why is that they you have no problem seeing that the Anglo-American Establishment has used depleted uranium, has tortured innocent iraqis, has benefitted from a world wide drug trade in which they run, have executed coups against foreign countries, have enslaved other nations through the IMF and other loans, and yet...

when it comes to mass third world immigration, your faces suddenly beam at how wonderfully 'humanitarian' 'kind' and 'tolerant' your government is being. When they openly fund organizations like La Raza you think they are being noble, when they openly give asylum to known terrorists you honestly believe it's incomptence, but that their heart is still in the right place. When systematic 'incompentence' is a perfect excuse for the 4+ million cameras in London, or the National ID cards, you're even appreciative of their concern for your safety.

Here's a hint: if they are so meglomaniacal as to embark on a 'New American Century' and enslave the world, what makes you think they'll stop with their own countries?

I give credit to liberals for seeing how the police state is being ratcheted up at all levels of society, but for them to shut off all thinking when it comes to multi-cult and to switch on their automatic dogma of 'tolerance' of all government policies is indicative of heavy brainwashing.

i'm just sayin' :o

It is Bush who wants illegals in the US so he can undermine the minimum wage and Bush is not a liberal.

This post contains roughly 2 trillion fallacies. The most blatent of which is that Liberals are getting their way with Bush in office. Liberals, as a general rule, loath Bush with an intense passion of steaming hatred. The notion that Bush is then Liberal is a hysterical last-ditch effort by conservaitves to not feel so stupid or seem so stupid for electing him.TReally, they should look in the mirror and realize that they are simply as stupid as Bush for electing him again, or in the first place.

Its a joke really.

why is that liberals are always the first ones to defend mass third world migration and violence and islamic/la raza radicals? just answer me that.

Here's a hint: if they are so meglomaniacal as to embark on a 'New American Century' and enslave the world, what makes you think they'll stop with their own countries?

what psychoactive drug would make someone think that PNAC is a liberal creation :confused:

what psychoactive drug would make someone think that PNAC is a liberal creation :confused:I never said that. re-read it carefully.

why is that they you have no problem seeing that the Anglo-American Establishment has used depleted uranium, has tortured innocent iraqis, has benefitted from a world wide drug trade in which they run, have executed coups against foreign countries, have enslaved other nations through the IMF and other loans, and yet...


Because its obvious.

when it comes to mass third world immigration, your faces suddenly beam at how wonderfully 'humanitarian' 'kind' and 'tolerant' your government is being.

Immigration is a good thing, torturing people isn't. What havn't you understood?

Mark

Because its obvious.



Immigration is a good thing, torturing people isn't. What havn't you understood?

Marka police state is a good thing, it keep us all safe. the government told me so :)

What does what you said have to do with what I said?

Mark

It is Bush who wants illegals in the US so he can undermine the minimum wage and Bush is not a liberal.

Actually Bush IS a liberal.

Actually Bush IS a liberal.

Tell us another funny, contra!

Actually Bush IS a liberal.

:rofl: Brilliant!

Mark

Actually Bush IS a liberal.
Absolutely not.

:doh:

sorry i tried. let's turn this into another WWF style left versus right debate

So answer my question and we'll see where we end up.:p

Mark

everyone refer back to my conspiracy thread to get up to speed on what i'm talking about :o

Actually Bush IS a liberal.

Very true. Anyone who denies the liberalism of Bush is simply focusing on the fact that the one decisive thing he did was take action against Saddam after a 8 years of just talking about it by Slick Willie.

Very true. Anyone who denies the liberalism of Bush is simply focusing on the fact that the one decisive thing he did was take action against Saddam after a 8 years of just talking about it by Slick Willie.

The man avoided service in Vietnam, and now that he is standing on the safe end of a huge (2 million strong?) US military force he can play soldier without any risk to himself and pretend he is a man. Of coarse he invaded, he can with any risk to his own skin, increase energy security for the US (and oil supply to his paymasters), put the neoconserivative doctrine of the the promotion of democracy by force into action and have revenge on the guy who wanted to kill his daddy. He is a neoconservative, not a liberal.
Clinton was not a liberal from an international point of view, he was a moderate rightwinger.

Absolutely not.

Actually, he is!

Bush is one of the most liberal Presidents we have ever had. Liberal with our tax dollars by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. Liberal with big Government spending programs by endorsing a military budget of over $350 billion, when there is no more Soviet Union and no more cold war. Liberal with his "non existent" program and policies to solve the health care crisis. Liberal with his "let it be" attitude with regard to big corporation fraud and corruption. And now, like a liberal, he wants to start giving $15 billion of our tax dollars away to the continent of Africa, when here in America we have millions of unemployed, millions of homeless, millions upon million with any health coverage of any kind, and millions of children who can't get a decent education.

DANG LIBBIES! :P

Bush is no liberal ... stop with that insanity

Because its obvious.



Immigration is a good thing, torturing people isn't. What havn't you understood?

Mark

Immigration is a good thing when the people come from a similar background. Like the same race, religion etc. Otherwise you end up with ghettos and barrios and lots of angry dark people who feel like you owe them something. Just look at France for the most recent example.

Bush is the most liberal Republican President since Richard Nixon.

He signed the biggest transfer of wealth in recent history with the medicare prescription drug benefit program. It's one of the most expensive social programs in history. His stance on illegals is held by the leadership of both parties, yet no one admits it openly. They know that the public disagrees, and for good reason.

Unfortunately, Republicans almost have to be liberal to win national elections these days, regardless of any ultra consrvative groups who may align themselves with a particular candidate.

Ironically, Democrats need to run to the right while in campaign mode, and then expose the liberalism later. No one even knew the name "Rhodam Clinton" until she was appointed to her failed attempt take over the American health care system. Her radical feminism had to be kept quiet until the votes were counted. Ironically, she rode the coattails of a man to power. So much for the evil patriarchy stifling the power of women.

Guys like Dukakis, Kerry, and Mondale ran as liberals and lost. They always do, because the voting majority is moderate to right, and don't vote for admitted liberals. The democrats that know this (like Clinton) win elections, and those who run on the radical left agenda fail time and time again. Carter won as a liberal, but that was a fluke. If Ford had not pardoned Nixon, he probably would have won. The public punished him for doing it, yet soon regretted it.

Hillary is another example. She pretends to be some sort of hawk, and touts fiscal conservatism, yet deep down, she wants mandatory schooling for kids at the age of three, so that they can be brainwashed with liberal ideology. She doesn't care what the parents may want, and if she's elected president, watch out. She even hired a few ghost writers and published a book on the subject. Her "village" that she claims is so vital to child rearing has a real name. It's called big, liberal government, and she wants every child to get a bidg dose of it as early as possible.

If you think Bush is a liberal then you don't know what a liberal is.

If you think Bush is a liberal then you don't know what a liberal is.

If you think he's conservative, then you don't know what a conservative is.

He believes in a few conservative principals, but overall, he's a big spending liberal who's continuing to expand the government at a pace we cannot afford. He's not alone.

Every president and congress in modern history has done the same regardless of their party, but we're reaching the point where the compounding interest has absolutely exploded. We're growing the debt by over 10,000 dollars per SECOND at this point, with no end in sight.

Bush, his predecessors, and every member of congress are responsible for this massive spending spree, but zero accountabillity is built into the system. They cannot be held responsible for any of it, because they write laws to make what they do legal.

They also write laws that look good on paper, yet carry absolutely no penalties if they're broken. This way, they can continue to spend OUR money forever.

If you think he's conservative, then you don't know what a conservative is.


I think he is a neoconservative, which is different from normal conservatism.

The man avoided service in Vietnam


What does Bill Clinton have to do with this?

What does Bill Clinton have to do with this?
I was referring to Bush in that.
Bush unlike Clinton uttered the phrase "I'ma war president... with war on my mind". Bill unlike George did not paint himself as a warrior. George paints himself as a warrior though he avoided putting himself on the front line. Hypocrisy on his part? Yes, I think so.

I was referring to Bush in that.


Aren't you a European?


Bush unlike Clinton[FONT=Verdana] uttered the phrase "I'ma war president... with war on my mind".


Uh huh.


Bill unlike George did not paint himself as a warrior.


Bill, unlike George, wasn't fighting a war.


George paints himself as a warrior though he avoided putting himself on the front line.


George W. Bush has actually done more military service than I have, or most other Americans my age. That goes for Europeans as well.

A President is the Commander in Chief. Its his role.



Hypocrisy on his part? Yes, I think so

Not really. He is a war President. Thats a fact.

Aren't you a European?

Yes. Europeans know about Vietnam.



Bill, unlike George, wasn't fighting a war.


Well he did approve bombing Serbia so he did conduct military actions. Of coarse Clinton also was smart enough not to declare war on an idea.



George W. Bush has actually done more military service than I have, or most other Americans my age. That goes for Europeans as well.

Oh I am sorry I was referring to being in a war zone, like the war he has sent many US citizens to fight in. I was not referring to going AWOL or going to the dentist while he was in the military. Do you wish to say he played his part in the war on tooth decay?




Not really. He is a war President. Thats a fact.
A war he wants the military to fight because its the only thing that got him reelected. He is a warrior only when it is not his life on the line.

Yes. Europeans know about Vietnam.


I would have thought a military record would have been the LAST thing a European would want from a national leader. :p


Well he did approve bombing Serbia so he did conduct military actions.


Which he repeatedly said was not a war.

I do remember how eager Europeans were to get America into the thick of things then. Tell me something....how much combat did hawkish European leaders see?



Of coarse Clinton also was smart enough not to declare war on an idea.


Excellent policy, as we saw in 2001 where his genius earned us a destroyed American landmark.


Oh I am sorry I was referring to being in a war zone


Like Gerhard Schröder? Is he a chicken hawk?

Are you a Spaniard?


like the war he has sent many US citizens to fight in.


We're more than a nation of armies. You don't need to earn a medal of honor to run for public office.

Thats inane.

For some reason you folks down south seem obsessed with the labels defining right and left, Liberal and conservative. I guess it relates to the two party system but it is way to oversimplified to actually use. No one is either liberal or conservative but rather we all exist as shade of each. Most we would find are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. In the past "right" wing governments have actually brought with them increases in government while generally "left" wing administrations often have somewhat more fiscal restraint. Any one who describes themselves as strictly one or the other is simply self delusional. Unfortuantely it is not a trend that is at all good for our society. The whole concept of Us or them is simply dumb and gets in the way of real disscussion of issues. It acts as a barrier to compromises. It does serve the Republicans and Democrats in maintaining their power base. Without the US/them mentality there migh actually be a third party that would rise to prominence. And folks the best thing in the world for us would be the rise of a third party. A centrist party that holds as its aims to reduce the size (and cost) of government while committed to issues such as education. A socially liberal fiscally conservative party that in fact most of us would feel more comfortable supporting. I admit I am getting tired of both sides of the political spectrum and the lunatic fringe that dwells there.

And folks the best thing in the world for us would be the rise of a third party

The district and first past the post electoral systems we have in the U.S. make that extremely unlikely. Without changing the system itself the most we can hope for is another party arising and replacing one of the two dominant parties, perpetuating a two party system.

This is the funniest post so far!

Bush is a "liberal"... no he isn't!
Yes, no,yesyes,nonono!

He's a liberervative. He's a compassionate liberal. He's a coniberal.

I was referring to Bush in that.
Bush unlike Clinton uttered the phrase "I'ma war president... with war on my mind". Bill unlike George did not paint himself as a warrior. George paints himself as a warrior though he avoided putting himself on the front line. Hypocrisy on his part? Yes, I think so.



Have YOU served in the armed forces, Myrddin? :confused:

He believes in a few conservative principals, but overall, he's a big spending liberal who's continuing to expand the government at a pace we cannot afford. He's not alone.

Here's the problem. The big spending does not make him a liberal - it makes him fiscally incompetent.

His principals (if he can be said to have any) are neoconservative.

Mark

Have YOU served in the armed forces, Myrddin? :confused:

Nope, and I have never been in a war zone either (well that is not totally correct). Therefore I am not calling for war because I would not ask others to put themselves through so much risk while I have not. Certainly I would not for the poor reasons Bush did.

Wow. I thought conservatives could be stupid, but the fact that they are now stupid enough to realize this late that Bush is a complete dumb**** of a leader, and because of this suddenly change his political idealogy to liberal, is so pathetic it seriously makes me laugh at the absurditity of the failing right.

Have YOU served in the armed forces, Myrddin? :confused:

Have you Contra? :rolleyes:

Hey, here's someone who actually did: John Kerry. I figure not matter what he would have done though, it would have been used against him. If he had lost a limb, he would have been incompitent. If he had killed 20 enemy combatants who were holding his allies hostage, he would have been a murderer.

But Bush, who has a big ****ing hole somehow in his record that for most people would = AWOL, is a brave american patriot for sitting on his ass and partying.

I would have thought a military record would have been the LAST thing a European would want from a national leader. :p

There are more important qualifications to have to be a leader but if he was foaming at the mouth for war and for sending young folk into battle I would hope he would know what he was sending them into and not do so without good reason. Sen. McCain, though a Republican, I respect as being a fairly moderate conservative and somebody who would not put young people through what he went through needlessly.


Which he repeatedly said was not a war.

Technically speaking, there hasn't been one of those since Korea (correct me if I am wrong).


I do remember how eager Europeans were to get America into the thick of things then. Tell me something....how much combat did hawkish European leaders see?

Name somebody who was eager for it and did not express regret later that Europeans didn't look after his problem themselves then I will make comments on individuals. If you are trying to tell me some European leaders can be hypocrites on various issues, don't bother, I know it.




Excellent policy, as we saw in 2001 where his genius earned us a destroyed American landmark.

I think with Bush the tone towards the Middle East changed, perhaps this pissed some people there off (not that it at all excuses such a heinous act). Also 9/11 happened during the time of Bush's near permanent vacations so I don't think you can lay the majority of it on Bills lap. Of coarse Iraq has little to do with 9/11; that is just Bush administration propaganda.



Like Gerhard Schröder? Is he a chicken hawk?

He was not in favor of the invasion of Iraq, like the vast majority of the German people.


Are you a Spaniard?

Nope, but they probably annoyed you when they kicked one of Bush's pet poodles out of office because of his lying.



We're more than a nation of armies. You don't need to earn a medal of honor to run for public office.

Thats inane.
I didn't say you needed to be a war hero. But if you are eager for war on a country that hasn't attacked you then you better somebody who experienced the horrors of war unless you wish to demonstrate your bravery by sending others to fight (and needlessly die) for your objectives.

There are more important qualifications to have to be a leader but if he was foaming at the mouth for war and for sending young folk into battle I would hope he would know what he was sending them into and not do so without good reason.


This is where you allow your dislike for Bush to color 'the facts'. I don't agree Bush is 'foaming at the mouth for war'.


Sen. McCain, though a Republican, I respect as being a fairly moderate conservative and somebody who would not put young people through what he went through needlessly.


It isn't needless. The Middle East policy we've followed for the past 50 years hasn't worked. A new approach is needed. You may not agree with that approach, but to portray it as 'warmongering' is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness.


Technically speaking, there hasn't been one of those since Korea (correct me if I am wrong).


WWII was the last officially declared war.


Name somebody who was eager for it and did not express regret later that Europeans didn't look after his problem themselves then I will make comments on individuals.


Oh, so what differentiates the 'responsible, sad statesman sending his boys to war' and the 'stupid cowboy chickenhawk' is YOUR OPINION of their tone.

European regret is meaningless in this conversation. This conversation is about your opinion of my President being ineligable to fight a war because he wasn't leading the charge of the light brigade.

Can you explain to me why Europeans had Americans bombing Serbia?


If you are trying to tell me some European leaders can be hypocrites on various issues, don't bother, I know it.


They don't seem to earn your animous.


I think with Bush the tone towards the Middle East changed, perhaps this pissed some people there off (not that it at all excuses such a heinous act).


Thats weird, since the planning of 9/11 began before Bush won the election. :|


Also 9/11 happened during the time of Bush's near permanent vacations so I don't think you can lay the majority of it on Bills lap.


Nonsense. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 occurred. To suggest that his tone, his policies, or his Vietnam record have anything to do with Al Qaeda planning it is ridiculous.

At the time, Al Qaeda didn't recognize any significant difference between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.


Of coarse Iraq has little to do with 9/11; that is just Bush administration propaganda.


I'm curious what crime Serbia comitted to earn attacks that Iraq didn't deserve.


He was not in favor of the invasion of Iraq, like the vast majority of the German people.


He sure was in favor of the bombing of Serbia. What was his military background?


Nope


Where in Europe are you from?


but they probably annoyed you when they kicked one of Bush's pet poodles out of office because of his lying.


And as soon as the Spanish Socialists obeyed the terrorists edicts, the attacks stopped for the time being.

I wonder what they'll ask for next.


I didn't say you needed to be a war hero.


What do you need to be then?


But if you are eager for war on a country that hasn't attacked you then you better somebody who experienced the horrors of war unless you wish to demonstrate your bravery by sending others to fight (and needlessly die) for your objectives.

Thats absurd. Even you people who portray Saddam Hussein as a Christ-like martyr can hardly deny that there would have been no invasion of Iraq had it not been for 9/11. The Congress would have never agreed to such a difficult proposition. Events shape foreign policy, and if you don't need to dodge bullets to run for office you don't need to have sunk the Bismarck in order to EXERCISE THE POWERS of that office.

Moreover, this is a very convenient argument from the left. George W. Bush's father was a WWII pilot who flew in combat in one of the most dangerous planes in the Pacific....who you threw out of office for a bona fide draft dodger. The issue was discussed and judged irrelevant.

That fellow later ran against a guy who LOST HIS ARM fighting the Nazis in Italy during WWII...and your leftist friends over here picked the guy who never served a day in his life again. The issue was discussed and judged irrelevant.

NOW its about military service when your leftist friends can finally scare up a veteran. I don't know how you can't be a bit embarassed as your ideological bretheren's hypocrisy.

Thats absurd. Even you people who portray Saddam Hussein as a Christ-like martyr can hardly deny that there would have been no invasion of Iraq had it not been for 9/11. The Congress would have never agreed to such a difficult proposition. Events shape foreign policy, and if you don't need to dodge

If he'd been president during the first WTC bombing in 96' he probably could have tried the same kind of thing.

Future events are shaped by peoples reactions to previous ones, decision making is involved

This is where you allow your dislike for Bush to color 'the facts'. I don't agree Bush is 'foaming at the mouth for war'.
9/11 and the chance to invade Iraq was what woke Bush up out of his golf induced stupor. He was disappointed it was not Saddam who attacked NY.



It isn't needless. The Middle East policy we've followed for the past 50 years hasn't worked. A new approach is needed. You may not agree with that approach, but to portray it as 'warmongering' is simplistic to the point of meaninglessness.
Blowing things up is highly simplistic. Bush’s appointment of Bolton to the UN says a lot about what Bush thinks of discussion. Bush, a Man of Action, preferably as far from the action as possible.



WWII was the last officially declared war.
That far back? I love that cutesy term "police action".



Oh, so what differentiates the 'responsible, sad statesman sending his boys to war' and the 'stupid cowboy chickenhawk' is YOUR OPINION of their tone.
No, it is their regret that Europe did not take care of the matter itself.


European regret is meaningless in this conversation. This conversation is about your opinion of my President being ineligable to fight a war because he wasn't leading the charge of the light brigade.
It is easy to order somebody to war, not so easy to fight yourself. I could probably plan a war better than Dubya even though I was never even in one of those army bars like he was.


Can you explain to me why Europeans had Americans bombing Serbia?
I wouldn't have had them do anything there.



They don't seem to earn your animous.
I dislike the leaders of France and Italy. One of them was for the invasion and the other against so my opinions of them are not formed by one action, just as my opinions of Bush aren't.


Thats weird, since the planning of 9/11 began before Bush won the election. :|
Lots of things get planned, lots of things can happen which might cause action faster. Plans do not exist in a vacuum from external events.



Nonsense. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 occurred. To suggest that his tone, his policies, or his Vietnam record have anything to do with Al Qaeda planning it is ridiculous.
Read above, also Al Qaeda recruits people, I wonder if that speeded up between the election of Bush and 9/11.


At the time, Al Qaeda didn't recognize any significant difference between George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
Officially, perhaps not an enormous difference, but Al Qaeda recruits heavily from the Middle East so there could be a variation in recruitment. Bush was not regarded as being sympathetic to Palestine; the Palestinians could see their homeland edge further away, general Arab sentiment worsened.



I'm curious what crime Serbia comitted to earn attacks that Iraq didn't deserve.
It was starting ethic cleansing in a part of the world which had recently seen a major war. Action to maintain stability and stop the attacks on the Albanians was needed. Iraq on the other hand had been driven back almost to the Stone Age by wars with Iran and the US, it was a spent force. On one hand you have a powder-keg; on the other you have a wet sparkler.



He sure was in favor of the bombing of Serbia. What was his military background?
Other than him having a father who died in WWII, I am not sure. I like him would be in favour of intervening (using international bodies) in situations where there are risks of genocide. If there are genocidal acts happening at a rapid pace right here and now then action needs to come here and now. Officially it was not an American action, it was a NATO one. I would have done something also, but I would do it with European forces if I could.



Where in Europe are you from?
I am Irish.



And as soon as the Spanish Socialists obeyed the terrorists edicts, the attacks stopped for the time being.
They got rid of a leader who lied, a leader who strongly supported Bush and his wars while the public did not. Saying ETA did it when they did not was the last straw. That was the reason he lost, I am not sure if that fits comfortably within your worldview or not but it is the truth. Al Qaeda has been told to bugger off by Europe.


I wonder what they'll ask for next.
They asked Bush to restrict US citizens’ freedoms, and he obeyed so I guess the sky is the limit with that man. He is very generous :|.



What do you need to be then?
Strong but willing to listen to the needs of his people and not wasteful of their lives unless the need is great.



Thats absurd. Even you people who portray Saddam Hussein as a Christ-like martyr
Excuse me? Where did I call Saddam a martyr? He might be regarded as a martyr to some in the Middle East but to me he was a dictator. I know you are not trying to paint me as something I am not so let me clear up your confusion. My opposition to the invasion does not mean I have affection for Saddam.


can hardly deny that there would have been no invasion of Iraq had it not been for 9/11.
I wouldn't say it wouldn't have happened but 9/11 gave the excuse to do so. All you have to do was associate Saddam in peoples mind with 9/11 and voila! Now you have stirred up the patriotic juices and anybody who is against the invasion of Iraq is for the terrorists who killed the people in the Twin Towers. It was very clever manipulation through media actually; Bush has some fine spin doctors.


if you don't need to dodge bullets to run for office you don't need to have sunk the Bismarck in order to EXERCISE THE POWERS of that office.
I never said it was illegal, I said it was hypocritical and suggested the President regarded soldiers’ lives as being cheap.


Moreover, this is a very convenient argument from the left. George W. Bush's father was a WWII pilot who flew in combat in one of the most dangerous planes in the Pacific....who you threw out of office for a bona fide draft dodger.
A rather lackluster president was got rid of for a man who could call himself "leader of the free world". I didn't vote in your election so I threw nobody out myself.


That fellow later ran against a guy who LOST HIS ARM fighting the Nazis in Italy during WWII...and your leftist friends over here picked the guy who never served a day in his life again. The issue was discussed and judged irrelevant.

Bush didn’t show much respect for Max Cleland, a man who lost two legs and an arm fight in the US military.


NOW its about military service when your leftist friends can finally scare up a veteran. I don't know how you can't be a bit embarassed as your ideological bretheren's hypocrisy.
It all depends on what you are doing. If you were fighting for animal rights and somebody photographed you eating a veal steak, I would call you a hypocrite. If you called for war, engineer photo-ops to suggest you are a warrior while your past history suggests you are anything but brave, then I call you a hypocrite and what’s more I would say your hypocrisy is costing lives.

Blowing things up is highly simplistic. Bush’s appointment of Bolton to the UN says a lot about what Bush thinks of discussion. Bush, a Man of Action, preferably as far from the action as possible.


Yeah, how about that Bolton? He's been at the UN for, what, 5 months now? Surely there have been mass demonstrations world wide against him. Surely there a few diplomats sporting new shiners that are threatening war unless he's removed. <checks the news> Nope, nothing. I thought this guy was going to start WWIII simply by walking into the UN building. What gives?

Yeah, how about that Bolton? He's been at the UN for, what, 5 months now? Surely there have been mass demonstrations world wide against him. Surely there a few diplomats sporting new shiners that are threatening war unless he's removed. <checks the news> Nope, nothing. I thought this guy was going to start WWIII simply by walking into the UN building. What gives?

He was pushing for castration of the UN with various "reforms". I think it was actually the Bush administration that had to make him back off (which was somewhat ironic).

9/11 and the chance to invade Iraq was what woke Bush up out of his golf induced stupor.


Whatever you say. You hate Bush, and everything you say is colored through that.


He was disappointed it was not Saddam who attacked NY.


A cross-Atlantic psychic!


Blowing things up is highly simplistic.


Appeasing and coddling dictators and fanatics is not only simplistic, its suicidal.


Bush’s appointment of Bolton to the UN says a lot about what Bush thinks of discussion.


I find it amusing how rarely European skepticism and cynicism touches the institutions it treasures. The UN is a flawed body that NEEDS reform, and yet you attack those who seek to reform it.

Its been 70 years since the world has seen an International group so thoroughly humiliated as we saw with the UN in Bosnia. Shuttle the blue helmets to the side and annihilate the refugees they were supposed to be protecting.


Bush, a Man of Action, preferably as far from the action as possible.


You see, I don't get where you feel you have the right. You have seen LESS ACTION than George W. Bush. Are you disqualified from public service?

Why do we see every internet keyboard jocky who has never lifted a rifle outside of Counter Strike suggesting this man is somehow 'less than'?

Are the only Irishmen allowed to advocate forceful foreign policy former IRA members?


That far back? I love that cutesy term "police action".


America's policy has usually been unconditional surrender when we fight wars. Its best not to declare war when you're going to have to have a negotiated settlement.


No, it is their regret that Europe did not take care of the matter itself.


Europe couldn't take care of the matter themselves.


It is easy to order somebody to war, not so easy to fight yourself.


And as Shroeder and Blair sent forces to Serbia, which medals did they wear on their lapels? How many times did you call them chickenhawks? How often did you raise your voice in opposition to military strikes on Serbia?

After all, what right do you or they have to send troops into harms way when they have never been a hundred miles from a firefight?

By the way, since Bush's military service WASN'T ENOUGH to satisfy the necessary bloodlust a leader needs to have in order to serve, should the vast majority of the military service be allowed to enter public office?

I mean the majority of military jobs are support based. Most people in the navy or airforce will never see combat.

By the way, what right do YOU have to ever support any armed conflict? :p


I could probably plan a war better than Dubya even though I was never even in one of those army bars like he was.


The President doesn't plan wars. Thats what the Joint chiefs of staff and Pentagon are for.


I wouldn't have had them do anything there.


You needed them to do the action.


I dislike the leaders of France and Italy. One of them was for the invasion and the other against so my opinions of them are not formed by one action, just as my opinions of Bush aren't.


I don't see any European obsessions with Chirac bashing.


Lots of things get planned, lots of things can happen which might cause action faster. Plans do not exist in a vacuum from external events.


:rolleyes:

At the end of 1998, Fouda says, Atta and several other planners moved to 54 Marienstrasse in Hamburg, which he describes as "the kitchen of the September 11 operation."

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says, "We had a large surplus of brothers willing to die as martyrs. As we studied various targets, nuclear facilities arose as a key option." Fouda says nuclear targets were dropped for fear they could "get out of hand."

Binalshibh and Mohammed say that when al Qaeda forces attacked the USS Cole in Yemen in October 12, 2000, leaders of the organization were already preparing for a larger operation they knew would kill large numbers of civilians.

In that year, some of the hijackers began taking flight lessons in Florida and Arizona, acquiring just enough training to fly large planes into their targets.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/

Is George W. Bush also responsible for the partition of Ireland?


Read above, also Al Qaeda recruits people, I wonder if that speeded up between the election of Bush and 9/11.


Read above, the members of the 9/11 attack cells were already chosen and plans were in motion before George W. Bush was ever sworn in.

You're a fanatic.


Officially, perhaps not an enormous difference, but Al Qaeda recruits heavily from the Middle East so there could be a variation in recruitment. Bush was not regarded as being sympathetic to Palestine; the Palestinians could see their homeland edge further away, general Arab sentiment worsened.


Well you people wern't obsessed with Bush until we took action in Afghanistan, but for those of us who LIVE here we know that there wasn't much the Arabs could get pissed about before 9/11.

The major issues were China, missile defense, and North Korea. Of course, you seek to blame Bush for 9/11 in retrospect because you hate him. But simply because you fellows are irrational doesn't mean those of us who are concerned for America's well being should join you in your hysteria.


It was starting ethic cleansing in a part of the world which had recently seen a major war. Action to maintain stability and stop the attacks on the Albanians was needed.


2,000 some odd people....many of whom happened to be KLA members.

During the war, however, estimated death figures were very high. On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead. On May 16, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said that up to 100,000 Albanian men in Kosovo had vanished and might have been killed. “We’ve now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing,” Cohen told CBS News. “They may have been murdered.”

On June 17, a British Foreign Office Minister, Geoff Hoon, said: “According to the reports we have gathered, mostly from the refugees, it appears that around 10,000 people have been killed in more than 100 massacres.” On Aug. 2, Bernard Kouchner, the United Nations chief administrator in Kosovo, said 11,000 ethnic Albanians were killed, and said his figure came from the Tribunal, which denied providing it.

A Spanish forensic team’s experience has been typical. According to the newspaper El Pais, the team was told to prepare for at least 2,000 autopsies. But it found 187 bodies, usually buried in individual graves.

The El Pais report has led to some revise their expectations of the death toll, which Mrs. Del Ponte’s report sought to clarify on Wednesday.

Wednesday, in Pristina, the NATO-led peacekeeping troops issued murder statistics since June 12, when NATO took control of the province. Of the 379 people killed, 135 were Serbs, a disproportionate number given that only about 5 percent of the province’s current population is believed to be Serbian. Of the rest, 145 were ethnic Albanians, while 99 are of unknown or other ethnicity, said Maj. Ole Irgens, a spokesman for the force.


http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/europe/111199kosovo-un.html


Iraq on the other hand had been driven back almost to the Stone Age by wars with Iran and the US, it was a spent force. On one hand you have a powder-keg; on the other you have a wet sparkler.


Well wait, the intervention in the Balkans wasn't about CONQUEST (The Serbs were seeking to maintain a state that had existed for nearly 100 years), it was about human rights!

Yet Saddam Hussein is responsible for anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 victims.

Yet we pasted the Serbs for killing 2,000. YOU explain it to me.


Other than him having a father who died in WWII, I am not sure.


He doesn't have any military experience.


I like him would be in favour of intervening (using international bodies) in situations where there are risks of genocide.


So....using groups of people who never served in the military allows for sending people into harms way (Even though they never had the courage to do it themselvs) and is more legitimate than a single person who didn't SERVE ENOUGH for your tastes sending people into harms way. :|


If there are genocidal acts happening at a rapid pace right here and now then action needs to come here and now.


Where is the European intervention in the Sudan?


Officially it was not an American action, it was a NATO one.


Yes. Officially. :|

In light of Continental European behaviour in regard to this Iraqi situation, I'm no longer content to accept our role as European Janissaries.


I would have done something also, but I would do it with European forces if I could.


You couldn't have in the first place, and how dare you in the second? You just said that its hypocrisy for someone to send others into harms way when they haven't shared the danger themselves!


I am Irish.


Hmmm....


They got rid of a leader who lied, a leader who strongly supported Bush and his wars while the public did not. Saying ETA did it when they did not was the last straw. That was the reason he lost, I am not sure if that fits comfortably within your worldview or not but it is the truth. Al Qaeda has been told to bugger off by Europe.


Its dangerous to withdraw troops after a terrorist attack when thats what they tell you to do.

If you can't see why thats dangerous, you're the one being obtuse.


They asked Bush to restrict US citizens’ freedoms, and he obeyed so I guess the sky is the limit with that man. He is very generous.


First of all thats rubbish, secondly that wasn't one of Al Qaeda's demands.


Strong but willing to listen to the needs of his people and not wasteful of their lives unless the need is great.


Your bias clouds your judgement of American policy.


I never said it was illegal, I said it was hypocritical and suggested the President regarded soldiers’ lives as being cheap.


Quote for us Bush's view that soldier's lives are cheap. :rolleyes:


A rather lackluster president was got rid of for a man who could call himself "leader of the free world".


A decorated military veteran who you say is required in order to exercise the office of Commander in Chief.

Its interesting how military service becomes irrelevant when the people in question share your world view.


Bush didn’t show much respect for Max Cleland, a man who lost two legs and an arm fight in the US military.


Bush has nothing to do with TV ads in a Georgian Senatorial race.

Max Cleland should have remembered that he was a Democrat representing the South, not a Democrat representing New Englanders.

Thats why he was thrown out.


If you called for war, engineer photo-ops to suggest you are a warrior while your past history suggests you are anything but brave, then I call you a hypocrite and what’s more I would say your hypocrisy is costing lives.

You mean like where you said you would have ordered the same campaign in the Balkans even though you've never served in combat a day in your life?

Whatever you say. You hate Bush, and everything you say is colored through that. Hate him? No. Dislike? Yes. There are other people in the world more worthy of hate.



A cross-Atlantic psychic!
No, just somebody reporting what CIA agents said.



Appeasing and coddling dictators and fanatics is not only simplistic, its suicidal.
Appeasement has limited value. I guess I could shake my head at US appeasement of the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia also.



I find it amusing how rarely European skepticism and cynicism touches the institutions it treasures.
I am willing to talk about its flaws if you can find multiple things to praise it on.


The UN is a flawed body that NEEDS reform, and yet you attack those who seek to reform it.
Reform? Yes. Destruction? No. The UN needs to become more just a US puppet and that is what Bolton has in mind. The independence of the UN must be sacrosanct.



Its been 70 years since the world has seen an International group so thoroughly humiliated as we saw with the UN in Bosnia. Shuttle the blue helmets to the side and annihilate the refugees they were supposed to be protecting.
The UN troops were too few in number and their mandate was too limited. That situation called for a peacemaking force, not just a peacekeeping force. The UN is also capable of peacemaking but as I said that particular group of troops had a limited mandate.



You see, I don't get where you feel you have the right. You have seen LESS ACTION than George W. Bush. Are you disqualified from public service?
No, but everybody should disqualify themselves from being a hypocrite. You say I have no right to comment on hypocrisy if I see it?


Why do we see every internet keyboard jocky who has never lifted a rifle outside of Counter Strike suggesting this man is somehow 'less than'?
If my country was invaded I would have no hesitation in defending it.


Are the only Irishmen allowed to advocate forceful foreign policy former IRA members? I think diplomacy should be held in higher esteem than warfare. Even a caveman can wage war; it takes a brain to be diplomatic.



America's policy has usually been unconditional surrender when we fight wars. Its best not to declare war when you're going to have to have a negotiated settlement.
I suspect it is easier to have a police action, don't to ask pesky congressmen for permission also. Bush does hate asking for permission to do things even if he is legally bound to do so. Pesky laws shouldn't get in the way of being a president right?



Europe couldn't take care of the matter themselves.
That is something I would like to see rectified.


And as Shroeder and Blair sent forces to Serbia, which medals did they wear on their lapels? How many times did you call them chickenhawks? How often did you raise your voice in opposition to military strikes on Serbia?
I am sorry more European forces did not go to Serbia. Europeans should take care of European affairs. What part of the US is Iraq in again?



After all, what right do you or they have to send troops into harms way when they have never been a hundred miles from a firefight?

By the way, since Bush's military service WASN'T ENOUGH to satisfy the necessary bloodlust a leader needs to have in order to serve, should the vast majority of the military service be allowed to enter public office?

I mean the majority of military jobs are support based. Most people in the navy or airforce will never see combat.

By the way, what right do YOU have to ever support any armed conflict?
You seem to have a comprehension problem. If you asking somebody to go into combat when your daddy helped keep you out of war then you are being a hypocrite, especially if the combat you are asking others to fight in was elective and was for reasons based on lies or shoddy intelligence. Lives wasted for very little gain. It is sickening.


The President doesn't plan wars. Thats what the Joint chiefs of staff and Pentagon are for.
"Boys, I wanna invade this 'ere Eye-rack. Can you rustle me up some tanks or somethin' and git it done? Much obliged". ;)

Poor reasons for invading and poor execution. There are more people than the President at fault yes.



You needed them to do the action.
The military deficit shouldn’t have existed in the first place, as I said Europeans should have done it themselves.



I don't see any European obsessions with Chirac bashing.
This proves you don't know much about Europeans. Chirac bashing is a popular sport in Europe.




At the end of 1998, Fouda says, Atta and several other planners moved to 54 Marienstrasse in Hamburg, which he describes as "the kitchen of the September 11 operation."

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says,...."

They wanted to do more than blow a hole in the basement floor of World Trade Center in the mid-90s so they wanted to try again eventually. That is easy to figure out



Is George W. Bush also responsible for the partition of Ireland?
I am not sure if that is an attempt at baiting or a strawman. What ever species it is it is not really worth my attention.



Read above, the members of the 9/11 attack cells were already chosen and plans were in motion before George W. Bush was ever sworn in.
No new recruits what so ever to Al Qaeda because of the actions of Bush or Bushlings like Richard Perle pre-9/11? If that is true then the Middle East is a much more restrained place than I suspected.


You're a fanatic.
:D That is quote worthy, thanks. No, I am not a fanatic.



Well you people wern't obsessed with Bush until we took action in Afghanistan, but for those of us who LIVE here we know that there wasn't much the Arabs could get pissed about before 9/11.
Oh Bush had done enough to piss off people long before 9/11. By "you people" I am guessing you mean Europeans.


The major issues were China, missile defense, and North Korea.
Opposition to Kyoto, opposition to the ICC, moves to withdraw from the ABM treaty, all those were pissing off people before 9/11.


Of course, you seek to blame Bush for 9/11 in retrospect because you hate him.
Don't hate him; I am just sorry he was inflicted on the world in the form of a US president. If he had kept his attentions to mountain biking and cutting down bushes on his ranch he would remained within his fields of expertise.


But simply because you fellows are irrational doesn't mean those of us who are concerned for America's well being should join you in your hysteria.
I am not hysterical and I am concerned about America’s wellbeing. If I wasn't concerned I would be happy US families are losing family members in Iraq.


2,000 some odd people....many of whom happened to be KLA members.
Genocide isn't just about dead bodies you know, neither is ethnic cleansing. Massive amount of people, the majority of the population of Kosovo were driven from their homes. Graves containing bodies were tampered with, bodies were burned. 2000 found but estimated 10,000 killed and the population of a country displaced.



Well wait, the intervention in the Balkans wasn't about CONQUEST (The Serbs were seeking to maintain a state that had existed for nearly 100 years), it was about human rights!
It was about avoiding the recent wars in the former Yugoslavia being rekindled, or have you conveniently forgotten that little episode of history.


Yet Saddam Hussein is responsible for anywhere between 200,000 and 300,000 victims.
How many has the US killed directly or indirectly in Iraq over the last few decades?



Yet we pasted the Serbs for killing 2,000. YOU explain it to me.
The Serbs were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the worst conflict in Europe since WWII. If Hitler was defeated and hadn't done anything that bad for a few years, then he invades another country would you say "Oh well, he has only killed 2000" or "Oh ****, he is at it again, we have to stop him before history repeats itself"?




He doesn't have any military experience.
He did not start a crusade against an idea either.


So....using groups of people who never served in the military allows for sending people into harms way (Even though they never had the courage to do it themselvs) and is more legitimate than a single person who didn't SERVE ENOUGH for your tastes sending people into harms way.
Unilateral action by a country where that country was not attacked is not a good idea. There needs to be global responsibility for such a decision.



Where is the European intervention in the Sudan?
European intervention is possible, and in my opinion desirable. But such intervention should perhaps happen under the umbrella of the African Union with EU funding and advising. I say this for cultural reasons and because Africans might trust other Africans more than they would white people.



In light of Continental European behaviour in regard to this Iraqi situation, I'm no longer content to accept our role as European Janissaries.
Excellent! Then we both can agree NATO should be dissolved. NATO is used to stop/delay the EU developing its own Rapid Reaction forces while US bases are used to conduct renditions on European soil. I am so glad we agree. ;)



You couldn't have in the first place, and how dare you in the second? You just said that its hypocrisy for someone to send others into harms way when they haven't shared the danger themselves!
If there was a major war in Mexico and a few years later it looked like it would spark up again then it would be advisable for you to do something to prevent that war, because it is on your doorstep. Iraq is not on your doorstep, but Serbia is on ours. From a moral and a security point of view I would intervene in such situations.



Its dangerous to withdraw troops after a terrorist attack when thats what they tell you to do.

If you can't see why thats dangerous, you're the one being obtuse.
Election promises should be kept, if you cannot see that then you are being obtuse.



First of all thats rubbish, secondly that wasn't one of Al Qaeda's demands.
Bush says they hate you for your freedoms, he removes your freedoms. It is a victory for Al Qaeda from the hands of your own president. If that sounds silly to you then imagine how that BS about the Spanish sounds to me.


Your bias clouds your judgement of American policy.
And your bias clouds your judgment of American policy.



Quote for us Bush's view that soldier's lives are cheap.
Words are cheap; deeds are a better thing to judge somebody on.



A decorated military veteran who you say is required in order to exercise the office of Commander in Chief.
Nope, I never said it was required. You are twisting meanings. Strawman.


Its interesting how military service becomes irrelevant when the people in question share your world view.
My opinion on hypocrisy remains constant.



Bush has nothing to do with TV ads in a Georgian Senatorial race.
He had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ad's either; Why do your own work when your political lackeys can do it for you. Bush didn't want to meet him at his ranch either.


Max Cleland should have remembered that he was a Democrat representing the South, not a Democrat representing New Englanders.
Ah, the Ol' South. Home of the Dixiecrats who became Republicans. ;)



You mean like where you said you would have ordered the same campaign in the Balkans even though you've never served in combat a day in your life?
Read above.

He was pushing for castration of the UN with various "reforms". I think it was actually the Bush administration that had to make him back off (which was somewhat ironic).

So he's actually working out quite well, contrary to all the wailing about how terrible he was going to be?

Here's a hint: if they are so meglomaniacal as to embark on a 'New American Century' and enslave the world, what makes you think they'll stop with their own countries?


You are right. It was bad enough that Dubya took over the US but now he is bringing his reign of terror to Iraq and the rest of the world.

So he's actually working out quite well, contrary to all the wailing about how terrible he was going to be?
No, he is showing himself to be an ass.

The Globe and Mail reports that Mr. Bolton, who was appointed to his job by President Bush without the approval of Congress, circulated a letter last week "demanding that last-second changes" in a document that has been debated among UN members for the past year. Among the changes that Mr. Bolton is demanding is the deletion of a clause that would urge the five permanent members of the Security Council not to veto action aimed at halting genocide or ethnic cleansing.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/083005K.shtml

So either Bolton likes genocide, or he delayed issuing this document to try to derail the reform process, or perhaps it was both.

Britain has rebuffed a Bolton move to join him in refusing to pass the organisation's 2006 budget until member states approve wide-ranging management reforms.
To the irritation of Mr Bolton, many developing nations are bitterly opposed to changes that they claim are driven by American political pressure. He suggested last week that talks on the 2006 and 2007 budgets could be postponed as a means to overcome the trenchant resistance from the "G77" bloc of developing countries. He also threatened that the United States could seek an alternative to the UN for solving international problems in future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/27/wbolton27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/27/ixportal.html

He is wishes to deny the UN its budget and wishes to go the unilateral route.

He is an anti-diplomat doing a job that a diplomat should be doing. He is there to cause as much problems for the UN as possible.

He was pushing for castration of the UN with various "reforms". I think it was actually the Bush administration that had to make him back off (which was somewhat ironic).


Considering the record of UN troops raping children during "Peace-Keeping" missions, castration is not a bad idea.

Just sayin'.

Considering the record of UN troops raping children during "Peace-Keeping" missions, castration is not a bad idea.

Just sayin'.
Reforms on who gets to join the UN agencies, background checks if they working in sensitive areas, suspension/dismissal if they are suspected of a crime and the passing on of any information the UN has relating to crimes to the relevant authorities are reforms I want to see happening. These reforms are separate from the type of so called reforms Bolton pressed for.

Immigration is a good thing when the people come from a similar background. Like the same race, religion etc. Otherwise you end up with ghettos and barrios and lots of angry dark people who feel like you owe them something. Just look at France for the most recent example.

Very simplistic. The angry dark people happen to have a history with France, in which France was a colonial power in their nations. It is France that first played the tune of the benefits of becoming a French national: to live under the aegis of France. The anger comes from the fact that French nationality does not translate into full participation in French life. Blacks and Arabs don't get hired to work in banks, positions of importance within government bureaucracies, etc... There is a glass ceiling.

Mixed signals are always bad news.
The French citizens who have dark skin feel France owes them inclusion... and you know what? They are right. Once people like yourself find it in themselves to treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserve, the anger will disappear.

There are plenty of dark skinned immigrants from countries which had no colonial ties to France who do not exhibit the anger of which you speak.

M.

Very simplistic. The angry dark people happen to have a history with France, in which France was a colonial power in their nations. It is France that first played the tune of the benefits of becoming a French national: to live under the aegis of France. The anger comes from the fact that French nationality does not translate into full participation in French life. Blacks and Arabs don't get hired to work in banks, positions of importance within government bureaucracies, etc... There is a glass ceiling.

Mixed signals are always bad news.
The French citizens who have dark skin feel France owes them inclusion... and you know what? They are right. Once people like yourself find it in themselves to treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserve, the anger will disappear.

There are plenty of dark skinned immigrants from countries which had no colonial ties to France who do not exhibit the anger of which you speak.

M.so immigration is about retribution and responsibility towards lesser peoples... interesting. was it ever sold that way to the general public?

Don't worry Malcolm, you're not the only one who feels that way :p

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!

Blacks and Arabs don't get hired to work in banks, positions of importance within government bureaucracies, etc... There is a glass ceiling.

http://smiliesftw.com/!/bsflag.gif
The failure of a certain demographic does not mean there is an organized effort to have that demographic fail. That is an insane conspiracy theory. The lower the IQ's of a certain demographic make them less likely to become bankers and lawyers. It is really that simple.