You seem to have the impression Bush is a war mongerer. Simply, it is not true. Do not confuse the will to fight for being a war mongerer. Bush isn't going out of his way to create wars he didn't ask Al Queda to start the war. Nor did he ask Saddam to laugh at the U.N. Sactions. They both did that on their own and now are paying the price.

That's the way I see it. :thumbsup

Like, I said do your homework or leave the debate to Roger. You make no points just annoy people with your outright lies against the U.S.

you are so full of bull shit it ain't even funny.

He named N. Korea as part of his "Axis of Evil", what do you think he'd like to do with them? Have a tea party?

LOL... Just like the US when they veto resoltions about Israel????

You should go to night school .... if you already go daytime.:1orglaugh

In my opinion...if North Korea ever tests an ICBM...that will be when the US will take them down.

and that could be WW3 ( if China decides to back NK as they did last time - i'm not saying it would happen, but if)

Uhmm.... you don't even make any sense anymore. Wait, you didn't before either.

Iraq wasn't a threat... Bush knew it. He walked in and took it. The 700 deaths you talk about happened after the fact. Yes, that's part of the price of the invasion... but it's all after the fact.

N. Korea is a threat... not only to take many more lives than that during a war, but many more after.... and TONS more should they ever get a chance to implement their WMD.

One is a threat, one wasn't. (relatively speaking)

If you don't see it, you're blind and dumb.

All Kim Jong wants is some dam food, before those 400000 slaves starve 2 death, :Graucho then he won't have anyone 2 rule. Get a clue.

No one said we dont protect Israel's interest they are our allys you do realize right. Which is a totally seperate debate. But using the U.N. as an excuse not to use force when 3 of the veto powers where on the take from Iraq really doesn't work well for an debate.

Hopefully that won't happen. That would be a much deadlier war than Iraq.

No, he's there to press them to continue negotiations.

Again, explain your thinking with verified research on how Iraq wasn't a threat to the U.S's interest and we will see who is blind.

You obviously don't read so well. North Korea is a threat and probably a bigger threat then Iraq. Butt, it is not a dick measuring contest. Simple, the adminstration is looking to solve the problem the best way possible which is not force. Unfortunatly, sometimes force is the only option. We have not exhausted all other possiblities with North Korea like we had with Iraq.

Just because he thinks they are evil doesnt mean he wants to goto war. Why you think this is beyond me. All evidence shows contrary. Do not get me wrong. Bush would not hesitate to user force if the situation demanded it. Which is why he has my vote. Because he realizes that sometimes there are no other options. But he doesnt use force without exhausting all other plausible options.

As a Canadian, I have my own beliefs about America and Iraq, none of which anyone really cares about anyway, so I'll avoid that.

But what most people fail to realize posting about the US being murderers is that we ALL have blood on our hands in Iraq. Any country that is a member of the UN is to blame for countless citizens dying from starvation, disease from lack of medicine, etc.

The US may have killed thousands of Iraqi civilians during the last year but we all are responsible for 100 times the deaths before they even set foot in the country.

Everyone has blood on our hands. And shame on all of us for that. NOONE is holier than thou here and if you think you are, look at the last 20 years.

That is the media for you...everything they report has to be taken with a grain of salt.

In the last 20 years, it was the US that gave Saddam the WMD's and weapons and gave him the power he had.

kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

Anyway, I never once questioned whether or not he should be removed from power. As I said from the start, had they come straight out and said they were going in to remove a tyrrant, then my stance would be different. But that wasn't the reason given at the time.

Where did it get them? Obviously far enough since he doesn't have WMD's.

I believe a diplomatic solution with North Korea was tried before. Besides, Bush is the one who went on and on about how the world should be free from tyrants and how he's gonna change the world because he's on a mission from God.

All of a sudden it's okay to have a dictator who terrorises his people as long as he's leaving us alone? Just doesn't exactly fit with his vision to rid the world of tyrants.

Unless it's in your favor, inwhich case it's 100% proof positive that what you say must be correct.

I mean "you" rhetorically, not you specifically. I know a lot of people on both sides of the fence that use news link to back up arguments.... and the other side always laughs at it, then posts links of their own.

pikers arguments stopped making sense some time ago. I think I'm done trying to figure out his line of thinking, since it doesn't really seem to go in a straight line.

I will agree with you there, I am not a big fan of his mission from god stance. But if he is so be it as long as it doesnt cause problems. I don't think it is ok to have tyrannts but, on the same token it is not ok for us to invade whoever we think is a tyrant. Now if these tyrrants are significant threats to us like Saddam was then we need to do whatever we can rather if its diplomatic like in libya or force like in Iraq.

Yes it does make me think. It makes me think that you are a very mis-informed person. The US did not supply Saddam with WMD's or any other weapons other than...at one point they were sold a handful of rotary wing aircraft and I think some cluster bombs during the Iran/Iraq war and they were not provided directly by the US.. The US did not put Saddam in power...nor did they provide him with power other than assisting with intel during the Iran/Iraq war...and the US did the same for Iran.

Right, is that why you stopped following the U.N. sanctions on Iraq as well?

I mean it is ok if the level of thought is too high for you to follow.... I mean arguments based on facts and research must be a relatively new thing to you.

I agree that the US supplied armaments and equipment to Iraq, but WE as Canadians joined in the UN resolutions to deny the entire country food and medicine for 10+ years. I feel worse shame for that than some political war-backing.

I agree with you that what is currently happening in Iraq is a mess, but if you are going to point fingers, let's be fair about it.

piker:

OK.. Yes, there is no doubt that this Administration has lied (whether that be "actual" lying or base deception.) This has been so extensive to damage the credibility of the US Admin - not exactly a good thing.

The current Admin have clearly had many reasons to lie - they even lied to the people they "supposed" to be "serving" (Remember that word!). They did a massive lying operation - some call it "propaganda" over Iraq - and continue to do this daily.

I agree.. Bush had a good "ranking" after 9/11 - that is normal under these kinds of circumstances - it's the "pulling together" thing. Cast your mind back to pre 9/11 - the status of the Presidency "ranking" was poor and declining simply because this thing was, to all intents, "inactive" as a President. It is only since 9/11 the Admin clutched on and shrouded themselves with the "war President" image that gave Bush his.. well.. in my opinion, his only chance in hell of staying remotely near the Whitehouse.

The US also had enormous support worldwide after 9/11. In part, because of the silly mouth and rhetoric, the lack of credibility, the inability or desire of this Admin to work with the international community and the apparent disregard in complying with basic international laws, have dwindled the support the US Admin "could" have had. This is just another massive failure on the part of this Admin. Most countries I suspect, would like to work with the US, but find it unwise to do so with this current President.

All this supercedes *any* political stuff. The standards of "decency" in politics are non-existant. It also does not matter that Bush is a republican or communist. It is damned sad that this Administration has caused, not only deaths or many thousands, both US citizens and other abroad, but has effectively failed in so many other areas (this too much to hahahahaha here!) - but check the economy for a start.

Everyone makes mistakes - any leader is equally able to make mistakes, for whatever reason. I sure would not "bash" anyone who fucked up on occasion - it ain't a easy job. The problem here is how can *anyone* consistantly do this and have the arrogance to lie and never admit to any? That alone is a clue :-)

Bush must be the worst US President ever... No.. take that back, he is not just the worst US President, but the worst leader in the western world since the downfall of Hitler.

You really are getting pathetic... Time to come out with your " conus" shit....
Are you immerged in alchool???? Completely marinated ....

and more important:

BORING !!!

The guy is a religious fundamentalist, you obviously don't know enough about those crazy people. You shouldn't be supporting them.

What's your definition of a tyrant? Kim Jong Il is certainly a lot like Hitler and much worst than Saddam. Fact is, the US put itself in danger by invading a weak country like Iraq and experiencing all those problems.

Saddam was invaded and proved that he's no threat. The threats I see are Kim Jong Il, Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists. But hey, let's see your excuse when Bush decides to invade another weak country. WMD's again? Actually if Saddam is a threat, then I don't know many countries who don't qualify as a threat.

Ok, I read all this and fail to see any evidence of the adminstration lying. I even see you speak of the economy which for all accounts is back on track and growing. We are still dealing with an overvalued dollar and therefore losing manufactoring jobs but thats dropping and the manufactoring jobs will be coming back.

You even claim the adminstration has caused deaths. I'd like to see some evidence or the thought process behind that view.

I mean to summarize that post I could just say you think the adminstration is to blame for all the countries problems maybe even some of yours and therefore you hate them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...sfeldvisit.htm

"Publicly, the United States maintained neutrality during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1980. Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein."

Washington post must be lying huh?

directfiesta:

I wasn't gonna say, but yes, tis banal to the extent you must question the blindness and lack of any intelligent comment - always the same - jump on the defensive...

The sig says it all... communism was the same :winkwink:

My post is factual...and you cannot prove otherwise. I know that you can post all kinds of links. This has been done in the past...repeatedly...but none of the links will show that the US supplied any WMD's or weapons of any kind other than what I stated. What the links will show is that some materials that had dual use capabilities...were sold to Iraq by private enterprise...sometimes legally and sometimes illegally. When it was learned that these materials were being used to make weapons...the government proscribed the sale of these dual use materials.

Why do you see me use WE often? Because as Canadians we are allies and are guilty by association.

It seems your beliefs are based on big conspiracry theories. Like these guys are out to destroy life as you know it and just make it one big god loving country.

Proved that he was no threat? Why because his military wouldnt carry out his orders? I think thats a little pompteous of you to assume. Don't you? Saddam was an islamic fundamentalist how can you contradict yourself like that?

Why do I get the opinion that you people don't respect the power of evil minds with the desire to kill americans?

Am I overestimating Saddam and Iraq. If so please provide how so..

The author of the article has twisted the words to fit her agenda thus in effect making the quote you posted a lie.

No, I just look at the "new american century" stuff and watch doc-umen-taries.
These guys believe that the world is coming to an end. If you can trust them to make sound decisions, go ahead.

Saddam had a secular regime and wasn't an islamic fundamentalist. Women where allowed education and wheren't forced to wear the hijab.

Ahhh..... I see. Damn you're funny :1orglaugh

I may be funny...but the article is not the truth. No Administration sold WMD's or any other weapons to Iraq..other than what I stated and even those were not sold directly by the US. That is a fact. There are hundreds of articles written by people with an agenda and then their are facts. You are one of those with an agenda.

And where is this proof? Or are you afraid that if you post links to this proof that I may come back to you with the dreaded "that reporter is a liar" response that you seem to wield so well?

I know that what ever reporters you get your news from HAVE to be way more truthful than any reporter I can find articles from.

What gives you reason to believe that he is a religious "fundamentalist"? I do not know that he is a "fundamentalist" and I suspect I know just as much about him as you do.