I think we were right to get rid of saddam hussein. Hussein had killed 300,000 of his own people in halabajah with gas and tortured and raped many others.Hussein was planning to build nuclear weapons. I agree 100% with going into iraq and feel we should stay there until the job is done. All of you have hatred for bush but you don't seem to say anything about the terrorists who are coming into the country from syria and iran and are blowing up innocent people.
Pulling the troops out now would leave a vacuum where the terrorists could gain total supremecy.
OT- U.S. Presidential race
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by Divemistress of the Dark on 10 May 2007 15:06
My personal theory is that Bush never intended us to get out of Iraq. His cronies would like us to wind up managing things as in Guam and Puerto Rico, and a tidy side benefit will be - oh yeah! - the oil supply.
It's just that we were sold this war under false pretenses, as a way to stop Al Qaeda. The Pentagon said it would cost $50 billion, which is a lot of money, but the tab is now a mindboggling $1.2 trillion. Which, IMO, reinforces my theory that we're keeping Iraq. Nothing else would justify that kind of expenditure at the expense of the U.S. education system and additional infrastructure.
There are so many things wrong: money simply lost by contractors in Iraq; American-financed projects (like power plants) sitting idle; American cities neglected (Greensburg, KS, hit by a tornado this week) while the National Guard is sent to Iraq; the fact that bin Laden is still at large and there have been a number of bombings since 9/11; the fact that the U.S. is not doing anything about Darfur and other deserving countries; sheez, one could write a book. But I'm still not convinced this is the time or the place to go into it all, tell you the truth.
[quote]Now, voting irregularities: that's a big story.[/quote]
I went to Florida to help count ballots in 2000. Saw things that should never happen in a democracy. Thank heaven states are finally doing something to mandate paper ballots, since the ball has been dropped by the Feds.
It's just that we were sold this war under false pretenses, as a way to stop Al Qaeda. The Pentagon said it would cost $50 billion, which is a lot of money, but the tab is now a mindboggling $1.2 trillion. Which, IMO, reinforces my theory that we're keeping Iraq. Nothing else would justify that kind of expenditure at the expense of the U.S. education system and additional infrastructure.
There are so many things wrong: money simply lost by contractors in Iraq; American-financed projects (like power plants) sitting idle; American cities neglected (Greensburg, KS, hit by a tornado this week) while the National Guard is sent to Iraq; the fact that bin Laden is still at large and there have been a number of bombings since 9/11; the fact that the U.S. is not doing anything about Darfur and other deserving countries; sheez, one could write a book. But I'm still not convinced this is the time or the place to go into it all, tell you the truth.
[quote]Now, voting irregularities: that's a big story.[/quote]
I went to Florida to help count ballots in 2000. Saw things that should never happen in a democracy. Thank heaven states are finally doing something to mandate paper ballots, since the ball has been dropped by the Feds.
On Google - site:stewartcopeland.net "your keyword here" - thanks DM!!
-
Divemistress of the Dark - Posts: 7873
- Joined: 12 Jul 2006 14:10
- Location: Nashville, TN
by Hannaha on 10 May 2007 15:53
Bush pulled a neat trick with his "You're either with us or against us" speech. (Did anyone spot the Emporer's paraphrasing of that speech in the last Star Wars movie btw?) He implied that if we weren't FOR the war we were PRO-Saddam, which was, of course, insane. Many people just didn't think that all-out war and invasion (and the inevitable civilian casualties that go along with them) were the answer.
-
Hannaha - Posts: 1567
- Joined: 17 Nov 2006 10:29
- Location: London
by Dallas on 10 May 2007 16:07
I really wish we could leave politics out of this forum. Needless-to-say we all have different opinions about politics and I would hate to see this board become "polictical"
However, I think it is interesting to note that Stewart's father, Miles Copleand, Sr., supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1988.
He lead a group and wrote an article called "Old Spooks for Bush"
He in a small bit of what he wrote:
"This is why my old friends and I are in George Bush's corner in the presidential race: we see him not only as one who has the wisdom, discretion, and ability to grasp the facts of our situation on the international gameboard, but as one who will appoint as his key advisors real experts in the relevant fields--unlike the inexperienced men with whom President Reagan has surrounded himself.
In good times, when there is little to fear from abroad, we need only a popular figure who can convincingly "play the role" of President. But when we are at war, or in an easily recognizable national crisis, we need someone who can actually be the Commander-in-Chief. It happens that we are in a state of national crisis, but, due to the Soviets' success at dezinformatzia and to our peculiar susceptibilities, it isn't recognizable. We see Bush as the candidate who, speaking with a voice of authority, can make it recognizable. We hope for the sake of the country and the free world that if Bush doesn't make it, another Republican will. Not a single Democrat in the running has shown the slightest understanding of what a game plan is all about."
When he says not a single Democrat in the running shows the slightest understanding of what the plan is all about.... he is referring to Bill Clinton and company.
However, I think it is interesting to note that Stewart's father, Miles Copleand, Sr., supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1988.
He lead a group and wrote an article called "Old Spooks for Bush"
He in a small bit of what he wrote:
"This is why my old friends and I are in George Bush's corner in the presidential race: we see him not only as one who has the wisdom, discretion, and ability to grasp the facts of our situation on the international gameboard, but as one who will appoint as his key advisors real experts in the relevant fields--unlike the inexperienced men with whom President Reagan has surrounded himself.
In good times, when there is little to fear from abroad, we need only a popular figure who can convincingly "play the role" of President. But when we are at war, or in an easily recognizable national crisis, we need someone who can actually be the Commander-in-Chief. It happens that we are in a state of national crisis, but, due to the Soviets' success at dezinformatzia and to our peculiar susceptibilities, it isn't recognizable. We see Bush as the candidate who, speaking with a voice of authority, can make it recognizable. We hope for the sake of the country and the free world that if Bush doesn't make it, another Republican will. Not a single Democrat in the running has shown the slightest understanding of what a game plan is all about."
When he says not a single Democrat in the running shows the slightest understanding of what the plan is all about.... he is referring to Bill Clinton and company.
- Dallas
- Posts: 163
- Joined: 13 Dec 2006 14:54
by sockii on 10 May 2007 16:07
[quote="Wait and See"]As of right now, Rudy. Long way to go, though.[/quote]
That's where I stand at the moment, W&S, as a long-suffering, socially-liberal Republican truly alienated from my party since the Bush regime. But this is definitely an election to watch to see how the chips will fall in all parties and what issues end up being of primary discussion.
That's where I stand at the moment, W&S, as a long-suffering, socially-liberal Republican truly alienated from my party since the Bush regime. But this is definitely an election to watch to see how the chips will fall in all parties and what issues end up being of primary discussion.
-
sockii - Posts: 4888
- Joined: 05 May 2005 02:05
- Location: Mercy Street
by Grant on 10 May 2007 16:15
[quote="Dallas"]
However, I think it is interesting to note that Stewart's father, Miles Copleand, Sr., supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1988.
[/quote]
Well Miles 'Copleand' must have been clairvoyant in 1988 if he was thinking about Bill Clinton.
However, I think it is interesting to note that Stewart's father, Miles Copleand, Sr., supported George H.W. Bush for President in 1988.
[/quote]
Well Miles 'Copleand' must have been clairvoyant in 1988 if he was thinking about Bill Clinton.
"Sting was a (expletive) before, and he really is now."- SC
-
Grant - Posts: 183
- Joined: 22 Jul 2005 20:12
- Location: Denver, CO
by Dallas on 10 May 2007 18:49
Well Miles 'Copleand' must have been clairvoyant in 1988 if he was thinking about Bill Clinton.....
You are correct. I am sorry. I was thinking 1992. He was talking about Dukakis and the rest.
Never-the-less.... I think he must have been clairvoyant in regards to Clinton and his ilk because they same could be said in 1992.
You are correct. I am sorry. I was thinking 1992. He was talking about Dukakis and the rest.
Never-the-less.... I think he must have been clairvoyant in regards to Clinton and his ilk because they same could be said in 1992.
- Dallas
- Posts: 163
- Joined: 13 Dec 2006 14:54
by Philip on 10 May 2007 23:17
regarding your opinions, there is an interesting trie of alternative communication on this site: http://www.onairdoc.org/
i ve just discovered this as it came out during the presidential campagne we had in my country during the last few month.
i ve just discovered this as it came out during the presidential campagne we had in my country during the last few month.
- Philip
- Posts: 576
- Joined: 31 Oct 2005 21:01
- Location: the Sexy French Republic
by georgygirl on 11 May 2007 04:22
Maybe she could be as efficient as Margaret Tatcher once upon a time in London...
And cool if she is a rocker, could be?
And cool if she is a rocker, could be?
Wildy Pelous!
¡Salvajilla Pelous!
from:
¡The Cosmic Race!
¡Salvajilla Pelous!
from:
¡The Cosmic Race!
-
georgygirl - Posts: 4076
- Joined: 27 Mar 2005 06:38
- Location: Monterrey, México.
by feralkid on 11 May 2007 09:19
Yes, exactly. if by efficient you mean sucking the life blood out of scottish industry and causing mass un employment then she was really good at that
My comfortable existance is reduced to a shallow meaningless party
-
feralkid - Posts: 70
- Joined: 05 Mar 2007 14:24
- Location: UK
by Wait and See on 11 May 2007 13:53
>>>Bush pulled a neat trick with his "You're either with us or against us" speech. (Did anyone spot the Emporer's paraphrasing of that speech in the last Star Wars movie btw?) He implied that if we weren't FOR the war we were PRO-Saddam, which was, of course, insane. Many people just didn't think that all-out war and invasion (and the inevitable civilian casualties that go along with them) were the answer.<<<
Actually, when he made that statement, he was directing it towards countries that had been sponsoring, harboring, or tolerating terrorist groups. The fact that some people in "the West" interpreted it as being directed at them says more about their own psychology than it does about Bush, I think.
Actually, when he made that statement, he was directing it towards countries that had been sponsoring, harboring, or tolerating terrorist groups. The fact that some people in "the West" interpreted it as being directed at them says more about their own psychology than it does about Bush, I think.
- Wait and See
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 11 Feb 2007 02:37
by georgygirl on 11 May 2007 21:25
Well, sorry guys if I ofended you with my post, but I see Margaret Tatcher as a strong, hard and good political female, but of course he was really ruthless to stay there...
Anyway, nor England nor USA are my country...
Anyway, nor England nor USA are my country...
Wildy Pelous!
¡Salvajilla Pelous!
from:
¡The Cosmic Race!
¡Salvajilla Pelous!
from:
¡The Cosmic Race!
-
georgygirl - Posts: 4076
- Joined: 27 Mar 2005 06:38
- Location: Monterrey, México.
28 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests