user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Brent Skowcroft, former national security advisor to former President George Herbert Walker Bush, believes Iraq may be on the verge of a civil war.
What a mess ... and still ... no acknowledgment of wrong doing ... no accountability ...
How long will we, the American people, let them get away with this?
It will be "part" of his legacy. The economy, the growth of the national debt, the total disregard for human life, the total disregard for the environment, the raping of socian security, the leaking of a CIA operatives name as a politcal warning to those who disagree with him, and the history of his failures no matter where he has worked, baseball, oil business and his presidency.
Yes, I think he has givin terrorists more of a reason to exist. I am sure all the terrorists have to do is show a picture of him while recruiting and they will join.
by ABC on Fri Jan 14, 05 3:22pm
[+]
We Want YOU!
by mojo on Fri Jan 14, 05 3:39pm
[+]
Bush doesn't care one way or the other about terrorism -- it's just a front for him to accomplish his own personal desires.
The worst part of his political legacy is:
1) He proved that a majority of Americans can be deceived to support actions that most of the world frowns upon.
2) He continually kills debate in American and international politics about how to clean the mess he made (he's not the only guilty party in this, but he is the main).
3) He successfully avoids being judged by his actions and acomplishments. He just asks people to take his word (and a big part take it).
In most western countries a politician with this performance would be toast.
he sure has created so many fucking cry-babies! (see above)
(is that the best you can do wunderlust, are you twelve?)
by Jyl on Fri Jan 14, 05 5:48pm
[+]
new terror recruits just have to look at his ignorant precome-licking face on a poster once and they ll be ready to rumble !
Iraq has ALWAYS been a terrorist haven actually. Are you even gonna give credit to Bush for turning the biggest terrorist haven on earth (Afghanistan) into a free and safe democracy? That was a huge accomplishment in his Presidency.
Iraq hated the US already, and they harbored Al-Qaeda terrorists matter of fact. "If you harbor a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist" - ever hear that one before? That is ONE of the reasons we went into Iraq, to put an end to them being a terrorist breeding ground like they have been for years. It's a more difficut country than Afghanistan, because their regime is larger obviously. Those Iraqi soldiers just need to get their butts trained pretty soon if they want to be safe and want us out, that is my only concern.
Dani ... whatever Iraq's problems, it wasn't a terrorist haven.
As for clearing Afghanistan ...
1. It has never been completely stabilized.
2. Now that he got whathe wanted, it is reverting through his benign neglect.
That's a new one - America invaded Iraq so that it wouldn't become a terrorist haven - although I believe Bush himself said there was no link between Al-Quaeda (THE terrorist network of note in the Middle East) and Saddam Hussein.
I think you should try to stay on message with the reason you gave at the beginning - find the WMDs (oops sorry, they aren't there). OK how about depose Saddam Hussein and liberate Iraq (well Saddam is deposed although Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and lots of american soldiers are dying in Iraq daily) Hmm OK, another reason you guys came up with ... bring DEMOCRACY to Iraq. Well good luck with that.
Oh, and if the US wanted to bring an end to a terrorist breeding ground, why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia, or , you know, go after bin Ladin?
Oh, and Afghanistan isn't safe. Or free.
Dani_dysfunk, Iraq was never a breeding ground, and Saddam had nothing to do with it.
Any basic analysis of islamism would show you this. Al Qaeda and the Saddam regime probably couldn't have diagreed more.
Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are terrorist havens.
Those people are fighting for their freedom from terroism created by the Corporate Mafia who have an insane greed for power and money.
The us government is cotrolled by this Corporate Mafia and I will continue to drum this message into the people who believe otherwise until the message gets through and the truth is understood.
Those that choose to ignore the truth are only fooling themselves.
I believe I said that was ONE of the reasons.
There were many many many fucking reasons you idiots if you listen to what Bush has to say or what I say. ONE reason is not enough but many reasons like this will mean something.
Alien, stop getting your info from tin foil hat conspiracy theory websites.
This war is costing us more than we could ever regain back through cheap oil. The cheap oil is just a reward afterwards but it might not even work.
Bush is already rich, Cheney is already rich. They don't need money so desperatly to go into a country just to gain a few bucks. This argument the liberals have concocted is pure idiocy and makes no sense.
We went into Iraq because they had WMD, and the WMD was going to be given to the Al-Qaeda terrorist. The Al-Qaeda terrorist were in Iraq. YES IN IRAQ. Not Osama Bin LAden specifically but Terrorists. Terrorists who could strike again at us without warning. Thats playing on the offensive, don't you know?? We can't just make a counter attack to Al-Qaeda, it won't end the war on terrorism. Liberals all seem to think we supposed to be over there for Al-Qaeda. It's not called the war on Al-Qaeda it's the WAR ON TERROR. The war on Islamic Extremist specifically.
Stop thinkig there was only one reason to go and we keep changing it. It is MULTIPLE REASONS. All these reasons are reasons to go into Iraq or we wouldn't be there.
Read carefully this time, I wish this was in bigger font. READ CAREFULLY THIS TIME NICO.
Saddam didn't have TIES I'm saying, but they let terrorist hang out in the country. Because both are against America more than anything else so who care if Al-Qaeda goes recruiting there, they don't arrest 'em.
Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Iraqi Kurdistan since September 2001, is a prototype of America's enemies in the "war on terror."
Also don't forget Al-Zarqawi.
Also remember Osama bin Laden praising Iraqis ofter the bombing in Mosul.
I think Bush's idea for goint to war with Iraq was to nip it in the bud so to speak before they became a threat vastly more dangerous.Also it would theoretically allow for the growth of democracy in the region thus stabalizing the region in the future.Time will tell but I'm skeptical.The problem is that much of the tension that exists between the US and the middle east is due our involvement and support of Israel.Compound this with having middle eastern countries largely run by tyrants and you have the mess you see today.
Read fucking PNAC
Excuse my French
" Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business "
by Neil Postman (author of Teaching as a Subversive activity)
Avg. Customer Rating:
*****
Bush needs terrorism like mosquito needs blood. His goal was never to destroy terrorism (which isn't doable) but to use it to achieve political and economic goals for him and the US. Terrorists pose no threat to a super power like the US no matter how many planes they crash into buildings in the US. If Iraq becomes a terrorist haven then, so what. He can always use that as an excuse to expand American influence and control in the region by invading other countries there and putting his hands on more natural resources. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Kuwait are after all the first, second, third and fourth largest suppliers of oil in the world. American control in the region is vital to maintain American hegemony in the world. Everybody needs oil and if the Americans control this natural resources then they will be in an excelent position to face up agains Europe and China, the next adversaries to the US. The only legacy Bush will be remembered by is getting the Bush, Cheney and others* families richer, almost destroying the UN and setting this world on a path that will most likely lead to World War 3.
Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War
DVD ~ Robert Greenwald"
****
See all 93 reviews
amazon
"Uncovered - The Whole Truth about the Iraq War" is a chilling exposé of the lies upon which the war on Iraq is based. This DVD reveals that the idea for war against Iraq came to the Bush administration on September 11th, 2001. They realized that the fear instilled in the US population by the terrorist attacks in New York and DC would be a wonderful way to mobilize the US population for war against Iraq. The only thing necessary was a justification, so they decided to mislead the US population into believing that Osama bin Laden and Saddam are partners, and that Iraq had nuclear capabilities that they planned to soon use against us. As this DVD reveals, these were all lies.
Most of the lies are by now well-known to those of us who were opposed to the war from the beginning: there are no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq was not gearing up for war with the US, Saddam and bin Laden are not partners and in fact opposed one another. But this documentary is still interesting because it contains the interviews of many people who have worked within the governmental and military system for decades, such as: former Ambassador Joe Wilson; weapons inspectors Scott Ritter and David Albright; anti-terrorism expert Rand Beers; former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, former CIA operative Robert Baer; and Washington editor of The Nation, David Corn. It's fascinating for me to see footage of people who are within the system, believe in the system, and yet are willing to come forward and speak out against Bush and the war on Iraq. For example, John Dean, former White House counsel, comments on the lies Bush told to Congress about Iraq's nuclear capabilities, explaining that it is a federal felony, a crime, to distort information that you present to congress.
I was also struck by the juxtaposition of archival footage, gleaned from a variety of talk shows and public addresses, of Bush, Powell, Rice, and other White House representatives, telling their lies and uttering their buzz words and catch phrases. Asking such ridiculous questions as, "Why should we wait for that smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud?" During the buildup to war I had avoided watching such addresses, (because I knew it was all nonsense) so it is interesting to now see such footage. It is so easy to see how all these appearances were scripted. Bush, Rice, Powell, and company, all come across as robots, shells of human beings. It made me wonder what it was like to lie to a nation, the entire world even, knowing that your lies would result in the deaths of thousands: about 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed, and nearly 700 US soldiers have since been killed. It's a chilling thing to imagine. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
The documentary closes with some wonderful commentary on patriotism and all the propaganda we heard that those of us who oppose the war are traitors, that if you oppose the war then you are not supporting the troops. Milt Bearden, former CIA Station Chief in Pakistan with 30 years of service, comments that unlike just about anyone who holds office in the US, he has two sons who served in the military and even went into combat. In Mr. Bearden's words, "I don't have to take any such nonsense on this. And I won't."
Andrew Michael Parodi "
"We went into Iraq because they had WMD, and the WMD was going to be given to the Al-Qaeda terrorist. The Al-Qaeda terrorist were in Iraq. YES IN IRAQ. Not Osama Bin LAden specifically but Terrorists. Terrorists who could strike again at us without warning. "
You are so unbelieveably wrong it's not even funny. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the United States invaded. The al-Qaeda terrorists you see today began their fighting to protect themselves from American invaders. And the became allies with al-Qaeda because they are fighting for the same cause - Islamic ideals. So in other words, the aggression of the United States bred new terrorists. And WMD...*sigh*...I think my opinion on that is so bloody obvious that I don't have to say anything about it.
"Thats playing on the offensive, don't you know?? We can't just make a counter attack to Al-Qaeda, it won't end the war on terrorism. Liberals all seem to think we supposed to be over there for Al-Qaeda. It's not called the war on Al-Qaeda it's the WAR ON TERROR. The war on Islamic Extremist specifically. "
Are you stupid? Iraq had absolutely NO ties to al-Qaeda before the war and was NO threat to the United States. There was nothing to 'play on the offensive' to. Their weapons programs ceased to exist the FIRST time the United States attacked. And don't start whining like Bush about how Saddam 'could have started his weapons programs because he had the financial means', that is such bullshit. With that fucking mentality the United States could legitimately attack a country like Australia. Bush is a criminal and he should be lynched for his crimes.
" Neither Afghanistan or Iraq are terrorist havens.
Those people are fighting for their freedom from terroism created by the Corporate Mafia who have an insane greed for power and money.
The us government is cotrolled by this Corporate Mafia and I will continue to drum this message into the people who believe otherwise until the message gets through and the truth is understood.
Those that choose to ignore the truth are only fooling themselves. "
Alien_Invader you are a god. Bush and the corporate mafia have something in common with pedophiles - they feed on the power.
BNM,don't equate my opinion of Bush's reason for war with Iraq with my own personal beliefs.Some people stand up for Israel.Some stand up for the muslims of Palestine,Iraq,Iran, ....I do neither and I don't give a f-ck about any of them and you won't find me among those who think middle easterners want a Jeffersonian Democracy, much less are able to truly appreciate and sustain one.That said I don't think you can find a single US politician who doesn't play ball with the Zionist lobby (by necessity mind you).A Buchannen or a Nader are as close as you will get.Unlike alot of folks here I am not the one with a cartoonish idea of Bush and Cheney as the villians as if I should be comfortable with mid east despots and thugs as leaders or with the likes of John Kerry as a viable alternative for president.
g'day Robot.Hows it going
ha , no my comments werent directed at you there.Shit, thatd would have been damn offensive.No, I only read the ballot thread after posting. I agree anyway
with much of what your saying about things.
I have to be honest.I can see exactly why a country (any country) would want to move in on a country with a Saddam leading it.Sometimes i almost hoped they would have found some big program for nuclear weapons or something, just to justify it more.Pretty much like moving pre-emptively on a Stalin or Hitler.Technically speaking they would have a case im sure.
Im sure if Saddam had the means he 'd be capable of anything.
One good thing about this site was to read the feelings about it from the US marines on here.As always it shows the dicrepancy between the leaders and the soldiers.They've shown theyre heart's in the right place and really did go their for Humanitarian reasons.They certainly arent lying.Its hard to take seeing some pics recently of US marines with tears.This anti-US marine stuff bothers the heck outta me.So many r committing suicide too and everything.
Have a good one ;))
U sound like a great guy to have a beer with btw.
As well as the stabilising factor.Whether the US are seen as being the good guys or bad there was always going to be a civil war there anyway probably.
Dani: You are confusing who constitutes "we." It is costing the US more than it could get from cheap oil ... not the companies who are reaping profits. They have, in effect, gotten the government to underwrite all costs of obtaining cheap oil.
From a strictly (predatory) business standpoint, it was genius.
The USA insists that all world oil trade must use US dollars.The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was because of Saddam Hussein's announcement that Iraq would price its oil in the Euro currency instead of dollars, if others did the same it would harm the US economy.
Makes you wonder why USA has been making persistent attempts to remove the democratically elected government in Venezuela because of criticism of the USA... CHEAP OIL!
by isay on Sun Jan 16, 05 2:13pm
[+]
G'day to you too BMN.I reckon I may have stepped on your toes BMN.
Sorry fella.No hard feelins'.I mighty appreciate thos kind words and I'll drop in some time to take you up on that offer for a rack of bear.
Yippy freakin hee haw !!!
(fades into the setting sun...)
Oh ,No worries then mate.i thought i mighta stepped on yours
;))
Cathexis: And it is helping IRAQ's economy as well when they trade oil. Oil is Iraq's only export and they depend on it too keep up in the world. Where does the evil come in play here, when on the oil argument here all we're doing is making fair trade?
Dani. This is my favourite quote of yours.
Iraq has ALWAYS been a terrorist haven actually.
Brilliant. I love your lies.
Dani: Because currently, the US corporations are in charge of the Iraqi oil. Iraq is not benefitting appreciably ... but the oil companies are.
Are you really going to tell me we did them a favor?!?
Yeah cretin, who do you think Saddam Hussein and his croanies are? 'Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland, Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, & Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq.'
You're trying to make it out to seem as Saddam was a perfect wonderful leader in Iraq. The terrorists are active now ofcourse because the U.S. is occupying them, but it won't remain a terrorist haven hideout forever.
Cathexis: PROP-A-GAND-A.
face the facts, cretin
"Yeah cretin, who do you think Saddam Hussein and his croanies are?"
An ex business partner of the first dispicable Bush, who then used the American government to get Saddam into power.
"You're trying to make it out to seem as Saddam was a perfect wonderful leader in Iraq."
As if. You're just another liar, Dani. Along with her-blog, Jinn, everygirl and all the rest who defend this indefensible war. You all make me sick, you shameless liars.
Funny how people keeping formulating excuses to justify the invasion of Iraq, WMD's then human rights then terrorists, i wonder what they'll come up with next.
The terrorists are active now ofcourse because the U.S. is occupying them
Don't understand that bit!
by isay on Tue Jan 18, 05 12:04pm
[+]
Cretin, how did Bush Sr. possibly get Saddam into power? Saddam's predeccesor chose him to be ruler if i'm correct.
Okay isay. Heres what the execs say about WMD. It's the answer to your question of "How come it went from WMD to now liberating Iraq?" that the left keeps spewing.
R. CHENEY: Well, I can understand why some people have the view that it was all about WMD. That was part of the case because of his obvious track record.
The second key ingredient was the fact that he did have an association with terror.
IMUS: And you guys said it was about that, too.
R. CHENEY: Right. He was paying suicide bombers to kill Israelis, he’d hosted Abu Nidal for years in Baghdad. He’d supported the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. And there was also evidence that he also had a relationship with Al Qaeda. There was debate with respect to how deep the relationship was, but George Tenet was on the Hill testifying that that relationship with Al Qaeda went back 10 years, to the early `90s, and there's evidence to support that.
So there was this combination of a link to terror, as well as the track record with respect to weapons of mass destruction, as well as having started two wars, as well as having slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. And we had every reason to believe that if he were left to his own devices, that he would, in fact, again become a significant threat, not only to the region, but to others, including the United States.
And that was our assessment of the situation at the time, and I think it was valid.
Now, what happened the reason the WMD, I think, got so much notice was because it was a quantifiable, measurable kind of thing and when we got into the United Nations, it became the focal point of the debate. The resolutions that were offered, 1441, for example, that was approved in the fall of 2002, focused specifically on his failure to come clean on his weapons of mass destruction, which he’d been required to do by the resolution that he’d signed back in ‘91.
And that was an argument that you could have and you could get people on board and say, "Yes, that’s right; he’s never come clean." But there were a lot of other arguments and reasons too.
-- Dick Cheney on Imus in the Morning January 20, 2005.
Saddam Hussain was used by the American Government. Iraqis used chemical and biological weapons with US knowledge and active support because of the US desire to punish Iran in the Iran/Iraq war, Where was the concern then about WMD,s and Human rights. All this is to do with US self interest only. The USA is always against any other country having any sort of monopoly, but fiercely defends its own monopolies. Open you're eyes and don't end up like one of those Arrogant, conceited nationalists.
by isay on Fri Jan 21, 05 12:30pm
[+]
|
|
