G.W. Bush

acaully....if u pay attention to the market, china/japan is slowly taking over the market economy of the world. a majority of what is bought and sold here in the americas is created in china/japan. china would be a good/bad idea to attack. good because it will stop them taking over the market economy. bad because theres no way in hell it would be legal from U.N. standards

Everyone thinks Bush is such a bad president but I really don't think he is.. Yeah, he has made some very bad decisions (Like sending over millions of dollars to help the people we are fighting) But this war was necessary.. What did you want him to do when those planes crashed.. Just sit there.. I mean if you think about it, if he didn't do anything there would be more terrorism now.. My cousin is in Iraq and on the news you don't hear about how those people help OUR soldiers.. Everyday they thank them give them food and give them a place to stay.. Yes, Bush has made some very bad decisions and I do not believe this war should still be going on but after all it is a war.. I don't think Buch will be invading any other countries. That is just my opinion and I'm not trying to start a fight with anybody...

I said in the previous post, I think he wants to invade Iran. They are closer to actually having nuclear weapons than Iraq ever was, but they are still 10-20 years off. Anyway even if he wanted to invade another country he would NEVER get the support needed. I can't say that I hate the man, because I've never met him. I'm sure he loves this country very much. But he really is a crap president. Alot of people (including myself) would respect him so much more if he would just admit his error and fix it, instead of keeping up this "we have a clear plan for sucess" stuff.

UseYourBrain I have a slight problem with the credibility of journalist since they reported Saddam Hussein as dead three times before he was captured.
The press reported on three separate occasions that he was most likely killed in a successful bombing attempt by ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ but I believe he is still alive

"But this war was necessary.. What did you want him to do when those planes crashed.. Just sit there.. I mean if you think about it, if he didn't do anything there would be more terrorism now.. "

I disagree, after the war on terror, there have been more terrorism.

"My cousin is in Iraq and on the news you don't hear about how those people help OUR soldiers.. Everyday they thank them give them food and give them a place to stay.. "

Not everyone.

"I don't think Buch will be invading any other countries. That is just my opinion and I'm not trying to start a fight with anybody..."

sure hope not

" probably going to go to war with China."

yeah...right

"so before you point your fingures, do your research, and define what is truly terrorism, not from your point of view only but as a whole. becuase how I see it, those who oppose the superpower are labeled as terrorist and need to be 'freed'. BS, you do not force freedom upon people becuase you think it's right."

Very well spoken.

As I see it, and many others, Bush is just as great a terrorist as Bin Laden. Bush is responsible for the deaths of many more civilians than bin laden.

I was so pissed off when I heard his retarded speech when he said that he would keep on fighting evil. Evil? Would that be people who order the bombing of civilian houses in pakistan, resulting in the deaths of innocent children? himself, in other words.

"We dont fight the Iraqi people, we fight the insurgents hiding among the Iraqi people."

...but still many iraqi civilians die because of it...

"And nearly all the terrorists who were on the planes were identified as Iraqi citizens."

Iraq was not attacked because of the amount of terrorists hiding there, but because of some made up Weapons of mass destruction.

"Then why havent we been attacking saudi arabia if they are from there?"

Oh my god.....why...why should america attack Saudi Arabia? Just because a few people are terrorists, the whole nation does not have to suffer.

...such ignorance

" And micheal, we have him on footage for gods sake. Get real."

Saddam had at least 4 complete look-a-likes, whom you couldn`t tell between.

I, for one, have learned not to trust the american government. Torturing prisoners isn`t very nice.

The only footage that I have seen of weapons of mass destruction is a few five gallon drums. The press also reported that the U.N. was not behind G.W. Bushes attack on Iraq
The U.N agreement was the reason that Saddam’s capture was not pursued in the first attack on Iraq

"Wow your post has little more than 3 sentences worth of your opinion. Thats nice."

wow

sarcasm

oh okay.

well...sure hope he blows himself off this planet once and for all. Mankind could need that

indeed he did

I am too...very happy. only two years left now, though, I can`t wait

he doesn`t delete them, obviously. Your post broke this site`s rules.

Try not to be rude and insult people in discussions. Very childish of you

yay

Please forgive me if I post anything that has already been said. However, feel free to use the extent of your logic to upset my beliefs.

1. After the Towers fell on September 11, 2001, everyone (or nearly so) in the United States was ready to "do something about the terrorist problem." A war on terrorism was proposed, and accepted as necessary by many. Measures were taken, steps were made, and it was decided that the dictatorial regime of Sadaam Hussein, leader of Iraq, oppressor and murderer of millions of Kurds, Marsh Arabs, and other minorities and fellow countrymen (women, children, etc), posed a direct threat to not only the United States, but also peaceable nations and peoples everywhere (let us not forget the Kuwaiti War). Hussein had financially supported terrorist groups, and was a terrorist himself, clear grounds for declaring war on his regime; it was/is a War on Terror, after all. Hussein was given proper warning to step down from his nuclear weapons program, but refused to allow inspectors to see what they needed. The deadline came and passed. Congress voted to go to war. By toppling the sadist regime of a dictator, the U.S. and her allies have made free those who have not had such a chance in Iraq: women, Kurds, minority Muslim groups. What more grounds does one need?

2. Inuyasha, in your scenarios, you cite (unsupported) examples of Israeli cruelties to Palestinian civilians. Do you not consider the constant bombings of innocent Israeli men, women, and children? I do not disagree that there are abominable cruelties committed by both sides, but I believe that it is crucial that you see what exactly the Israelis are remembering when they bulldoze houses. I cannot say that Israelis bulldoze only terrorist cells, storehouses full of explosives and weapons meant to tear apart innocent flesh, but only because I have not researched into the possibility of civilian dwellings having been destroyed in this manner. If you have specific examples, please cite them; I would be interested.

Additionally, you cite quite dissonant opinions on judgement. First, you call upon readers to not "start bitching about how muslim(s) are evil", but shortly after, diss world leaders (outside of Ghandi), saying "the rest are selfish bastards". You may sound more convincing if you listen to and apply your own principles.

3. Michael D. Nailey: Saddaam Hussein is indeed still alive. He is in custody, and undergoing a trial run by his countrymen.

4. The United States is not the only nation to be targeted by terrorists. Spain, Great Britain, Indonesia, the Phillipines… other countries (even outside of the Middle East) have been the hosts of terrorists' destructive plots. This leads me to conclude that it is not merely the might or greed or imperialism with which the United States is accused that lead terrorists to wish terrible things upon its citizens. If it were, why would we not be the sole target?

5. It is apparent to me that Iran, Syria, and Sudan would be ripe for the next chapter of the ongoing War on Terror. All share a common appeal to terrorist groups, often harboring, aiding, and abetting such organizations in their dastardly acts. All are oppressive to various groups of people. And all have shown agression toward the United States and other nations. These, I believe are all prime targets for anyone truly wishing to eradicate lawless terrorist activity from the Middle East.

A few points to ponder… holler if you have questions (though I trust that few will hesitate to do so).

Cheers,
Mercedes

To begin, supporting a war on terrorism is not so simple as to be accurately defined as "want(ing) to strap up and kill everyone associated with the bombings." I personally supported the war in order that we (the U.S. and her allies) avoid the futile, ignorant, and costly policy of appeasment. It did not work in the years leading up to WWII, and it does not work with blood-thirsty militant extremists. Remember Mogidishu? A show of power by terrorists was answered with submission (during the presidency of Mr. William Clinton, might I add, Mr. Shank). The our apparent cowardice gave the terrorists there (and in other places) the confidence to attack us and our allies with increased strength and vigor. We had shown that we were not strong enough to fight back, so why not? Like lions, they go only for those they see as weak. By proving to them that we would run from a fight, we (or maybe just our leaders, since you make the argument that our president is the sole driving force in military matters) led to the devastating attacks that have riddled the United States and her allies since.

Cheers,
Mercedes

"Osama Bin Laden is top of US President Bush's most wanted list, but to many young people in the Muslim world, he is a hero.'
What is the latest on that?

Okay i didnt read all that stuff you guys wrote i got lazy i dont even know if your talking about the next country to invade...but here's my bet

I bet it will be canada...yep good ol' canada is getting invaded...see bush is intrigued by our advanced knowledge of how to weild an automatic pitch fork gun...yes our main weaponry here in canada...and plus he wants to take all our natural ressources, and it would be easy, and he hates french people...and he hates...okay well bush only likes his own kind, white red necks, with a maximum iq of 85. So my theory is canada is going down!!!
anyway, since i live in canada, and i am french, i am going to go buy a bomb shelter, toodaloo and TTFN

haha...

By the way, Mercedes, the invasion of Iraq had originally nothing to do with the war on terror.

And if Saddam is a terrorist, then what is bush then? How many civilians have died because of Bush`s need to bomb everything that might have something to do with "terrorism"? I bet saddam sounded used the same excuses as Bush does when he murdered people. Open your eyes

"Like lions, they go only for those they see as weak"

I disagree. They`d attack anyone, like a wounded lion. They won`t stop now because America has showed its power.

Well, they can come attack me, i got my Pitch-fork gun cocked and ready, and a good ol' pad lock on my bomb shelter...muahahaha i'm a force to be reckon with now...unless, you catch me going to get some beer or watching the hockey game, which us canadians so often do...but then again thats just cheating...

i like bush.

My eyes happen to be wide open, thank you very much for those of you concerned about my supposed myopia. I am quite happy with my opinion, and believe myself (perhaps you will agree) to be well-read and quite familiar with the facts surrounding the matter in question. Once again, feel free to correct me on anything I mistake.

A word, Mr. Shank: Despite the atrocities committed by the United States against Native Americans, among the tribes themselves, war, slavery, rape, and other cruelties were not unknown. Additionally, with no disrespect intended, what say your ancestors to the kindness of the Baathist oppression of various minorities and other groups (women, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, political dissidents, minority religious groups, etc)?

Yes, indeed, President Bush only likes white men. That's why he has a black woman Secretary of State. Obviously.

EOB, it appears that your statement is a matter for debate:

"Among those who accept the term "War on Terrorism" there are disagreements as to which actions, by which states, should be considered as part of the "war." For example, the Bush administration, despite considerable international and domestic disagreement, contends that the pre-emptive 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation is a crucial part of the "War on Terrorism". Likewise, Russia has recently asserted that its ongoing struggles with Chechen rebels should be part of the international effort."

Yes, Ismail, hippies are typically considered war-hawks… wait…

Gina… Amen.

Cheers to all,
Mercedes

A note: this did not reproduce the ellipses (...) I used.

Amended, it reads:

"Yes, Ismail, hippies are typically considered war-hawks... wait...

Gina... Amen."

Thank you,
Mercedes

Well spoken, Ismail.