87 Billion dollars! Muahahahahaha!

They made an excuse, they pretended to plan, they invaded and occupied, and now they are stuck in Devil’s Den. And the devil likes both souls and money.

The United States of America failed history class, at least the part about Imperialism. It is possible to learn from others mistakes.

What I can’t stand is that Bush thinks the U.S. can do everything. I mean, the U.N. should be in charge of cleaning our mess, not Bush. We got Saddam out of power, now peace needs to be restored, that’s the U.N.'s job anyway.

Yes, but the U.N. may decide to set up a government that Bush can’t keep wrapped around his fingers like so much wet spaghetti.

“Yeah, the war was based on a lie, but Saddam and his followers were sadistic bastards. You can’t not have heard about the atrocities they commited against their own people. No, we didn’t NEED to get rid of Saddam, but it was a good thing to get rid of him. Unfortunately, the follow up was horribly unplanned.”

If there’s no reason to waste so many lives and so much money, then there’s no reason to and it’s a bad thing to do so. If we didn’t “NEED” to go to war, we only did it because we wanted to, which is never a good rationale for war. A war doesn’t consist of just getting rid of the evil dictator. The evil dictator is in hiding somewhere, anyway. War is bringing chaos and death to a whole country on a vast scale. People around here were shitting their pants after that blackout we had, and that only lasted a day and a half at most. One can only imagine the pandemonium if it had continued until now (and if there was no clean water or sewage treatment, in addition), which is <i>exactly</i> what has been going on in Iraq. I wouldn’t inflict that upon my worst enemy. Inflicting that upon a country for nothing more than a <i>lie</i> is criminal. It’s not Saddam Hussein who is suffering from that, it’s all those people he used to lord it over. Who are you to tell them that that’s for their own good? Who are you to determine, without their involvement, what’s good for them? Who gave you that right?

And even if nobody misses Hussein (and some people are missing him because we have bungled the reconstruction so badly), they will still be - and still are, as anyone would gather from looking at the demonstrations - enraged at us for destroying their country and killing their family members. The message we’ve been getting is “Thanks for ousting the dictator, now go to hell.” What is one going to tell them? “Sorry, we know we had no reason to go to war and there was certainly no need to, and we certainly could have avoided it without any negative consequences whatsoever, but we’ve killed these people for your own good, so you should thank us instead of blaming us”? That’s just disgusting.

“In this situation you are right, but after WWII, the U.S. made a significant effort to rebuild the economies of Japan and Germany, and a number of other countries as well I believe. So while the original quote is valid, in the context of Iraq it is so far undetermined.”

It is invalid for the simple reason that it was used to dismiss the current situation. In fact, it is irrelevant to the current situation altogether in all respects.

“Maybe, maybe not. But there is a decree against political assassinations. Not that this has always been followed, but it is there.”

There are even more statutes against starting unprovoked and unjustified wars.

“We got Saddam out of power, now peace needs to be restored, that’s the U.N.'s job anyway.”

After the way the neoconservatives have defied the U.N., insulted our friends for no reason, refused to listen to anyone’s objections, dishonestly broken our agreements, failed to engage in honest discussion with the U.N., lied, spat in the faces of all who didn’t want to give them a blank cheque to do what they wanted, and generally did anything they could do get their precious little war, no matter what, the U.N. has no obligation to clean up our mess.

Originally posted by Phoenix Valkyrie
Yes, but the U.N. may decide to set up a government that Bush can’t keep wrapped around his fingers like so much wet spaghetti.

Point taken. My only thing with Bush is just that, he’s a total control freak.

Just one year, two months left of his time…

Just one year, two months left of his time…

Only problem with next year’s elections: If Bush shouldn’t be President, who should? No one else has stood out. But then, it’s kinda early to be saying that. But as long as Shrub isn’t re-elected, i’m happy. Oh, and by the way, some guy was on CNN this morning wishing that Rumsfeld and his neo-con follower Wolfowitz would resign. I agree with that too.

The main problem with Bush, AND Blair, is that they are too busy kiising each other ASSES, to see what is truly going on in their own countries, and what they really need to be spending that money on.

Bush is just trying to make them feel better since we can’t find the weapons of mass destruction he spoke of oh so much.

Nessa read something in the paper yesterday that disgusted me and probably won’t help Bush get re-elected (heaven forbid that actually happens).

Apparently, Bush wants to put an end to overtime pay and dip into Social Security to help fund the operation over in Iraq. Does this irritate anybody else or am I the only one -_-

Originally posted by Kagato Toujou
[b]Just one year, two months left of his time…

Just one year, two months left of his time… [/b]

So long, don’t think I can wait…

Originally posted by Cloud Strife X
Only problem with next year’s elections: If Bush shouldn’t be President, who should? No one else has stood out. But then, it’s kinda early to be saying that. But as long as Shrub isn’t re-elected, i’m happy. Oh, and by the way, some guy was on CNN this morning wishing that Rumsfeld and his neo-con follower Wolfowitz would resign. I agree with that too.

John Karry, Howard Dean? They are both good candidates, and both Democrats.

Howard Dean keeps talking about this strange thing he calls politics though. Anyone got any idea what that is?

George W. Bush isn’t too bad, but the people he listens to are horrible.

Dean’s pretty neat. I’m actually keeping track of his campaign even if I can’t vote. I don’t like Kerry’s cuz he’s a fucking moron. He asks the questions everyone was asking AFTER the war. I don’t think we want the kind of person that is so easily convinced and confused in the white house.

Originally posted by Cloud Strife X
Only problem with next year’s elections: If Bush shouldn’t be President, who should? No one else has stood out. But then, it’s kinda early to be saying that. But as long as Shrub isn’t re-elected, i’m happy. Oh, and by the way, some guy was on CNN this morning wishing that Rumsfeld and his neo-con follower Wolfowitz would resign. I agree with that too.

You mean you haven’t noticed the media bias yet? Of course the dems aren’t advertised 8P. If you want to know about the new candidates, you gotta check online. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News certainly won’t help much. www.deanforamerica.com is a good place to start 8P

isn’t going to deanforamerica.com to read about Howard Dean sort of going to like, I dunno, disney.com to read about Mulan?

Yeah I was going to remark on how this is, if anything, more biased than the media :stuck_out_tongue:

I just read in the New York Times that only $20 millions of the 87 is actually going to be used to rebuild Iraq, the rest is military expenses.

It lists what he supports and what he’s up to better than all other places. It’s not like I can randomly point other places and actually have a rat’s ass of a chance that they’ll even be talking about the democratic run in the first place.

Some people have a problem with Dean because most of his speeches seem to center around “Well, here’s how we did it in Vermont…” Then there’s the fact that he seems to be making himself out to be the most liberal of the major candidates. While that would get him the nomination, it leaves him open to attack in the Presidential race, unless of course it’s a close primary where the Democrats’ super delegates might be able to give the nomination to a more electable candidate such as, whether you like him or not, Lieberman.

I’m gonna be laying eggs when Lieberman gets elected. As open to attack from idiotic conservatives some of Dean’s stances are, its far from as bad as what Bush has been up to for the past 4 years. As funny as it would be to see Bush try to get at Dean in a 1:1 debate later on, I’m pretty sure he’d be trounced considering no one in his entire administration has the balls to face tough questions from more critical reporters. The only candidate I see that can cause Dean issues is Kerry and he’s a moron. I don’t think anyone’ll want to elect someone stupid enough to let himself be conviced of the Iraq bs only to be asking questions everyone had been asking for months after the shit hits the fan. Al Sharpton’s black and has had a few interesting political conflicts in his lifetime. Sorry, but that’s not going to go well in some parts of the country where racial prejudice still exists. Gephardt is another Al Gore. Unless the others stir a little more water, this isn’t going anywhere.