Anyone letting the US troops on their soil will get duped

[jaccyn30_us]

Its so unfortunate that the US thinks it can do whatever it wishes....just because of a howdy-doody president. Look at what they are doing in Iraq. Destroying the country illegitimately and then pretending to reconstruct by paying off with Iraq's own money. Unbelievable? Bush is pretty clever at that. He actually is trying to save his presidency for the 2004 elections by using the tax-payers own money to impress them with shock and awe. That could have only spawned from a man who sleeps with the Devil himself. I just hope American citizens realize that their president is Satan and get him out in 2004.

 

[Maciamo]

I wouldn't go as far as to disagree with this statement.

What I find unacceptable too is that Bush wants war, but want the other to pay for the reconstruction, be it the UN, the EU (who always have to pay for the US's war reconstruction) or the Iraqi themselves. IMO, the US (and UK) should pay for everything in Iraq's reconstruction. If American taxpayers don't like it, they didin't have to vote for, then support Bush and revolution is still an option.

 

[senseiman]

In defense of AMericans, they didn't actually vote for Bush.

 

[Ghost]

In his defense, at that time Al Gore(the other guy) was lying though his teeth(he said he invented the internet among other things), but i dont agree about the us-iraq war(that was wrong) but bush did good on looking for osama bin ladin and showing up in new york two days after 9/11.

 

[Mandylion]

Originally posted by Ghost
but bush did good on looking for osama bin ladin and showing up in new york two days after 9/11.

Showing up after something like 9/11 is just what presidents do. It was a good photo op, yes, but nothing out of the ordinary.

Still haven't found that Osama guy....

Of course with the people the Democrats are fielding you have to wonder if things really would get any better by getting rid of Bush.

 

[Feral-Darkness]

Heh people act like bush is so aggresive and what not...

I guess people have forgot about nixon and many of our other pres.
Hell I bet clinton would of done about the same thing.

In some ways I wish we did have a very aggresive pres.

As for iraq, Sure saddam needed to be knocked out of power but the fact is ALOT OF other governments need to be redone as well.
I forsee the USA slowly breaking down governments of places like this and rebuilding them abroad.

Is it right? I don't know but it helps in the long run.
Personaly I think the UN should of dealt with it but the UN is just a bunch of wusses who can't decide on anything. When you have 100 nations voting on crap you will never be able to get a solution that will work for all of them.

 

[Matthew C. Perry]

Originally posted by Feral-Darkness

I forsee the USA slowly breaking down governments of places like this and rebuilding them abroad.

Is it right? I don't know but it helps in the long run.

Right or wrong is almost irrelevant here. All this nation building is a foolish waste of American resources... a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the pockets of Haliburton and the Carlyle Group.

It's incredible how mainstream this sort of thinking has become in the last couple of years. Get a grip people. The neo-con world transformation agenda is complete lunacy.

 

[KitsuneUdon]

Well... Ummm... I guess America thinks that peace come with a rather heavy price. Someone on another forum made the anology that "you can't bake a cake without breaking a couple eggs." about a topic like this. While this may be true... is it actually the right thing to do???

50% of me says "Yes!"
and the other
50% of me says "No!"

 

[Arc Light]

I don't like the way that Iraq is being handled...the US isn't being tough enough...instead, a bunch of pantywaist officers and politicians control what goes on. In the end, it's the lowly enlisted who pay the price and look like fools, and bare the brunt of the world's fury.

This is the way I see it: Bush might be a screw-up now, but the guy's got balls, and he's not afraid to show emotion. I like him for that. Here lately, though, he's had his head up his *** for some reason. Anyway, he's in office for a reason...whether he did or didn't get the votes. Had Mr. Internet (Al Gore) been in office, yeah, we wouldn't be at war...9/11 would have happened anyway, probably with greater success, the US would have thrown some cruise missiles at someone (whoever was convenient at the time), and the whole thing would be forgotten by now. It's called the Clinton Syndrome.

 

[bossel]

I don't like the way that Iraq is being handled...the US isn't being tough enough...instead, a bunch of pantywaist officers and politicians control what goes on. In the end, it's the lowly enlisted who pay the price and look like fools, and bare the brunt of the world's fury.

This is the way I see it: Bush might be a screw-up now, but the guy's got balls, and he's not afraid to show emotion. I like him for that. Here lately, though, he's had his head up his *** for some reason. Anyway, he's in office for a reason...whether he did or didn't get the votes. Had Mr. Internet (Al Gore) been in office, yeah, we wouldn't be at war...9/11 would have happened anyway, probably with greater success, the US would have thrown some cruise missiles at someone (whoever was convenient at the time), and the whole thing would be forgotten by now. It's called the Clinton Syndrome.

Not tough enough? Hmmm...

Bush's got balls? Maybe, but it's not his balls that are shot at in Iraq. It's easy to be courageous if it's not your hiny that will be kicked, no matter what happens.

 

[mad pierrot]

Uh... What about Congress?

People have a tendency to think the president is responsible for everything. Well folks, he isn't. Voting Bush out of office won't solve all our problems, either. Remember, Congress had the power of veto. How many of us paid attention to the way our elected officials voted? Bush is just the ugly head on a larger zit in American politics. Let's not forget the greater issue of the mechanisms that propelled him into office, especially after this year's elections.

 

[Arc Light]

Not tough enough? Hmmm...

Bush's got balls? Maybe, but it's not his balls that are shot at in Iraq. It's easy to be courageous if it's not your hiny that will be kicked, no matter what happens.

Well, he was the best out of the three that were available. (Gore, Nader)

And by the way...I didn't vote at all...I've given up on trying to change Washington Politics.

And it's not just Bush...Clinton was banging the same war drum...no, he was banging Monica...Clinton was saying the same things that Bush has been saying. Keep in mind that the leaders of the Intelligence community are the same people who were in office during the Clinton years. I wish the mess in Iraq would clear up as much as the next guy, but sooner or later, we would have had to go back there and get rid of Saddam.

 

[Distant]

Its so unfortunate that the US thinks it can do whatever it wishes....just because of a howdy-doody president. Look at what they are doing in Iraq. Destroying the country illegitimately and then pretending to reconstruct by paying off with Iraq's own money. Unbelievable? Bush is pretty clever at that. He actually is trying to save his presidency for the 2004 elections by using the tax-payers own money to impress them with shock and awe. That could have only spawned from a man who sleeps with the Devil himself. I just hope American citizens realize that their president is Satan and get him out in 2004.

First: The US does not believe it can do whatever it wants. We spend a large portion of our GDP on diplomatic relations and providing aid to Governments and Nations less advantaged than we are. If we believed we could do whatever we want, why waste our hard earned, and it is hard earned, money on Diplomacy?

Second: America is not "destroying" Iraq. Prehaps you wish to live with Saddam Hussein as your dictator? Removing Saddam Hussein would have been a simple undertaking, if it weren't for the FOREIGN arab fighters destabilizing the country. The current Iraq government itself has asked these foreign fighters to leave the country. The gaol of these arab fighters is not an Iraq, ruled by Iraqis, under any form of government. Their stated gaol is to destroy the Western world and all that we believe in. To do this, they WILL take over any arab country that doesn't bend to THEIR will.

Third: I do not understand why the fact that George Bush has principles he is willing to stand up for bothers the rest of the world so much. Apparently the rest of the world wants America to be her obedient lapdog. We are to give our resources away freely, without having the nerve to ask for even a modicum of loyalty in return.

Fourth: I hope your country never needs American troops to defend her. I personally would be hardpressed to accede to such a request.

 

[Mike Cash]

People have a tendency to think the president is responsible for everything. Well folks, he isn't. Voting Bush out of office won't solve all our problems, either. Remember, Congress had the power of veto. How many of us paid attention to the way our elected officials voted? Bush is just the ugly head on a larger zit in American politics. Let's not forget the greater issue of the mechanisms that propelled him into office, especially after this year's elections.

Your basic premise is spot-on. Let's not forget that Congress voted a resolution backing the action. Did it twice, I think. Some guys named Kerry and Edwards voted for it too.

(Since when does Congress have the veto power?)

 

[bossel]

Removing Saddam Hussein would have been a simple undertaking, if it weren't for the FOREIGN arab fighters destabilizing the country. The current Iraq government itself has asked these foreign fighters to leave the country. The gaol of these arab fighters is not an Iraq, ruled by Iraqis, under any form of government. Their stated gaol is to destroy the Western world and all that we believe in. To do this, they WILL take over any arab country that doesn't bend to THEIR will.

They can only be so active in Iraq, because the US did a lot to let the system collapse. Under Saddam's rule these fanaticists didn't have much of a chance. What the US essentially did, was to put Iraq out of the frying pan into the fire.
Most insurgents are Iraqis, BTW. A few foreign terrorists are not representative of Iraqi resistance.

the rest of the world wants America to be her obedient lapdog.

Strange! To me, it seems just the other way round.

We are to give our resources away freely, without having the nerve to ask for even a modicum of loyalty in return.

:? Giving away resources freely? The US? Haven't noticed that. Often, if the US gives economical aid to a country, in return they want to have special conditions for US companies, or something like that.

 

[Mike Cash]

Often, if the US gives economical aid to a country, in return they want to have special conditions for US companies, or something like that.

Oh Goodie! Now we're back to Japan-related comments.

Japan is famous for economical aid with tons of strings attached.

 

[PaulTB]

Japan is famous for economical aid with tons of strings attached.

c.f. whaling.

Of course the US also has its share of 'interesting' factors used to decide where it's international aid goes. See the oh so independent bushwatch for one.

 

[Capster78]

They can only be so active in Iraq, because the US did a lot to let the system collapse. Under Saddam's rule these fanaticists didn't have much of a chance. What the US essentially did, was to put Iraq out of the frying pan into the fire.
Most insurgents are Iraqis, BTW. A few foreign terrorists are not representative of Iraqi resistance.
Strange! To me, it seems just the other way round.
:? Giving away resources freely? The US? Haven't noticed that. Often, if the US gives economical aid to a country, in return they want to have special conditions for US companies, or something like that.

I love this attitude. This is the same attitude that caused the millions of deaths in WWII. America's feelings at the time were that nothing in europe was affecting us so it's not our problem. Most of the world felt the same way even after Hitler marched his army without one shot fired into neigboring countries takeing over land without a fight. Even after the guns started going off we (america and most of the rest of the world) just watched as Russians and Englishmen were being killed by the millions. If we had intervined before it was a problem, we could have saved millions of jews and casualties resulting from war. This is a mistake I am affraid will happen again because people have become complacent.

 

[AJBryant]

Have you ever seen a history book?

If *Europe* had intervened earlier, it wouldn't have been a problem. No one did a thing when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland, and then Czechoslovakia. Remember Neville Chamberlain? If England or France or Belgium had stepped up in 1937, there might not have been a WWII.

 

[Capster78]

Have you ever seen a history book?

If *Europe* had intervened earlier, it wouldn't have been a problem. No one did a thing when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland, and then Czechoslovakia. Remember Neville Chamberlain? If England or France or Belgium had stepped up in 1937, there might not have been a WWII.

I think you repeated what I just said. Just take englishmen out, sorry it was late at night ha, I was geting WW1 mixed up with WW2 with adding englishmen in.