just read on the BBC “19 year-old Anna Luhrmann, the youngest member of parliament in Germany - and in the whole of Europe.” Man what is up with Germany? They elect someone who is 19??? What is next a 17 year old? This lady doesn’t even have a college degree and she is a representative of the people? Are they going to start issuing coloring books at the parliament meetings? That is just insane and completely foolish! I have always credited the Germans with being incredibly intelligent people…but this would be just hilarious if it was not so very scary.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 30, 2002 01:07 PM |
|
|
Something tells me that the above person would be more than happy to invade germany next.......
Uhm lets see........
Granted Our german pal is slightly politically minded (show me a leader of a nation that isn't and I'll give you a donut), but I never quite saw the reasoning behind this whole clinton thing. Sure lying to your government about it... BAD, but other than that I really couldn't give a damn about what any political leader does in their private life (hence private). As far as I remember not that many americans cared either given the fact that you elected him twice......
Same with this gentleman (term used loosely given the fact that he's a politician). I can see the logic in arguing on political points, but why personal? Should we have not had churchill in power because he drank and smoked? How many presidents (or PM's in our case) do you imagine where perfect in their private life? Kennedy is a good example, no-one saw the need to not elect him for his errors. For that matter are any of us perfect?
As for marriage, that really depends on what you consider an institution. I'm personally not that bothered about how many wives/husbands a person has, and I don't really care much about marriage itself. Not everyone holds it in such high esteem, indeed many people dislike it entirely. Our own morals should not be forced onto people for the sake of our own predjudices.
As for the anti-intervention stance, I would imagine that it was also because a large percentage of germans also stand against war in Iraq. It was also sound political sense and also representation of his people, something politicians are kinda meant to do........
And why does being 19 suddenly give you no opinion politically? Why have a lower age limit of 19 or 21 if people cannot be elected at this age because they are too young? The youth of a nation have as much right to a political voice as the middle aged stuffed shirts that make up 90% of political parties. If the person represents her people well and has valid views, the age of the person should not matter!
When shall we judge these people on what they are elected to do.... ie run the country well rather than what age they are or what they do outside of their work, none of which has anything to do with their work itself. Sure Schroeder broke that promise, anyone who believes a politician when he says that is stupid anyway IMO, but did he do it because he needed to or because he's greedy? Who knows.......
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
_Hutijin_
Tavern Dweller
|
posted November 30, 2002 02:58 PM |
|
|
HEy just to mention, it's the usa's growing evil mentality that is causeing much troubles in this world. A) THey (we, here in the usa) desire to reduce the wealth of the common people. I submit the evidence: how do people in power reguard the lower class? ever go to court? how bout the police or politicians? we spend more on corperate welfare than social welfare. It is clear, it is a growing trend to completely derogate and disable the lower class(American's?, lol, lowerclass people don't count, haha, might as well be from iraq, let's stomp on them, fine them and then throw em in prison, lol)
B) no doubt my 1st point rings true;what about the oil in iraq? ok, what about alternative fuel sources, bah who needs em, this is the old school power. we don't want to revamp the ecconomic system, we haven't completely obliveration free trade or elliminated the opportunities for the sharp in thought or hard at work, we're old bastards and we wouldn't want to change things when they r so good as they r. and btw, i personally would rather see the native Alskan wild life not have to suffer the needless destructive pundering for oil. Kill the Iraqi's is ok, but haveing a more efficient society with enviormentaly sound practices is right out, gee, who's running the show?
C) we realize certain countries/powers have complete and utter disgust with the American mongers and they know they will be forever in complete oppostion with the 'American way' Look ahead, our country is the most unjust power in the world, and they will rule. There is no room for improvement. They have eliminated democracy, and stupified their own people. They have conquered the world and there is no mortal power that will unbridle the yoke they will be placed on the people's of the world. THe ELite class has finally succeeded in monopolizing the freedom of the people of the world. it's not so bad with the abundance of soft good things, but i think we might hit a point where woosh, that excess hit's critical point where the greed factor oversteps the supply threshold, and oh snow, the only thing left to do is kill the poor people. it will be an accident, but then again, Satan orchestrated the whole thing.
____________
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted December 01, 2002 08:09 PM |
|
Edited By: csarmi on 1 Dec 2002
|
Quote:
She ... likened US President George W Bush's political methods over Iraq to those of Hitler.
Well, I couldn't agree more with her!
Quote:
... Bunch of double speaking politicians. Shame on them!...
Well, it is quite common. That is part of their job.
Quote:
Also just out of curiosity why is this lame jerk on his 4th wife?
Are you being serious? I don't think you have anything to do with those guy's personal affairs. So why don't you just leave him alone?
You've got some valid points here, however.
Quote:
Are they going to start issuing coloring books at the parliament meetings?
How old are you?
Who do you think you are to judge her?
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
posted December 01, 2002 09:49 PM |
|
|
Hey, that guy has my avatar! Nice points btw.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 03, 2002 04:52 AM |
|
|
I just noticed that this thread was started the day before I logged in to HC for the first time.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2002 06:15 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Something tells me that the above person would be more than happy to invade Germany next....... “
Now I see how you can so easily make wild allegations against Bush and Blair.
Quote
“ I really couldn't give a damn about what any political leader does in their private life (hence private).”
Private life is really a fine line. If some one has sex in their private home and gives someone AIDS is that private….no it becomes a public affair. If someone beats their kids in the privacy of their own home does that mean the government should stay out…of course not we need to protect children and abused children affect society later….the list is endless.
If Clinton was screwing around on his wife and that person happened to be a spy who then blackmailed him…is it still a private affair? If Clinton is screwing around in the oval office…paid for by public tax dollars…is it still private (actually happened)? If Clinton is getting engaging in oral sex as he is talking to another government representative on the phone at the same time about national concerns is it still their private life (actually happened)? If someone is sued for sexual harassment and then lies under oath and unleashes his venomous dogs to discredit and ruin the victim of sexual harassment…is that still private (actually happened)? If Mrs. Clinton finds out and thus the President is constantly in an emotional fight with his wife…do you really think he can focus on the job or running a nation (actually happened)?
As I said there is a fine line so don’t mistake that I think the public and the government should be involved in everything that is so called “private”. But far to many people are under the illusion that what they do “privately” has no effect on their public life and society as a whole. As far a Clinton…his “private life” became a public concern when he sexually harassed a lady that he had power over, lied to the American public, purgered himself in court, and distracted the whole country with his elaborate coverup.
Quote
” For that matter are any of us perfect? “
Of course not…but does that mean that none of us should strive for perfection? Does that mean none of us should struggle against our more base nature? Does that mean that we excuse all sorts of behavior because after all none of us are perfect? Again there is a fine line between healthy moral judgment and being judgmental. It is a difficult line to define between perfectionism and virtuous living.
Quote
“ I don't really care much about marriage itself. Not everyone holds it in such high esteem, indeed many people dislike it entirely.”
Well I will argue the virtue of the institution of marriage another time…but I do think that if you commit solemn vows and if you choose to get married and thus enter the “institution of marriage” then you should do your best to fulfill the requirements of the institution of marriage. If you don’t want to get married…that is fine it is your choice…but once you choose to do so you should live by its virtues as best as you can.
Quote
“And why does being 19 suddenly give you no opinion politically?”
Ummm who mentioned no opinion? Representation of a country is a completely different thing. Hey while were at it why don’t we let 14 year olds drive cars on the highways…and 12 year olds vote….we might even get an interesting election then as the Power Rangers might get elected into office.
I was about to respond to HutijiN and then decided…what is the point….to many untrue statements to begin to debate.
Quote
“Who do you think you are to judge her?”
That’s right….no one can judge. Heck lets just shove judgment right out the window….we now all have no judgment…what a grand world that would be to live in….no right or wrong….no good or evil…no progress…no standards….anarchy run wild….wow what a great world where nobody judges anything….and by the way that was a pretty hypocrital….your statement I quoted….yep….you were judging me…lol.
Oh and by the way ….there is a world of difference between making a judgment (i.e. 19 year olds shouldn’t be elected government officials) and judging someone (i.e. she is a dumb snow).
But I got to give you credit, your lack of judgment is somewhat consistent in when you claim that double speak for politicians is part of their job…what a sad world you live in…to accept and actually tolerate that others will lie and deceive you…but then again…hey no judgment so all lying and deceit is just grand….heck it is even a required part of the job.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 03, 2002 03:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If some one has sex in their private home and gives someone AIDS is that private….
Yes it is private, between the 2 people involved and their families, the others yes though. My point is that you still voted for him, like it or not enough of your people thought he did a damn good job. It would be damn interesting to have seen how many people would have voted for him as opposed to bush, given that bush scraped past the less charismatic replacement of Clinton. His affairs should only have become public concern when he lied to the public/government about them. Until then my care for what anyone does in private is just non existent.
And as for not being judgemental, you are entitled to your opinion, but when you do not even look at the person and see their age, or not look at the politics and see the private life, then your judgement on their ability to run a country is flawed. So he's been married 4 times, have you even checked as to why? What if 1 or 2 had died, or what if 1 or 2 had cheated on him (a heinous crime in clinton's case so lets not pretend he should have ignored affairs). Fact is you don't know!
You judge her unable to represent her people based on her age, yet you know nothing of her or her politics and you dare to call europeans biased, anti american and not judging on facts but on policies and truths. YOU haven't even bothered to look into why or whether they are good at their work.
Geuss we are all hypocrites.......
And as for politicians, in the whole of my country I know one whom I would consider an honest and genuine polictician who worked with the evils of northern ireland, Mo Mowlam. She was honest and damn good at her work, but was hounded out of it and replaced with a scumbag normal politician because her honesty proved unpopular. Before anyone doubts her honesty I remember her giving an interview recently (whilst still an MP as well). She was asked in the wake of Shin Fein (almost certainly spelt wrong - think political wing of IRA) discovering that M15 had bugged their car if indeed she had attempted to bug an influential leader of such a party. She said "yes" to the dumbfounded stares of the interviewer and audience and clarified it by saying "He's a leader of an organisation with strong links to a dangerous terrorist group, you can be damn sure we bugged that car and others as well". Politics and honesty don't mix, and when they do they are VERY rare.
|
|
csarmi
Supreme Hero
gets back
|
|
posted December 03, 2002 06:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
“Who do you think you are to judge her?”
That’s right….no one can judge. Heck lets just shove judgment right out the window….we now all have no judgment…what a grand world that would be to live in….no right or wrong….no good or evil…no progress…no standards….anarchy run wild….wow what a great world where nobody judges anything….and by the way that was a pretty hypocrital….your statement I quoted….yep….you were judging me…lol.
Agreed. You just said it yourself - the fine line.
Quote:
Oh and by the way ….there is a world of difference between making a judgment (i.e. 19 year olds shouldn’t be elected government officials) and judging someone (i.e. she is a dumb snow).
Of course there is.
Quote:
But I got to give you credit, your lack of judgment is somewhat consistent in when you claim that double speak for politicians is part of their job…what a sad world you live in…to accept and actually tolerate that others will lie and deceive you…but then again…hey no judgment so all lying and deceit is just grand….heck it is even a required part of the job.
You misunderstood me. I do not accept it. I do not tolerate it. But still, it's the way it goes. Should I lie to myself instead?
Too bad it is part of their job. But I am afraid it is too - human.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 04, 2002 05:12 AM |
|
|
Well, as everybody who is willing to read a few pages back probably knows, I consider a war in Iraq to be justified but not wise. Quite frankly, I consider just about anything involving Saddam Hussein to be justified and I think that somebody really needs to strap the guy down and dip his danglies in sulfuric acid.
Anyhoo. To recap, the main reason I oppose a war in Iraq is because I think it distracts from the much, much more important "war" on terrorism. The perfect example is this whole Saudi Arabia thing. There is some evidence that the Saudi royal family has been funding Al Qaeda. This may or may not be true. There is, however, certainly enough evidence that royal family money has been used to fund terrorism to warrent investigation about whether or not the royal family knew that their money was funding terrorists. However, the investigation is being blocked basically because the Bush administration doesn't want to strain US-Saudi relations because US-Saudi relations are critical to the Iraq war effort (source -- Newsweek 12/2/2002 among others). Basically, the war against Iraq is interfering with the war against terrorism.
From a personal standpoint, I'm much, much more concerned with the direct, terrorist threat to the US than the more abstract, destabilization-of-the-middle-east-balance-of-power threat that the Saddam weapons of mass destruction issue poses and I think that everything else should take second billing to the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
In other words. Saddam? Bad! Iraq? Dangerous! Threat? Yes! But that doesn't mean that's what the US and the rest of the world should be concentrating on. Put it this way -- if your basement is flooding and your upstairs window is broken so that it lets in a draft, which do you deal with first? The flooding, right? Well, I think that the terrorist threat is the more immediate, serious danger, but Bush is trying to fix the window rather than the plumbing.
My god that last Margarita was a mistake. I've probably made absolutely no sense.
(By the way -- Americans, write your senators about this if you care. The house is a Republican puppet now, but the senate can still be swayed. Give it a shot -- it will only cost you $0.74)
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 04, 2002 07:36 AM |
|
|
Quote
“ My point is that you still voted for him, like it or not enough of your people thought he did a damn good job.”
First I sure didn’t vote for him. Second he only got 49% of the vote in the last election…one of the lowest if not the lowest percents in presidential history. Third…unfortunately Americans vote too much from their pocket books instead of values…so the economy was doing well….so most people voted to keep the status quo.
Quote
“It would be damn interesting to have seen how many people would have voted for him as opposed to bush, given that bush scraped past the less charismatic replacement of Clinton.”
The fact that Gore lost speaks volumes to Clinton’s legacy….never before had a vice president lost after the president they served under won 2 terms….let alone when the economy was doing pretty well till the very end when Bush inherited the recession Clinton did nothing to stop.
Quote
“ Fact is you don't know!”
Thus in my post I asked “Did the other 3 wives die”. If they did not die or cheat on him then it most definitely points to a personality problem and commitment problem.
And did he have children ?….the staggering psychological research shows both acute and long term impact…..a severe negative result on children even in “unhappy marriages” which does in turn impact the “social” good….so divorce is not merely a “private affair”…it affects children, it affects the public institution of marriage, it affects the public taxpayer, it impacts the psychological welfare of the people involved (minimally 1 year for men and 2 years for women to regain a sense of balance), it effects the economy, it affects the fiscal ability of both parents, it affects the financial troubles for the kids as divorce lowers the parents ability to provide for children.
Quote
“You judge her unable to represent her people based on her age”
You still have not answered the question…so how about 16 years olds? Do you want them as officials in government? How about 14 year olds? See in the end you will be just as judgmental as you accuse me of…because you know that age affects ability…to think otherwise is plain ignorance.
Quote
"Politics and honesty don't mix, and when they do they are VERY rare.”
Guess I am not as cynical as you….I expect….no I demand honesty in politicians. When they prove they are liars they need to go. USA kicked out President Nixon for that crap and we almost kicked out President Clinton. Even the liar President Clinton public ally stated during the Nixon screw up that if a president lies he needs to resign (hmmm can someone say hypocrite). How can I allow someone to decide the fate of myself, my family, and my country if they are dishonest? We might as well just throw in the towel….what kind of world would it be where we allowed politicians to be as dishonest as they like? Is that really the type of world you want to live in?
Quote
“I do not accept it. I do not tolerate it.”
Good maybe you, me, and the next guy can unify and start demanding that it won’t be tolerated…I think the world would be a whole lot better if we started placing higher expectations upon our world leaders to be honest (unless of course there is sensitive national security matters at hand)
Quote
“I consider just about anything involving Saddam Hussein to be justified and I think that somebody really needs to strap the guy down and dip his danglies in sulfuric acid.”
LOL…quite poetic
Quote
“There is, however, certainly enough evidence that royal family money has been used to fund terrorism to warrent investigation about whether or not the royal family knew that their money was funding terrorists. However, the investigation is being blocked basically because the Bush administration doesn't want to strain US-Saudi relations because US-Saudi relations are critical to the Iraq war effort.”
One word…”prudence”. To quote the former Bush…at this “juncture it wouldn’t be prudent”. It would be pretty unwise to start making all sorts of enemies right now on the eve of regime change. After regime change…then I think an argument could be made. Secondly…it is reported that this money was given legitimately as well as to hundreds of other “needy” saudias….and that then the money was secreetly given to proposed terrorists. Thirdly, it is reported the Saudias are scrambling to do their own investigation. Fourth, who knows if the USA isn’t doing a secret investigation right at this moment. Fifth…this is the oldest and most tired play out of the democratic play book…distract, evade, trump…that way nothing productive ever gets done as we endlessly question in 60 directions at once.
Now do I think the second and third point are enough…of course not…but everything in its time. And if you don’t think kicking out Saddam and removing WMD that the terrorists could or already have gotten their grubby hands on is a strong method of fighting terrormis then I think you are misguided. Iraq and terrorism are not mutually exclusive.
Now after the regime change…if Bush doesn’t follow up on the SA thing…then I think that is lame. I don’t like SA and I think more should be done to put them on notice…after the regime change in Iraq. You got to pick your battles…or more specifically pick the time of your battles…or you for sure will lose the war!
Quote
“The house is a Republican puppet now, but the senate can still be swayed.”
I believe what you meant to say is that the house and the senate are both controlled by the republicans as the people of America spoke loudly…they voted and their democratic free choice was for the republicans to lead (unheard of during midterm elections)….you don’t have to like it…but puppet? Come on….bitterness doesn’t suit you
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 04, 2002 03:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One word??prudence?. To quote the former Bush?at this ?juncture it wouldn?t be prudent?. It would be pretty unwise to start making all sorts of enemies right now on the eve of regime change.
See, that's precisely my point. If you are attempting to make a regime change, it is not "prudent" to risk pissing off the Saudis. However, if you are trying to combat terrorism, it is not "prudent" to ignore a possible source of terrorist funding. I think you don't let anything distract from the more direct threat of Al Qaeda. Remember, right now Al Qaeda does not like Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein does not like Al Qaeda. However, if seriously threatened, Saddam Hussein might decide that Al Qaeda ain't so bad after all. If regime change was not being attempted right now, this wouldn't be an issue and the Saudis would be investigated. What I'm saying is "terrorism first, Iraq later."
Quote:
You got to pick your battles?or more specifically pick the time of your battles?or you for sure will lose the war!
Agreed, my point is that the wrong choice of timing and/or battles is being made.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 04, 2002 05:35 PM |
|
|
First I sure didn’t vote for him. Second he only got 49% of the vote in the last election…one of the lowest if not the lowest percents in presidential history.
He still won by more than Bush did, meaning at election time, when it mattered he was popular.
But in answer to your frankly silly question the age limit of politicians should IMO be 18. If you are old enough to pay taxes, marry, die/fight for your country etc you are old enough to represent it. When you become an adult your opinions and ability to have them heard are relevant. Otherwise why not make it 20? or 30? what do you think is sensible! 50!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted December 04, 2002 06:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fifth?this is the oldest and most tired play out of the democratic play book?distract, evade, trump?that way nothing productive ever gets done as we endlessly question in 60 directions at once.
Funny -- two of the people who are leading this line of questioning/criticism is Senator Richard Shelby - a Republican from Alabama and Representative Porter J. Goss - a Republican from Florida.
Care to revise your statement?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted December 05, 2002 12:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
First I sure didn’t vote for him. Second he only got 49% of the vote in the last election…one of the lowest if not the lowest percents in presidential history.
He still won by more than Bush did, meaning at election time, when it mattered he was popular.
He won by 49.99999999999(could go on)% of the popular vote, but that doesn't matter it is up to the Electoral College. Whoever wins the state, let's say California, gets 54 votes for the Electoral College. Bush won by a landslide or only scraped by, depending on how you look at it.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 06, 2002 08:23 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Al Qaeda does not like Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein does not like Al Qaeda.”
Well I am not for sure where you are drawing that conclusion as there is evidence that in the last 5-10 years he has been assisting/training Al Qaeda….and he has much more recently been aiding the PLO terrorists who IMO are equal in evil deeds to Al Qaeda.
Quote
“What I'm saying is "terrorism first, Iraq later."”
See I would agree with you if it weren’t for that fact that terrorism will always be alive, Al Qaeda will be alive a long long time…..exterminating them is near impossible…the war on terrorism is going to be the longest war we have ever fought.
If Al Qaeda were localized to one nation then it would be easier and more like a traditional war…but we have entered a new era where are enemy is not seen. We made a huge step in dismantling their local control over the nation of Afghanistan…but they are spread out everywhere.
To me it is not prudent at all to forgo all other problem situations in the world till the war on terrorism is over….cause that will be forever. Furthermore as mentioned before, fighting Saddam is fighting terrorism.
Quote
“ what do you think is sensible! 50!”
Sensible in my opinion is minimum of 22 and even that is pushing it….I think about age 25 people may begin to have the maturity and experience to knowledgably represent their country. But anyone who supports a representative who at a minimum hasn’t finished college…well I think they are begging misfortune.
Quote
“Funny -- two of the people who are leading this line of questioning/criticism is Senator Richard Shelby - a Republican from Alabama and Representative Porter J. Goss - a Republican from Florida. Care to revise your statement?”
I am glad you found two republicans that are questioning and I am sure there may be a handful of others…vs….oh lets say just about the whole democratic party and ALL of their main leaders…Senator Clinton, President Clinton, Gore, Senator Dashelle, Congressman Gephart, Senator Kerry, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, President Carter, Senator Boxer etc. etc. etc.. The only democrat that really seems to have his ideas somewhat balanced is Lieberman.
The DNC put out memos all the time about thwarting and discouraging the regime change….the only reason the democrats eventually bowed and some of them voted for regime change was after seeing that despite all their straw man and straw issues that the public was behind Bush….then their rhetoric started to fade…but it still is alive.
|
|
tree
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2002 06:45 AM |
|
|
why is bush so desparate about attackin' iraq...the previous presidents never did so. And no country except for england supported him. This might just an act to ensure and show that US is still the strongest country on earth (which is now fading) by punishing those who oppose it (to make a good example for other countries). Other countries are not all idiots, so they are not buying it. Even Canada, US's loyal follower didn't support him.
The reason for attackin' is pretty vague...has some dangerous weapon? China, Russain, England, and Europe all has even more dangerous weapons, why don't Bush attack them? He's just pickin' soft ones to show those he dare to do so.
Also...it seems recently US has been more alerted. One canada offical called Bush moron and got fired. Another normal US citizen said "burn bush" and got put in jail for serveral month. (just happened quite recently). So compare to that, it's more reasonable to attack iraq with no assured reason.
____________
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 07, 2002 12:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason for attackin' is pretty vague...has some dangerous weapon? China, Russain, England, and Europe all has even more dangerous weapons, why don't Bush attack them? He's just pickin' soft ones to show those he dare to do so.
Do you really think Europe would attack the U.S.? I think they know better. Japan tried and got beat in the end.
Quote:
Also...it seems recently US has been more alerted. One canada offical called Bush moron and got fired. Another normal US citizen said "burn bush" and got put in jail for serveral month. (just happened quite recently). So compare to that, it's more reasonable to attack iraq with no assured reason.
I bet we have a reason but the Government(CIA) can't tell us.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 07, 2002 04:46 PM |
|
|
Well it takes time to fabricate these pieces of evidence you know
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 07, 2002 05:05 PM |
|
|
Like MI6 is better!
This is post #500 in this thread!
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
