I'm confused

I cant figure it out!!!


I'll know how to vote come November. Who to believe...

Lemme see, have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Recession under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam in custody - bad...

Ah, it's so confusing

heres another to add
Clinton, sex in the white house-good
Bush, retard-bad
:lol2: jk

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Wasn't the custody of Bin Laden set forth as a trade for weapons - which would have been going to the dictator of Sudan?

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

It's funny how that's worded: "Christian Serbs" and "Muslim Albanian terrorists" this isn't another Christians are good, Muslims are bad, sort of thing is it?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

They're both bad - say, you are confused aren't you? The only thing new is that this time you know you are :)

clinton and bush are both crooks and criminals in my books. clinton could just cover up better. maybe bush should get an interm.:evillol:

That was entertaining :smile:

I cant figure it out!!!


Ah, it's so confusing

I'll simplify it for you.

Clinton isn't standing this time.His actions are irrelevant.
Bush.....:rolleyes: If by another freak result he gets back in,expect tospend lots more money and lives fucking up other peoples' countries.

I'll simplify it for you.

Clinton isn't standing this time.His actions are irrelevant.
Bush.....:rolleyes: If by another freak result he gets back in,expect tospend lots more money and lives fucking up other peoples' countries.

I agree.

Also: Realizing that OTHER countries exist on this planet and working with their help and blessing to achieve mutually beneficial goals is GOOD.

Telling the majority of the world, in essence, to fuck off because the US knows whats best for you then screwing up and begging for international assistance is BAD (BUSH).

I simplify it further with respect to both Clinton's and Bush's actions described above.

BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD,BAD, BAD,BAD, BAD,BAD, BAD,BAD, BAD,BAD, BAD,BAD, BAD.

All of those actions were bad.

Vote Kerry? HELL NO!!!
BAD!!!!!

I like Nader :icon16:

Or, how about this:

America's profit from the actions in Serbia:
Nill.
America's profit from the actions in Iraq.
Massive.

Living conditions in Serbia after UN intervention:
Better than before
Lving conditions in Iraq after US intervention:
Much, much worse than before.

UN support given to action in Serbia:
Yes.
Un Support given to action in Iraq
No.




And YES mass graves were found, and are still being found, mean while the whole WMD story is looking more and more like a story.



Clinton gets a blow job from his secratry.
So what?
Bush goes against the wishs of the UN, and the wishs of all but 7 countries, all of which imediatly profit from US trade deals.
Of course its bad!




And I don't see whats so confusing, you don't get to vote for Clinton this time, he's had his turn at giving the US a postive world image (you know its actualy a benefit to the US if the 97.5% of the worlds population who don't live there like you).
Unforunatly Bush tore it all down, and set back the worlds image of the US probobly 40 years.

And I don't see whats so confusing, you don't get to vote for Clinton this time, he's had his turn at giving the US a postive world image (you know its actualy a benefit to the US if the 97.5% of the worlds population who don't live there like you).
Unforunatly Bush tore it all down, and set back the worlds image of the US probobly 40 years.

Man, 97.5% of the world doesn't live here. Funny how in this forum all we can do is talk about the US. :disappoin

Or, how about this:

America's profit from the actions in Serbia:
Nill.
America's profit from the actions in Iraq.
Massive.



Profits = GOOD


Living conditions in Serbia after UN intervention:
Better than before
Lving conditions in Iraq after US intervention:
Much, much worse than before.


Right on the first one. Wrong on the second one. Better - much better.

UN support given to action in Serbia:
Yes.
Un Support given to action in Iraq
No.


Who cares what the UN does. Its a useless organization and will implode on its own ineptitude.

And YES mass graves were found, and are still being found, mean while the whole WMD story is looking more and more like a story.

One that will continue to play itself out.

Clinton gets a blow job from his secratry.
So what?

Like most people you are confused about the issue. Its not the blow job, its the lieing about it under oath.

Bush goes against the wishs of the UN, and the wishs of all but 7 countries, all of which imediatly profit from US trade deals.
Of course its bad!

Once again with the UN. The UN doesn't matter. Its imput should not be requested or considered.


And I don't see whats so confusing, you don't get to vote for Clinton this time, he's had his turn at giving the US a postive world image (you know its actualy a benefit to the US if the 97.5% of the worlds population who don't live there like you).

Unforunatly Bush tore it all down, and set back the worlds image of the US probobly 40 years.

Let me use a prior quote from you. So what?

Profits = GOOD

Not when the profits belong to mostly his family, and his, and his VP's cronies.

Right on the first one. Wrong on the second one. Better - much better.

In Iraq? You ARE talking about Iraq, right?

Well, maybe Iraq will have a better country now, under their current leader. He IS sooo different from the last one. Right?

Who cares what the UN does. Its a useless organization and will implode on its own ineptitude.

Although I am not as vehement as you are, I tend to agree with your assessment of the UN...BUT, how can you just discount the difference in sanctioning between the two actions?

One that will continue to play itself out.

As you and GWB, are both hoping (and wishing), I'm sure.

Like most people you are confused about the issue. Its not the blow job, its the lieing about it under oath.

I'll be honest, unlike some people, and admit it was the public desecration of the prime office of this country that pissed me off. That mantra you just used is tired, and stupid, as we all know better...or we should.

Once again with the UN. The UN doesn't matter. Its imput should not be requested or considered.

Just as we have to deal with the little red-tape we do in our daily lives, as unnecessary, and a waste as they are, most of the time, so do we have to deal the "international red-tape" of international politics. At least for now. If we'd only leave well enough alone, and deal with OUR problems first, before we try to take care of someone else's, maybe we'll have to deal with it less.

Let me use a prior quote from you. So what?

That was, in two words, crude and arrogant. That's the same attitude that's helping to recruit more and more people into the simple cause of killing Americans. Don't get me wrong, I'm no pacifist or anything, but we all know we'll be hard-pressed to match China's legions, let alone 5 billion other people pissed-off at us, as we meddle with THEIR affairs, time and again, and have the audacity to say what you said, when they take interest in us.

Like most people you are confused about the issue. Its not the blow job, its the lieing about it under oath.
God help us that a politician lied - that's soooo horrible. And what of GWB's weapons of mass destruction, that supposedly posed a threat to the U.S.? As I recall, Clinton's lie didn't end up costing billions of U.S. tax dollars... :)

That was, in two words, crude and arrogant. That's the same attitude that's helping to recruit more and more people into the simple cause of killing Americans. Don't get me wrong, I'm no pacifist or anything, but we all know we'll be hard-pressed to match China's legions, let alone 5 billion other people pissed-off at us, as we meddle with THEIR affairs, time and again, and have the audacity to say what you said, when they take interest in us.

Its a crock to say that the rest of the world hates us. 5 billion? I'd wager that two to three billion have no opinion at all. A billion or two more could give two shits and that last billion is broken down into people who are like the rest of us - Some hate other countries in total, some hate the politicians in those countries, some are jealous of facets of other countries.

Now, my guess is that most people here hate something about other countries. Yet, I haven't read where thats casued one of us to start killing people from there. Recruiting to kill is not a simple matter. If it were so easy, there'd be bloodbaths all over the world everyday.

God help us that a politician lied - that's soooo horrible. And what of GWB's weapons of mass destruction, that supposedly posed a threat to the U.S.? As I recall, Clinton's lie didn't end up costing billions of U.S. tax dollars... :)

Now you're part of the second group. I did nothing but point out that the issue wasn't the blow job and you've twisted it around to make moral equivelences. :disappoin

As for Clinton costing billions - that was done by saying he was going to have a middle class tax cut, but instead, he instantiated the largest tax increase ever.

good read funny too.

God help us that a politician lied - that's soooo horrible. And what of GWB's weapons of mass destruction, that supposedly posed a threat to the U.S.? As I recall, Clinton's lie didn't end up costing billions of U.S. tax dollars... :)

A politician that lies is a horrible thing! People who think otherwise are part of the problem. They will continue voting for grifters that will say and do anything to get elected or re-elected.

Profits = GOOD


at the cost of innocent lives? in that case we better release all those people in jail right now who killed looking for profits.


Right on the first one. Wrong on the second one. Better - much better.


jury is still out on this. it will get better but right now i think things are worse.


Who cares what the UN does. Its a useless organization and will implode on its own ineptitude.



you just made every up and coming tyrants day. so only america can police the world right?


One that will continue to play itself out.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3915759.stm
Australia seems to think it was bs.


Like most people you are confused about the issue. Its not the blow job, its the lieing about it under oath.


people lie get over it. at least his lie didn't send a country to war.



Once again with the UN. The UN doesn't matter. Its imput should not be requested or considered.


again why?




Let me use a prior quote from you. So what?


i see you never plan to leave north america. maybe the younger people with their whole life ahead of them might like to take a tour of world without fear of one of these american haters bombing them or shooting them.


war isn't a good thing. all it does is cause more war and with nukes and biological warfare this is a bad time to be playing this game.

at the cost of innocent lives? in that case we better release all those people in jail right now who killed looking for profits.

I see. Its not the profits, but who might make the profits. I didn't see that in the original post :disappoin


i see you never plan to leave north america. maybe the younger people with their whole life ahead of them might like to take a tour of world without fear of one of these american haters bombing them or shooting them.

Guam, Siapan and Japan are part of North America? My maps are out of date. I suppose that my wife coming from Korea and her travels to China and Taiwan don't count for anything. In fact she's recently returned from a three week trip to China and Korea and she didn't tell me about anyone shooting her or launching any bombs.

My Russian colleges aren't rushing to get back (no play on words there). My Mexican cohorts like it right where they are at. Our Canadian employees are not fleeing for their lives. My boss went to France last month - nobody bombed her. A friend of mine and his wife took a trip to England and were not assasinated.

I'll also tell her that she doesn't have a whole life ahead of her since she is 34 and its clear that my extra couple years make me over the hill too. I suppose the proper response would be to point out that you are too young to have any common sense or have not actually been anyplace but home, but that might be considered equally as insulting.

Now you're part of the second group. I did nothing but point out that the issue wasn't the blow job and you've twisted it around to make moral equivelences.
I only mentioned the lies, I wrote nothing of Clinton's BJ experiences while heading the country.
Clinton lied, George W Bush lied. If you're going to say that Clinton is worse than Bush because he lied - then you have no argument - because they're both liars, what's so hard to understand about that?

At the VERY best, if I grant that the initial claims about Clinton had merit, this thread would only call attention to the fact that we may have had TWO terrible Presidents in a row. The fact that their actions may be spun by the Right and/or Left is rather irrelevant. So working under this assumption, shall we now re-elect one of them (GWB)? What kind of repugnant logic is this?

Can someone supply some proof that Bush lied!

If it were so easy, there'd be bloodbaths all over the world everyday.



What hole are you living in?
I would like to come and join you.


Go and take a walk anywhere in North Africa? Or try walking the streets of any city in South Africa after dark?
What about a hike along the Indian Pakistan bourder?
Or prehaps a holiday on the west bank?
How about spending a week in East Timor?
Or the mountians of Papa New Guinie?
Or, since its relevent why not go and spend a week in a Basra Hotel.

Take the kids, they can play in the local crater that used to be local school and help the bus boy carry water from the tanker truck, or light fires for the cooks becuase there still no electricty of gas.



Try talking to an Iraqi, one with Family still in Iraq, or someone who has just come back from Iraq, and who used to live there.
Yes, there is greater freedom, but you seem to forget that that freedom cost them all of thier infrastructure.
The US bombed EVERYTHING. Every bridge, every major road intersection, every power station, every water plant, and every sanataion plant.

Currently the NZ army engineers are in Iraq rebuilding schools. Why are they rebuilding schools? Because they were bombed by Americans.
Anything part of the nations industry and infrastructure was destroyed.

Yes Iraqi's are without Sadam, but thier living standards have taken a major step backwards, and will take a long time yet to get back to where they were 12 months ago.
There are still large numbers of people living with out running water and electricity.


I don't know what side of the war was shown in the US, but war of any kind is destructive, and the people who suffer the most from that destruction are always the innocent civilians.

Also note that more people have been killed since the offial end of the war, than were killed during the war, and the majority of them have been Iraqi civillians either trying to get on with the lives, or work towards rebuilding the country. You probobly havn't seen it in the US, but there have several cases where Iraqi's wanting to join the new US created Police force have been killed in large numbers because the US forces have taken no action what so ever to protect them from even a simple terrorist style attack.



Iraq is not a pleasant place to live.



Serbia, however is much much nicer place to live now, but then the worlds supported the actions taken there.




And whether or not you like it, or are willing to accept it, your going to have to acknowledge that the US, despite its economic and military power, is a world minority.
Military power has its limits, it dosn't matter how many tanks you have, if enough people hate you they will stop them.
And $$$ are valuable only if people give them value. The value of the US dollar has been dropping rapidly since the invasion of Iraq, and as the EU gets bigger and stronger it will soon become the dominate world economic power.
The US needs to fix its international image, it has no right to enforce its own ideals upon others with out the permission of the rest of the world, and if it continues to do so then its position as a world leader will be toppled, and Europe will take its place.

I don't think you seem to understand that looking after the best interests of the US, means looking after the US's international image.
Its the most important thing any forgin ministry worrys about.



Just remember what happened to the last super power that thought it knew best and acted with out regard to those around it.
Rome is now just a small city in a small country with very little power.

Serbia, however is much much nicer place to live now, but then the worlds supported the actions taken there.


I have it on good authority that Serbia (Belgrad, at least) isn't any nicer to live in now that it was before Mr Clinton bombed it for 73 straight days

I only mentioned the lies, I wrote nothing of Clinton's BJ experiences while heading the country.
Clinton lied, George W Bush lied. If you're going to say that Clinton is worse than Bush because he lied - then you have no argument - because they're both liars, what's so hard to understand about that?

Woah - I never said Clinton was worse then Bush or the other way around. I was just making the observation that people make a mistake as to what part was the actual issue with Clinton. Getting the BJ was morally wrong since he's married. Lieing under oath is the crime that was investigated.

What hole are you living in?
I would like to come and join you.

Go and take a walk anywhere in North Africa? Or try walking the streets of any city in South Africa after dark?
What about a hike along the Indian Pakistan bourder?
Or prehaps a holiday on the west bank?
How about spending a week in East Timor?
Or the mountians of Papa New Guinie?
Or, since its relevent why not go and spend a week in a Basra Hotel.


Perhaps you forgot what I was quoting


That's the same attitude that's helping to recruit more and more people into the simple cause of killing Americans.

I didn't know the people in the places you listed were recruiting to kill Americans. :disappoin You're way out of context.

As for the hole I'm living it - I'd invite you, but I doubt you'd be able to see over the top of it :p

Take the kids, they can play in the local crater that used to be local school and help the bus boy carry water from the tanker truck, or light fires for the cooks becuase there still no electricty of gas.

Now you're on a wild tangent now.


Try talking to an Iraqi, one with Family still in Iraq, or someone who has just come back from Iraq, and who used to live there.
Yes, there is greater freedom, but you seem to forget that that freedom cost them all of thier infrastructure.
The US bombed EVERYTHING. Every bridge, every major road intersection, every power station, every water plant, and every sanataion plant.

I've talked with several people who've come back from Iraq. We have an Army Reserve base nearby. The US didn't bomb EVERYTHING. Thats disengenous.

Currently the NZ army engineers are in Iraq rebuilding schools. Why are they rebuilding schools? Because they were bombed by Americans.


No - they are getting rebuilt becaues of the neglect of the Sadam regime. I don't doubt some were bombed. However, they weren't bombed because they were schools. They either housed soldiers or their materials.

Yes Iraqi's are without Sadam, but thier living standards have taken a major step backwards, and will take a long time yet to get back to where they were 12 months ago.
There are still large numbers of people living with out running water and electricity.

Wrong wrong wrong.


I don't know what side of the war was shown in the US, but war of any kind is destructive, and the people who suffer the most from that destruction are always the innocent civilians.

There was pleanty of destruction that occurred. Perhaps the side you've seen is only the destruction and nothing more.

Also note that more people have been killed since the offial end of the war, than were killed during the war, and the majority of them have been Iraqi civillians either trying to get on with the lives, or work towards rebuilding the country. You probobly havn't seen it in the US, but there have several cases where Iraqi's wanting to join the new US created Police force have been killed in large numbers because the US forces have taken no action what so ever to protect them from even a simple terrorist style attack.

Can you point me to a link that substantiates that more people have died since the end of the war then during it? If the caveat is that the war lasted a week and you count natural deaths (old age, etc) over the course of that last year then it'll be more disengenous then I thought before.



Iraq is not a pleasant place to live.


Your opinion.



Serbia, however is much much nicer place to live now, but then the worlds supported the actions taken there.


Your opinion.



And whether or not you like it, or are willing to accept it, your going to have to acknowledge that the US, despite its economic and military power, is a world minority.



So you suggest that minorities should do what the majority thinks? Let me get the NAACP on the line for you.


Military power has its limits, it dosn't matter how many tanks you have, if enough people hate you they will stop them.


And $$$ are valuable only if people give them value. The value of the US dollar has been dropping rapidly since the invasion of Iraq, and as the EU gets bigger and stronger it will soon become the dominate world economic power.


Actually it stabalized about six months ago. The EU has nearly peaked. China will soon pass it and there will be two economic powers the EU will be trying to catch.




The US needs to fix its international image, it has no right to enforce its own ideals upon others with out the permission of the rest of the world, and if it continues to do so then its position as a world leader will be toppled, and Europe will take its place.



We do not need to 'fix' our image. The rest of the worlds permission is not required for our country to do what is in our own best interest. I don't recall the world being notified by the French when they went to the Ivory Coast. Did England give us a memo before heading to the Fauklands? Where is Russia's permission slip in Chechnia?




I don't think you seem to understand that looking after the best interests of the US, means looking after the US's international image.
Its the most important thing any forgin ministry worrys about.



I think you have a chip on your shoulder and are being blinded by it.


Just remember what happened to the last super power that thought it knew best and acted with out regard to those around it.
Rome is now just a small city in a small country with very little power.

Rome? That would be the Soviet Union and they were taken care of quite nicely by people who stood with strenght while others called for appeasement. Rome fell from the inside - not by outside forces.

The soviet union was a military super power, not an economic one, and on a global scale is sphere of infulence was only a small one.
We don't listen to soviet music, or watch soviet television, and I dont ever recall a country sending its citizens to war in the hope of getting a better trade deal with the USSR.

The roman empire was the last super power comparable with the modern US.


So you suggest that minorities should do what the majority thinks

I don't know if you realise or not, but that is a founding princable of democratic thought. (try reading some J.S.Mills)
You know what democracy is right?
Or does it only apply within the United states as the rest of us savages arn't civilised enough to handle it, and so should bow before the almighty US!

The world voted, it made an almost unanimous descision not to invade Iraq.
The US listened, then acted the school yard bully and went in anyway.



The rest of the worlds permission is not required for our country to do what is in our own best interest

When what you do occurs within your own borders then you are welcome to do what you like.

But when you go around invading other nations it comes under the worlds best interest as well.

Why should the best interests of the US suddenly overide the best interests of other nations in the world?
Its in the best interests of many terrorist organisations to see the United States destroyed, prehaps those of us not in the US should simply let it happen.

Why not take it a step further, it would be in New Zealands best interests to see the down fall of the current US administration. Prehaps we should accept the US offers of help in setting up a local Nuclear reactor. Then use that reactor, with help from Australia, to build a small Nuclear bomb.
Then use our existing relationship with the US to sneak the bomb into a meeting with the US president in washington.

Under your claim thats its ok to seak a regime change in another country useing what ever means nessacry because its within your own "best interest" then it would be a quite acceptable practice.


But its not.



The US is a global citizen, and right now its not acting like a very friendly one.
Excuse me and the majority of the worlds population if we object and try to point it out.

If your president really was concerned about the US's "best interests" he would not be comitting acts that go against the wishs of the world.

If your president really was concerned about the US's "best interests" he would not be comitting acts that go against the wishs of the world.

LOL :iceslolan :grinno: :lol2: ;) :cwm27: :rofl: :jump3: (i like smilies, and idiots they are funny)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3882145.stm

OK where does it say BUSH lied? I'll answer for you it don't!



Mr Bush spoke after a report by US senators said the CIA had overstated the threat posed by Iraq.

However, the Senate Intelligence Committee report, published on Friday, concluded that there was no evidence the Bush administration had tried to coerce or put pressure on officials to adapt their findings.

The committee's chairman, Republican Senator Pat Roberts, said most of the key judgements about Iraq's WMD programmes "were either overstated or were not supported by the raw intelligence reporting".

But the failings were not America's alone, he added.

The report criticises CIA director George Tenet, who steps down on Sunday, for not personally checking President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. This contained the allegation - which first surfaced in a UK report and has since been discredited - that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from Niger.
It concludes there is no evidence that analysts came under pressure from the White House to deliver certain findings, although some Democrats on the committee disagree.

The report criticises CIA director George Tenet, who steps down on Sunday, for not personally checking President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. This contained the allegation - which first surfaced in a UK report and has since been discredited - that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium from Niger.
It concludes there is no evidence that analysts came under pressure from the White House to deliver certain findings, although some Democrats on the committee disagree.

Yes, gotta love the Warren Commission of the 21st century

Anyway, President's lies!

"There was only one problem with President George W. Bush's claim Thursday that the nation's top economists forecast substantial economic growth if Congress passed the president's tax cut: The forecast with that conclusion doesn't exist.Bush and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer went out of their way Thursday to cite a new survey by "Blue-Chip economists" that the economy would grow 3.3 percent this year if the president's tax cut proposal becomes law. That was news to the editor who assembles the economic forecast. "I don't know what he was citing," said Randell E. Moore, editor of the monthly Blue Chip Economic Forecast, a newsletter that surveys 53 of the nation's top economists each month. "I was a little upset," said Moore, who said he complained to the White House. 'It sounded like the Blue Chip Economic Forecast had endorsed the president's plan. That's simply not the case.'" link (http://www.newsday.com/business/local/newyork/ny-e3142018feb23.story)

"When Bush was asked about [the Environmental Protection Agency's report] last week, he dismissively remarked: 'I read the report put out by the bureaucracy.' ...White House press secretary Ari Fleischer fessed up: President Bush didn't actually read that 268-page Environmental Protection Agency report on climate change, even if he said he did. Fleischer was asked Monday at his daily White House briefing about Bush's comments that he'd read the report. "Whenever presidents say they read it, you can read that to be he was briefed," Fleischer said, producing laughter." link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=703&e=9&u=/ap/20020611/ap_on_go_pr_wh/frank_fleischer_2)

"Mr. Bush's other foreign aid initiative, announced in his State of the Union address, is $10 billion in new money to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean over five years. But his budget falls short of that promise. He is proposing only a $550 million increase over the global AIDS money in this year's spending bill now in Congress. Since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria would be an effective channel for the aid, there is no excuse for the initiative's leisurely start. Mr. Bush's 2004 budget for the Global Fund, $200 million, actually cuts in half what Congress is likely to do in 2003. Mr. Bush has also found part of the money for his AIDS programs by cutting nearly $500 million from child health, including vaccine programs. Child survival is the biggest loser in the foreign aid budget — a scandalous way to finance AIDS initiatives. With the budget dominated by defense spending and huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the White House should not be forcing the babies of Africa to pay for their parents' AIDS drugs." 2.17.03 link (http://www.massiveeffort.org/html/nytfeb17.html)

..."Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident." But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack." 9.11.03 link (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html)

(There was no live coverage, by anyone, of the first crash)

"As OPEC meets, it has become apparent that President Bush is breaking his campaign pledge to "jawbone OPEC," to increase production. Last year Bush said OPEC was the "main reason," for high gas prices, but this year, as gas price have reached $2 a gallon in some regions, his Administration is rejecting "begging or publicly bashing to get more oil," with a "gentler approach" to OPEC. link (http://www.grandoldpetroleum.com/openspigots.html)

Perhaps you forgot what I was quoting
No - they are getting rebuilt becaues of the neglect of the Sadam regime. I don't doubt some were bombed. However, they weren't bombed because they were schools. They either housed soldiers or their materials.

The neglect referred to is in fact from Bush Sr and Clinton's sanctions regimen, which, combined with bombing damage from the Gulf war, lead to god knows how many hundreds of thousands of deaths from bad water, lack of medicine... they just didn't have the money to pay for anything. They sold oil. We stopped them from selling it.


Can you point me to a link that substantiates that more people have died since the end of the war then during it? If the caveat is that the war lasted a week and you count natural deaths (old age, etc) over the course of that last year then it'll be more disengenous then I thought before.

Certainly about 6 times as many Americans!

Rome? That would be the Soviet Union and they were taken care of quite nicely by people who stood with strenght while others called for appeasement. Rome fell from the inside - not by outside forces.

Erm, the USSR also fell from the inside. Turns out Communism doesn't work, at all. How exactly did they get beaten in the 80s?

The neglect referred to is in fact from Bush Sr and Clinton's sanctions regimen, which, combined with bombing damage from the Gulf war, lead to god knows how many hundreds of thousands of deaths from bad water, lack of medicine... they just didn't have the money to pay for anything. They sold oil. We stopped them from selling it.

I find it funny the large amounts of ignorance here. Now WE is the key word, the UN is who was behind the sactions, not the U.S like all you guys want it to be. Anyways it was Saddams fault, remember he started the Gulf War. Also Iraq did make enough money to feed its ppl, it just did not use it for its ppl.

Anyways it was Saddams fault, remember he started the Gulf War.

No he didn't.

He started the invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

The UN started the first gulf war, by invading Kwait and Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control.

The US started the second gulf war by invading Iraq for reasons of "best interest" of the US. Not the world, or the Iraqi's. (the Iraq people wanted and needed help, they justed wanted it in a differnt way).

Saddam actualy started less wars, and occupied less forgin nations than the US has in the last 50 years (since WWII). Statisticaly he's created far less trouble in the world than the US.

I find it funny the large amounts of ignorance here. Now WE is the key word, the UN is who was behind the sactions, not the U.S like all you guys want it to be. Anyways it was Saddams fault, remember he started the Gulf War. Also Iraq did make enough money to feed its ppl, it just did not use it for its ppl.

Actually, the US has maintained its own sanctions on Iraq right up till the 'End Of Major Combat Operations' -- including blocking OTHER COUNTRIES' contracts to rebuild and operate in Iraq, which Bush Sr and Clinton did to the tune of billions.

Anyway, Oil For Food DID in fact provide enough cash to feed the Iraqis. To feed, to feed! Exactly. But not enough to rebuild.

Try rebuilding a blown-up water treatment plant for the cost of your monthly groceries. Or a sewage works, even better. Try fixing shattered water mains for the price of a Big Mac. Just not possible. That's why so many Iraqis died. Kids getting offed by third-world diseases like dysentery because there was just no clean water to drink.

A pretty succint history of the sanctions is here: link (http://peace.mennolink.org/articles/iraqsancthist.html)

The US started the second gulf war by invading Iraq for reasons of "best interest" of the US. Not the world, or the Iraqi's. (the Iraq people wanted and needed help, they justed wanted it in a differnt way).


Yeah, for some reason them crazy Aye-Rabs don't find getting blown up to be very helpful.

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-iraqi-disarmament.jpg

And let's not forget!

http://goddoubleplusblessamerica.org/jest/card-osama-2003.jpg

Anyway, Oil For Food DID in fact provide enough cash to feed the Iraqis. To feed, to feed! Exactly. But not enough to rebuild.


The oil for food program was a joke Saddam didn't use the money for food for his people. It was full of corruption by the Iraq government and the UN.http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002335 Who made more money off the Oil for food program the UN did!

What countries made money from the oil for food program? I'll tell you France, Russia, and China. Hmmm the same countries that opposed invading Iraq! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/national1638EDT0729.DTL

Saddam actualy started less wars, and occupied less forgin nations than the US has in the last 50 years (since WWII).


You are right we should of stayed out of France, Spain, Germany, Vietnam, Korea, the Balkans and so on. We should just worry about the US, hell with the rest of the world. A conflict breaks out we should just stay home and keep our soliders safe, no more dead American soliders. Why thats a great idea. Kuwait gets invaded again let them fight it out themselves!

We should just worry about the US, hell with the rest of the world. A conflict breaks out we should just stay home and keep our soliders safe, no more dead American soliders.



I did say in the last 50 years.
But if you want to bring WWII into then, yes the US took exactly that attitude. They did stay out of it.
The war could have been ended much much earlier if the US had helped when they were asked to.
Instead they only stepped into the war when Japan attacked them at Pearl Harbour, and it became clear that the Japanese were being helped by the Germans, and that a Nazi or Russian victory in Europe would be very very bad for US interests.


Its just unforunate that while the rest of the world has moved on from the attitudes of the 1940s the US seems to be stuck there.

I did agree with you Moppie! But since you did mention it the US tried to stay out of WWII just like others countries are now saying we should of stayed out of Iraq! Sounds alittle like having your cake and eating it too.

The US stayed out of WWII for economic reasons,and because that's where the votes were.

The US invaded Iraq for economic reasons,and because that's where the votes were.

Nothing much has changed,except the 21st century politicians have mastered the art of killing GI's and getting votes at the same time.

okay, time for me to enter this thing. The U.S. stayed out of WWII, because the public did not want to go into it, they saw all the dead soldiers in europe, and didn't want any part. Then America was bombed by japan, and we unleahed everything we had. Okay, flash forward............Civil war and no government(theres a word for it) in afghanistan, and civil war and suffering in iraq. We don't want any part in it. Then we get bombed by, i'm going to say that area, just because terrorists do control much of the middle east believe it or not, and we go to war, the public likes it. Then they see soldiers dieing, and want to pull out, before the job is done. Pulling out would just allow a new saddam to gain power.
I believe the WMD is out there, but has been trucked to most likely seria. I do beleive if we should question any other country, it should be them, since NK is doing better, and pakistan and iran are way to close to having nuclear war, that if we do something that one of them doesn't like, war is begun.
Bush did not lie!!! Have you ever told someone something, then found out that the info they told them was actually different, like perhaps... Your a manager, and you order 5 boxes, then you realize that you didn't need 5 boxes because the employ that counted them, can't count. Do you fire the manager because of the employees mistake????????? Think about it, same deal!

Bush did not lie!!! Have you ever told someone something, then found out that the info they told them was actually different, like perhaps... Your a manager, and you order 5 boxes, then you realize that you didn't need 5 boxes because the employ that counted them, can't count. Do you fire the manager because of the employees mistake????????? Think about it, same deal!

If 0ne employee counts 5 boxes,and another counts no boxes, what do you do?You don't go out and commit to 5 boxes,because you have buddies in the box industry, as Bush did.You get the facts straight first But of course,the thing about boxes is,if you order the wrong number,nobody dies.

Bush picked the intelligence reports that suited his agenda.He's corrupt,he's ordered the deaths of thousands on inadequate intelligence and he should be impeached.

and we go to war, the public likes it
What public are you talking about?
Iraq shouldn't have been a priority. Look at North Korea - they were, and continue to be potentially a bigger threat than Iraq could have ever dreamed of being - and yet we're doing are best to turn them around without having to bomb civillians and destroy what little infrastructure that country has. And it's costing the U.S. far less money to do it the smart way.
The difference between the way Iraq is being handled and the way North Korea is being handled, should show you that George W. Bush has his priorities out of whack, to say the least.

I did agree with you Moppie!


Sorry, I think a major point has been over looked.

As the worlds leading military and economic power many of us don't mind if the power is weilded when and where its needed. For example in Haiti, or Rowanda, or in WWII.
You could even make a strong argurment that the US has a responsiblity to weild its power.
The problem is the US has a history of interfering not when its needed, but when its only in its best interests.
The whole point of the UN was to defend the interests of those who could not defend thier own, and as part of the UN the US has preformed rather well in a several circumstances, as noted above.
But it has also developed a tendancy to take a very arrogant world view, and view that gives the US a very negative world image.
The action in afganistan, as an exmaple was, needed, wanted and has helped not only the international comunity, but also the people of afganistan.
The US, and the rest of the world gained from the destruction of the terrorist organisations that ran the country, and the afgani people gained thier freedom back, as well as benifiting from having a large militarty force in thier country, which by its very nature has rebuilt a lot of the infrastructure that was destroyed by war in the last 25 years.

Iraq on the other hand posed no imediate threat to the US, or the rest of the world. The complete domination of the country with in a week showed how useless its military was, and the sanctions had done an excellent job keeping the bath party relativly powerless.
The claims of Weapons of Mass destruction have been pretty well disproven, the US and only 6 other nations believe they even had the possiblity of existing, and only the US believed they posed any kind of potential threat.
I think its been well established that the WMD claim was an excuse.
So what about freeing the population from oppression?
Well they defintly opppressed, and most are happy to be free.
Except thier not. They expected the US forces to remove Saddam and then leave, but they havn't.
Infact, they never asked for the US forces to launch a complete invasion of the country. The Iraqi people could have been freed with far far less bloodshed, all were ready for an uprising, and asked the US for some pretty basic help.
But instead of helping the US ignored all the local means of removing saddam and instead took control of the whole country.
There is a differnce between helping an oppressed people rise against thier oppressor, and simply taking the oppressors place.



The rest of the world, through the UN agreeded and helped with the actions in Afganistan. (NZ for examle still has special forces troops working to find hidden terrorist groups).
It was an example of the UN being succesful, and doing perfectly exactly what it was set up to do. Its a shame the problems in the area were not highlighted earlier. Had similar action been taken 10 years, or even 5 years ago then the world would be a much safer place (only the cold war and its after effects prevented any such action, untill now).
The US weilded its power in a responsible and helpful way.
I perosnaly cheered the actions, altough I will admit at the beginning I was a cynic.

And then the US invaded Iraq.
And EVERYONE outside of the US went why? WTF?
There was nothing to be gained by a full scale invasion, except Total Control of the country.
You do not free and oppreased people by taking control of thier nation, and you do not stop a WMD program by bombing everything, then taking control of a country.
The US was not interested in freeing the opressed population, and has done almost nothing to protect them since.
And they had no interest in finding or destroying WMD. Nations like North Korea and Pakistan have posed a much much greater risk, and yet have had no military action taken against them.
No, the US wanted only one thing, totaly control over Iraq.
Even after handing back "sovrignty" to a local government (created by the US, and comprising people not liked by the majority of the Iraqi population) they have still maintianed controll of much of Iraqs oil, and have taken it upon themselves to give out contracts to rebuild the country. Instead of letting the Iraq's create thier own government, and deciede for themselves who they want to do the rebuilding, and what they want to do with thier own oil they have been given only token control back.
The US wanted Iraq.
It has lots of natural rescources that can directly benifit the US.
It has lots of work for US based contract corporations.
Its in a very strategic location in the Middle East.



Instead of feeling happy and safe that there is a super power like the US out there that is willing and capable of defending those who need it, most of the worlds population instead feels scared and worried that there is a super power out there will take what it wants, when it wants regardless of the consequences.
That feeling is growing stronger and spreading everyday the US stays in Iraq.
Eventualy it will spread everywhere, even back into the US.

And it dosnt matter how much money you have, or how many tanks you have, 300million vs 5billion are not good odds.

The oil for food program was a joke Saddam didn't use the money for food for his people. It was full of corruption by the Iraq government and the UN.http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002335 Who made more money off the Oil for food program the UN did!

Of course -- not like it would've been any better if we'd given the account. Corruption goes where the money goes. The problem is, again: Oil-For-Food was limited to about $20 billion a year. Sounds like a lot, but try running a country on 20 billion a year. Especially one that got the bejesus bombed out of it (rightly) in 1991... Enough to feed people, yes (assuming no corruption, of which there was TONS, agreed), but not enough to rebuild water lines, purification plants, and sewage systems that were blown up in the war. Many deaths. Thanks, Clinton!

What countries made money from the oil for food program? I'll tell you France, Russia, and China. Hmmm the same countries that opposed invading Iraq! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/05/14/national1638EDT0729.DTL

Yep, and the countries that were the most gung-ho for war oddly enough were the ones who had the most to gain from the invasion. Especially now that all them pesky sanctions have been lifted (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js427.htm). $15 billion a year from Oil-For-Food? Just wait till Halliburton gets the oil flowin'...

Yep, and the countries that were the most gung-ho for war oddly enough were the ones who had the most to gain from the invasion. Especially now that all them pesky sanctions have been lifted (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js427.htm). $15 billion a year from Oil-For-Food? Just wait till Halliburton gets the oil flowin'...

I read your link and to me it seems BUSH wants All COUNTIRES to start trading with Iraq. Its not a one sided deal. Unlike the French and Russians did against UN sanctions.

I read your link and to me it seems BUSH wants All COUNTIRES to start trading with Iraq. Its not a one sided deal. Unlike the French and Russians did against UN sanctions.

Iraq has one export good - oil. Which is very very valuable.

Iraq's oil is now under a whole bunch of our soldiers and KBR drilling rigs.

Bush'd love for everyone to start buying Iraqi oil pumped out by Halliburton and the like. The profits they're going to make are going to be staggering. Assuming them no-good Al-Kaydee terrurrusts will stop blowing up pipelines, that is...