How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[Adam Smith]

DanS:

I'm convinced that in most part, this war is about demographics.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this sounds to me like #496 in the ever-growing list of ex post rationalizations for the decision.

Starchild:

and the latest bit of news is that not a single British company has been consulted on contracts for rebuilding Iraq.

While I disagree with your claims about Kyoto and WTO, this is an excellent (and unfortunate) point. Why in hell are we putting ourselves in the position of being Ward Heeler for the entire damn world? And over Iraq? Which we could have largely ignored? We've flushed away huge amounts of political capital, managed to piss off absolutely everybody in sight, and the shooting hasn't even started yet.

[DanS]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but this sounds to me like #496 in the ever-growing list of ex post rationalizations for the decision.

I think you understand, but hear me out. Above all, the administration thinks that the status quo in the ME is toxic. You have a lot of unemployed and disenfranchised young men who turn to militant fundamentalism and end up in places like Afghanistan and Chechnya. That's who the 9/11 hijackers were, if you remember reading the personal stories in the Washington Post.

The US and UK have had Hussein under their thumbs for 12 years, which reinforces this toxic atmosphere. A huge generation of Iraqis is growing up in poverty due to this fact. Almost anything is better than this status quo.

[DuncanK]

None of the terrorists of 9-11 were Iraqi and Iraqis are not radical muslim.

[Dis]

also I want to point out all of this is not Bush's fault.

The senators (or was it congress?) blindly followed him and voted to use force if Iraq did not comply last fall.

I'm tired of people blaming everything on Bush. It is more appropiate to blame the entire U.S. goverment. Including the supreme court that elected him

Things were going fine with me until last night. Countries pulling out of the war on terrorism can't be a good thing.

[DanS]

Countries pulling out of the war on terrorism can't be a good thing.

Who said they would do that?

[Chris 62]

Clinton and his gang did far more

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The economy's in the tank...

Thanks to ol Bill.
Clinton fixed the deficeit...fixed it so only a billion dollar buisness could opperate in his hyper-taxed USA.
Small buisnesses are buried under immense tax burdens.
For example, i should have 150 people on my staff.
We can afford exactly 31.
Thanks Bill, and Tom D, let's keep blocking tax cuts, wouldn't want the econmoy to take an upswing, now would we?

Two, Bush has almost completely destroyed America's relationship with the rest of the world.

Better look again, 41 countries currently support the US in it's stance vs Saddam.
In fact, both Denmark and Finland prasied George Bush in the UN today.
The axis of weasel isn't the whole world, even though Chriac thinks he is.

From Kyoto to the World Court to the ABM treaty to the War against Iraq, Bush has thumbed his nose at the international community.

Nonsense.
Clinton entered into the first two knowing full well they would never pass the senate, Bush simply told the truth here.
the ABM treaty was with a nation that no longer exists, the USSR.
The "community", since it needs repeating, supports the USA, not "old europe".

It's his way or the high way, there are no negotiations. No one likes being dicatated to, especially not one's allies.

They are free to do as they like, just as the USA is.
I wasn't aware that you had to lick your allies backside and shove money in thier pockets to get help vs murderers.
That is until now, of course.

Three, civil rights: okay, we aren't a police state . . . yet. However, we have entered a period of true McCarthyism (unlike the PC crap righties were whining about only a few short years ago). People have had their businesses destroyed for the crime of being Muslim,

From the government?
No, so you can't blame Bush for that, try again.

people have been jailed for months incomunicado, American citizens are being held illegally in military brigs against the rulings of the court, many of the rules put in place to protect us from our government in the '70s have been undone or eroded (and the government has wasted no time in abusing its new powers), and plans are in the works for even greater attacks on civil rights.

Care to provide examples Che?
This is the biggest red herring of all, the Patriot STILL requires you go to a judge, and due process.
But it is a nice rant Che.

Bush has done something the Democrats weren't able to convince me of in over a decade, that Republican or Democrat does make a difference. When will our long national nightmare end?

When obstructionist idiots like Daschle actually do the job they are supposed to, instead of trying to undermind the Government to allow their party a shot at a general election.

It was fun Che, your thread is a nice reminder that left wing parinoia and spin doctoring are as rampent as when Slick Willy was running the show.

[SlowwHand]

France really sucks, don't they?
A country full of unwashed hypocrites.

[DuncanK]

Re: Reagan did far more

Originally posted by Chris 62
Thanks to ol Bill.
Clinton fixed the deficeit...fixed it so only a billion dollar buisness could opperate in his hyper-taxed USA.
Small buisnesses are buried under immense tax burdens.
For example, i should have 150 people on my staff.
We can afford exactly 31.
Thanks Bill, and Tom D, let's keep blocking tax cuts, wouldn't want the econmoy to take an upswing, now would we?

Reagan cut taxes under the assumption that that budget would be balanced in the future without tax increases. It was stupid and he was wrong. So Bush Sr. adn Clinton had to raise taxes otherwise the economy would have been swallowed up by the deficits. Reagans stupidity pales in comparison to Bush's however. Not only will the tax cuts not cause economic growth, but tax revenues are sure to decrease and and spending on health care and social security will surely increase significantly. I would give you at least 20 to 1 odds that any tax cut will one, not balance the budget, and two, taxes are going to be raised so high in the next ten years that it will make a democrat out of you.

[PLATO]

Chris 62:

[Ozz]

Re: Clinton and his gang did far more

Originally posted by Chris 62
They are free to do as they like, just as the USA is.
I wasn't aware that you had to lick your allies backside and shove money in thier pockets to get help vs murderers.

You only have to that if you can't make a case that your
allies accept, so you resort to bribery. US made a case
against Afganistan and won support cause terrorism
was proven.

I support getting rid of Saddam, should have done it
10 years ago, or as soon as he kicked the inspectors
out. but why now? The terrorism casus belli is unproven
and if accepted, then the entire ME from Casablanca to
Teheran is equally guilty.

Maybe you just need an enemy, Where's "Mad Dog" Gadaffini when you need him?

[Sava]

More intelligent Chris62 ramblings...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DuncanK
"None of the terrorists of 9-11 were Iraqi"

So? Terrorists are terrorists. They don't get away simply because they weren't involved in 9/11.
I believe Bush said, "wherever they're found".

"and Iraqis are not radical muslim. "

But Hussein is. He's also a dead man walking.






And Sava, tsk, tsk, again.

[Boris Godunov]

Hussein isn't a radical Muslim...the radical Muslims hate him. He's a secular dictator.

[SlowwHand]

Semantics. Call him a dead secular dictator walking, then.

[Guynemer]

It's not just a matter of semantics. In nations ruled by radical Islam, you won't see women going to college, holding jobs, driving cars, or walking by themselves with their faces uncovered. Women can do those things in Iraq.

They can't in Saudi Arabia, "our great ally." If this is about radical Islam, we are barking up the wrong tree.