first!

And a Happy Mother's Day to you, too.

If Bush is a loser and an idiot, what does that make the Democrats that he has beat in 2 elections?

geniuses, in comparison to the rest.

If Bush is a loser and an idiot, what does that make the Democrats that he has beat in 2 elections?

It goes even further than you think. There have been fifteen Presidential elections since Franklin Roosevelt died. Democrats (those folks who, among other things, say "51% isn't a mandate") have run candidates who garnered majorities of the popular vote in . . . two of them (Johnson in 1964 and, unbelievably, Carter in 1976). By contrast, Republican candidates have won majorities seven times (Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, Nixon in 1972, Reagain in 1980 and 1984, Bush 41 in 1988, and W in 2004). This is a party whose only Senate majority in the past ten years has come as the result of a Senator's switch of party, and which hasn't had a majority in the House during the past ten years. It's a party that holds the governorships of twenty-two states, none of which is among the four most populous.

It's an entire party of losers, and I think that the number above demonstrate that their claims to represent the mainstream are horse manure.

ha HA!

HA ha!!...hahahaha

HA ha!! ...hahaha

Well, you know that *there are* some Democrats still counting votes.

Eisenhower could have won for the whig party, and would be thrown out of today's Republican party for being too liberal. Remember his warning, beware of the military-industrial complex (see Iraq).

Nixon was a crook thrown out of office (mind you LBJ was quite shady and was virtually thrown out of office).

41. There is a president to be proud of.

43. $300 billion for the war and counting. Lied about the reasons (see docs released during the recent UK election). 10's of thousands of Iraqis dead. Over 1,700 Americans dead. No exit strategy. North Korea & Iran streaming along building nucular bombs

Hey phil you realise that WWII cost us $600 billion in 1945 dollars. so stop your whining about how expensive stuff is... WMD's were not the only reason and it was not a lie if everyone agreed they were there including the majority of the democratic party i.e. we got money to go into iraq... how many of those iraqi's have been killed by terrorists? almost all of them. 1700 americans dead fighting for freedom which they chose to do. it is a volunteer army and they new the possible consequenses. north korea and iran are next and what if they dont have nuclear weapons...?

AJ, thank you for answering that whiner. Amazing when people complain about the cost of freedom.

When I see Old Media headlines about "2 Americans killed in Iraq!!" I wonder why they don't report what the other 129,998 Americans in Iraq are doing.

I wonder if Saddam thinks GW is a loser? Hee hee hee hee hee

The possibilities here are endless. Someone actually posted here complaining about the price of freedom? Hmm....Interesting. It was because of those 1700 and countless before them that you're able to come on here and bitch about it. Ever tried a simple "Thank you?" I didn't think so. As a veteran and someone who personally knows some of those lost, I wouldn't piss in your mouth if your teeth were on fire!

Try educating yourself before you run your mouth. God gave you TWO ears and TWO eyes along with ONE mouth. Think there's a reason behind that? If you don't get it, there's no hope for you.

Basically, Phil, do the letters FO mean anything to you? I didn't think so. Look it up and take appropriate action. You do more dishonor with your words than you know and I for one don't appreciate it at all!

For the regulars here, I apologize for my, uhm, "graphic-ness" earlier....some things just hit very close to home for me. I don't apologize for what I said, just how I may have said it! God Bless!

Phil I think you may be confused. The President stated the reasons clearly in the 2003 State of the Union Address as

1. Saddam's violation of the ceasefire aggrement that ended the Gulf War.

" Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement."

2. His persuit of WMD's.

"He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities."

" The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

3. His refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions and allow weapons inspectors to do their jobs.

"The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened."

4. His refusal to prove he destroyed his WMD's and other illegal weapons.

" The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

" U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

5. His links with terrorism.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."

6. If he develops WMD's he could give them to terrorists.

"Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

7. Human Rights violations.

" The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."

Simply brilliant!

(for a monkey)

BTW, Reid immediately apologized (I'm not sure if it was for the loser remark or the attempt at thinking).

Phil, since you seem to be the expert on international conflicts, tell us about Clinton and Kosovo. He bombed Kosovo for 78 days straight WITHOUT the approval of the UN. Over $100 billion for the war and counting. Lied about the genocide. Tens of thousands of Serbs dead. Hundreds of Americans dead. But that's ok, huh? Because he's a liberal Democrat.

I wonder if we would have gone to war in Kosovo or Serbia/Croatia after 9/11. They were trying to stem off another invasion by muslims from radical countries like in the (Islamic) Crusades.

How come they realized the danger then, but we still don't?

And how much did it cost to blow up that asprin factory?

"I wonder if Saddam thinks GW is a loser?"
Surely, he's a Democrat.

I mean, their interpretation of "Loser" means "One who wins", and of course they actually lost, so they consider themselves "Winners", right?

First, my post was in response to the earlier comment about Republican Presidents winning with majorities. I was questioning the idea that simply being elected was enough to cement the perspective that they were great or even good Presidents.

Since no one disputed the points about the other Presidents (I guess you all agree on those points), let us focus on Bush 43.

AJ

The cost. Are you equating the justification for WWII with that of Iraq. Come on, you can do better than that.

The WMDs were the lynchpin. They have admitted there were none and that they were in error in saying that there were.

To simply say now that there were other reasons and so that made it okay is disingenuous. If those other reasons are sufficient why were they not sufficient in the first place.

From a leaked UK classified document, dated July 2002:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

To repeat; "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Sure maybe everyone who saw the reports from the intelligence community agreed that we should go to war. The point is that they were at best in error, at worst fabricated.

I am not disputing that most if not all of the Iraqis are being killed by the insurgency.

The point though is that coalition forces should have been prepared for this to happen. There were any number of official sources within the government that put forth analysis stating this kind of rebellion would occur. As an example, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki told a congressional panel that America would need several hundred thousand troops to pacify Iraq after the invasion. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic advisor, estimated a cost of over $100 billion. They were both reprimanded with Shineski being cast aside & shunned and Lindsey "resigning".

The CBO estimated that the cost of occupying Iraq could be up to $9 Billion a month.

What did Wolfowitz estimate the cost to be; basically 0 because of oil revenue.

They believed analysis that suited their needs. Disbelieved what did not.

The point is the number of deaths relative to how many less their could have been had they been better prepared.

To set the record straight, I supported the invasion. I for one am happy to see these tinpot dictators thrown out on their faces. The problem is that they did not plan for the aftermath.

Every member of the coalition forces serving in Iraq or Afghanistan is a hero, especially those who have perished. They are all to be commended.

This was not my point. It is that they were sent there under false assumptions and poor planning.

North Korea & Iran have admitted that they are working toward building nucular bombs. Do you seriously believe that they are going to invade either of these two countries.

Eric 90230,

I was not complaining about the cost of freedom.

If I may quote from Barry Goldwater, this is my feeling about the levels we should go to for freedom:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

BTW, one of the great benefits about not having to rely on MSM, is the ability to get other points of view. You usurp the benefit when you simply replace it with another monolithic information source.

Leuthen,

I was not complaining about the price of freedom. I was complaining about the poor planning for the war.

There is no price too high for the cost of freedom, as long as there is a freedom of choice by elected officials based on accurate information.

I fault no man or woman in battle. I question those who put them in harm's way. I fault those who put them in harm's way based on lies or in error our without the proper equipment.

I do not question the heroism of those facing the enemy. I question those who put them there without enough armor plated vehicles.

To you and any other veterans and all their families, THANK YOU.

In terms of my education, I am always looking for more information & data to increase my knowledge. What is it you are trying to teach (besides your favourite methods of fellatio)?

It is not about adding any information or the art of debating. You make no points of any note in your text. Your comments are nothing but anger & hatred. Stop thinking like an animal and think like a man.

You speak of fighting for freedom but resort bitterness & recrimination when someone says something that you do not agree with.

God gave us a lot more than physical attributes. You might want to delve deeper into the concepts of compassion, humilty and where the responsibility for vengeance lies.

Next time grow up and take the time to understand the basis for someone's arguments without simply jumping to conclusions.

Every assumption you made about me was wrong.

Josh,

Nice quotes, except for the fact that most of the information in them are wrong.

1) He violated the cease fire agreement.

2) He had no WMDs. Anything he had been working on from the first war had long been dismantled.

The uranium & tubes stories have been totally discredited. The administration has said so, as have the British.

Furthermore, Joseph Wilson traveled to Africa in 2002 to investigate these matters and told the CIA that they were unfounded. In 2002.

3) Okay, so he was not cooperative with UN inpectors. And? What about North Korea or Iran?

4) Wrong. a Security Council panel concluded: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated".

5) Saddam was a bad man as was his regime and he harboured & supported bad people. His ties to al Qaeda though have proven to be quite tenuous. Iran was and is the biggest supporter of al Qaeda.

6) Wrong. There were no WMDs. This statement is also true for every evil regime. When do we attack?

7) He and his regime was evil. I am glad they are gone and I hope they all burn in hell. It is also true of so many other nations, that they are too numerous to mention. When do we attack?

So you have proven that you are good at copying quotes and counting to 7. Try again when you learn how to get to 10 and can more than parrot the words of others.

Sgt Reed,

Oh boy, you really got me. I am so stumped. This is a trap I cannot get out of. Oh, hold it, you are making the same type of simpleton assumptions.

When & where did I ever say anyting good about Clinton?

It was a disgrace & the height of cowardice what was allowed to happen in that part of the world. Country after country watched while people slaughtered themselves.

Clinton did not do enough.

When & where did I say that the UN's approval was necessary?

I had no problem with disregarding the UN's wishes in terms of Iraq. I supported the invasion of Iraq.

My problem is with the information we were told before hand and the way they planned for the aftermath.

How would the American people and congress have voted if they had been told the true cost of hundreds of billions, the rebellion & revolt, years of involvment, the number of dead, the lack of proper equipment.

And if freedom and the end of tyranny are the reasons, why are we not continuing the crusade through Iran, Egypt & Saudi Arabia? China? Cuba? North Korea? Africa?

WMDs, then what about the countries that have openly admitted their nucular programmes like Iran & North Korea?

God bless the soldiers.

Condemn those who bear false witness.

Pity the fools that believe them.

Hey phil is Sadaam killing 1 million people any worse than Hitler Killing 1 million people? I think not. 1 million are still dead... so you can't do better than that.

I have a new background image :)

flip-flop.

Give Phil a break, that's a LOT of typing!

Erm, wow. I love this board. So fiercely pro Bush.
Without intending any offence do you guys realise the rest of the world laughs at him bar the UK and Aussie (and even the Australians are secretly amused)...but on to this war thing.

Here's an outsider's point of view for y'all (made very simple for the purposes of brevity).

Saddam is a prick, hurt lots of his own people and some that weren't his. Made deals with the States in the early 80s to get weapons for oil. Had a lover's tiff with Iran, realised the US was giving weapons to IRan also. Didn't appreciate it. Got pissy. Gulf War, invades Kuwait. Uses nasty weapons. Loses war. Has no money to make WMD, inspectors don't find any WMD. Georgey boy says there are WMD. America go "hyuck, rootin' tootin lets get im, he done gone and blew up our buildings in september 11". You guys clambered in in the most blatant form of 21st century colonisation. No weapons. Lotta resentment.

My favourite part of all this? Bush saying fuck you to the UN and going ahead with the invasion anyway and then asking for help when it proved a bit more difficult than he first realised.

Unilateral first strikes are a real shit of a precedent to set. Do you think that Kim Jong Il views you guys as a threat? I'd say he does, does this mean he's allowed to hit the US with whatever weapon he's packing? Because if you disagree with this stance then you are being somewhat hypocritical.

Yes Saddam was a bad man but let he without sin cast the first stone and let me assure you, bush is not without sin.

Heard of the Kyoto protocol? Drilling for oil in alaska anyone? How bout not signing up to the anti-torture treaties. Or holding prisoners at Guantanamo without trial for seemingly limitless amounts of time? Or Abu Gharib? Hell even Capital Punishment has been banned in what you would term as less developed countries.
After September 11th the world was on your side, you had everyones sympathy but you squandered it in your 'smoke im out' policy of the last few years.
Yes you are the most powerful nation in the world but no that doesn't give you the right to rule it.

Sweet, hope I haven't offended anyone because that was not my intention.

Kiwi Dave

Hey AJ,

What is your point? I'll repeat mine.

Saddam was an evil man and I supported the invasion, regardless of what "the rest of world" thinks.

Who were they, the French? Cowards who still support heinous dictatorships in Africa.

Cowards with some of the most openly corrupt politicians in the west.

Cowards who fell to the Germans like the wet paper sacks that they are.

Cowards whose historical precedents are despots & dictatorships.

Cowards who participated in the Vichy regime.

How many of our men died on the beaches on D-Day opening a second front. Its too bad the Soviets did not make it to Paris.

As for the Germans, they have a lot of catching up to do in helping free people from tyranny.

And what about the Marshall Plan? Funny how nobody seems to mind when the US when they want money, or military bases or an aircraft carrier just off their shore.

And what about the cold war? Who was the driving force in that 50 year engagement?

So AJ, that is what I think about overthrowiing Saddam and those who get their foreign policy advice from the channelling of Neville Chamberlain's spirit from a ouija board.

It does not take away the fact that they grossly erred in, or worse lied about the reasons for going to war.

The same is true in the planning for cost & complexity of the aftermath. Everybody told them it was going to be messy & costly.

It will be hundreds of billions of dollars. They are now pulling troops from all over the world to aid in Iraq. Coalition countries are leaving.

And if your argument is that he is bad and it was okay to take him down simply because of that, then you must agree then with invasion of North Korea.

They reputedly have millions in prison camps, starving from drought or simply being killed. And they openy admit to working toward a Nuclear bomb.

What about Iran? Openly admitted to working toward a Nuclear bomb. Check. Dictatorship. Check. Torture. Check. Supporting terrorism. Check.

You can't blow and suck at the same time and your logic supports armageddon, not to mention the draft to support a million man army.

Iraq was chosen because no one was going to come to their aid, they offered no resistance of any kind, they were in the right geography and they had oil.

This is a game of chess, not checkers, where you can't win by simply trying to win by "killing" as many pieces as you can.

If anything, it is more like dominoes and a reinterpratation of the Truman doctrine.

Knock off one country, bring in some form of representative government and hope that the surrounding countries are affected enough to change their political systems in some positive way.

So far that part is working. Iraq's liberation from tyranny of Iraqi against Iraqi is not as clear.

And by the way, "Oh yeah!".

Ooooh just a question that's been bothering me for a while.

How come some countries are allowed WMD and others aren't? I mean obviously Iraq wasn't because it had restrictions put in place by the U.N but why isn't NK allowed them? Or Iran? Who decides who can have them? The U.S? Why should they be allowed them? They too have a history of aggression. Vietnam? Iran? Iraq now?

It's all a bit suspect to me.

It is because these countries would be much more formidable opponents compared to Iraq.

Iraq was a good target at the right time.

China would have a cow if the US invaded North Korea. The islamic extremists would launch a jihad that would last a thousand generations if the US invaded Iran.

So they do not invade those countries because they cannot and it could possibly bring about nuclear warfare. In a nutshell, it would be stupid.

The question of if Iraq why not North Korea is only of value as a debating technique to highlight the double standard of the justifications for invading Iraq, ie. WMDs & supporting terrorism.

The unspoken differences were Iraq's weakness & isolation.

In terms of decisions. First, there are those that are out of question: countries with military might added to their their allies might, and their economic value.

If situations are then warranted, if not the US and those prepared to action, than who? The UN? Its only role is to dissipate any clash of cultures, philosophies or actions into diplomatic debates & gamesmanship.

Will China do anything? Japan? France? Germany? India?

The issue, at least to me, is the black & white argument of those who support the war but can broach no critcism of the effort or the invasion's motivation.

First its WMD & links to territorism. "Oh there are none? Well find them. Oh, the administration has now addmitted that neither were true? Well then Sadam was bad and that it is justification in of itself..."

Some seem totally unable to get down of their high horse to notice that it is no longer black or white, but that it is now grey.

Nuh uh.

I see.

Sounds like Phil is either lying or is a libertarian. Either way, just shut the hell up. Bush will get his. He's already pissed off the stronger sections of his base. Ultimately your only disagreement here is that of the actual reasons for the start of the war and not actually in whether or not we should defend our country. I still support the war simply because there are enough reasons (so far) for staying there and that it would all be for naught if we packed up and left. Bush had better tell the leftists to shut their traitorous mouths and start using more of our air power. Ultimately by their tactics, the terrorist insurgents have declared total war (involves the civilian population). We need to start saving our boys' lives and level the hell out of places like Fallujah. The way we are fighting the war now is what is starting to piss me off. And we found plans and parts to WMD's so enough of this BS that there weren't any. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT! We were trying to prevent them from having any at all (like North Korea or Iran). So I'd say we were successful there. I agree that we had some pretty shaky evidence. I won't push it because it looks like you love your country and you're not an idiot, so we have no beef.

Kiwi Bob, on the other hand, can get his Aussie ass off my American Internet. The reason that piece of crap countries don't get to have nukes is the same reason your government won't let you have guns: they (and you) are idiots. At least our country wasn't founded by a bunch of Cockney criminals.

Sadly your ignorance has displayed itself quite blatantly.

I'm a kiwi - a New Zealander. We were not founded by a bunch of 'cockney criminals' as you so eloquently put it.

I was just asking some questions I wasn't here to start a fight and if your answer is you resorting to abuse (incorrect for that matter...) then it sort of just confirms my suspicions.

Oh well. C'est la vie (that's life for the *ahem* less enlightened of us)

Fine then. It was founded by hobbits.

Oh and thanks for the info. I'm trying to make a list of all the slang terms for citizens for each country. You know, Yanks, Limeys, Frogs, Krauts, Micks, etc.