c'mon BVVD is in highschool and he has a better understanding on the subject then alot of you all i think it is kinda funny(in my opinion)no offence to any of you at all. I dont have alot of recolection of this but he has some valid points that i understand...
Brendan

I didn't realize BBVD was only in High School so I apologize for treating him like an adult. Just ribbing you BBVD.

But....your simplistic definition describes GWB to a tee which makes him a terrorist. Your words not mine. Governs by intimidation. In fact it describes the US past and present and almost any other country plus the Catholic church.
This brings up another problem I have with the current regime and many in the general population. ...the very loosely defined terrorist label. It has strong similarities to the McCarthy era. It's getting to be the Kevin Bacon principal....if Ashcroft can link you or your business to a friends girlfriends second cousins hairdresser whom is suspected of donating money to an organization that sent the money to feed the poor in Ethiopia but the local head of the organization took a trip to the middle east in the 1960's then you can be labeled and jailed for supporting terrorism. Now if they could just make Liberal = Terrorism stick they'd be able to bring out the street sweepers and have a big bon fire.

Howard Dean, the front runner for the Democrats in the 2004 election race , wants all the troops to come home so he can spend the 87 billion on his socialized medical plan for "all" Americans. Hopefully if he gets elected he will include a provision in his plan to compensate the families of those who will be killed by radical muslim terrorists after he takes office. He could put Jimmy Carter in charge of delivering all of the checks...That'd keep Jimmie busy for a loooong time.

I loved Al Sharpton's quip last night on the Congressional Black Caucus' debate. He was referring to Bush, of course, but it applies to the usual suspects on this thread as well:

The old James Brown classic:

"Talkin Loud, Sayin Nothin"

Anyone who pays the families of martyrs (suicide bombers in Isreal) $25,000 is supporting terrorism. Swat him like a fly. Keep him on the run, and hound him and what is left of his regime.

It would be nice if we lived in a kinder, gentler world, but we don't.

300+ lives spent to free the world of vermin like him, plus what has been budgeted and spent to date is cheap. (I am on no way devaluing the brave souls who have lost their lives, or those who will lose their lives in the future). These costs have already saved the lives of countless people who would be tortured by Saddam in the future. Do you really think one day he would have said, "Enough killing, I think I'll devote the rest of my life to freeing the oppressed around the world. Maybe I'll become a spokesman for Feed The Children, just like Sally Struthers!"

This is the American way, and we have fought for freedom since our beginning.

It is kind of cute the way these guys keep encouraging you, isn't it?

To begin, the PNAC was written BY a nonprofit group, not TO one. It was presented to both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The Clinton administration didn't do much with it because it was recognized as a neoconservative plan for global domination. However, you'll notice that some of the authors now work for Bush.

Secondly, the author of the original article is a former Minister of Parliment. He made his living writing to, and addressing the public. I hardly think your one year of preparatory journalism justifies your critique.

Finally, those "small tidbits of information" are commonly known as facts. We adults use those to make sound informed decisions and to which upon are based opinions. If you constantly construe those facts as being "Bush bashing" perhaps you should speak with a counselor about delusions of persecusion.

Hey grandpa............you want to compare how you spend your time and how Carter spends his time to see who is doing more for the good for the country?

Bad-mouthing Carter is a fool's game. Not much of a President, but IMO the only decent man to hold that office in the last 30 years.

Uh, BBVD..........just a note. Leave the grammar errors alone.........don't judge that paper on the grammar and we won't judge your posts on the spelling.

Okay...

PNAC IS a non profit organization for one... The report was NOT PNAC, the report was written FOR PNAC.

Next, I am allowed to believe whatever I want. My parents never enforced anything on me, and I am not a complete republican. Mr. Roach does not deserve the office he has IMHO. His interviews were all the political game of where he really had no idea what he was talking about, but won the crowd over with his smile.

And lastly, I am not writing a journalistic article here. I am not printing this for millions to see. This is a simple discussion forum. When I make reports for school or resumes or for a job shadow, I go over it with a fine comb to check for grammar/spelling mistakes.

Oh, and I need to end here with a question that is likely to get me a few more hot replys... If you live in a country governed by terrorism, but you are allowed to come and go as you please, then why are you still here?

Obviously there is SOMETHING you like about it. You at least have one up on the Iraq population. You can leave and never come back, go talk bad about the country, whatever... Nothing will happen to you or your family.

Curtis

This seems to be digressing into a "Republican vs Democrat" debate. The real issue is whether our President and his administration has been upfront and candid regarding the "real motives" for taking out Saddam and not holding back what he expects the taxpayers to spend to accomplish this. Now that we've essentially acted alone in taking out the existing Government of Iraq, Bush is trying to get international support to share the cost of this stabilization process. It seems highly unlikely that he's going to be successful now to that end. At some point, Bush is going to have to give up this "Nation Building" approach that he criticized the Clinton administration for or he won't be re-elected, unless he does actually have evidence that Saddam played a major role in terrorist activities.

Actually you are the one, with the narrow definition of terrorism, who labeled this country governed by terrorism. With that narrow definition there is no where in the world you can go to escape it.
The love it or leave it comment is another simplistic one and assumes that you either accept things as they are or leave. It always omits the third option that is the very foundation of what this country is about ...love it or leave it or change it. I'm definitely choosing door number three next November. I'm not sure this country can survive four more years of this crap.

Anyone remember these phrases that were pounded into our heads to justify the war -

1. Imminent Threat.
2. Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Both have proven to be baseless propaganda.

BBVD - in doing your research about the evil Saddam (yes, a truly awful nut case) you might look a little further back and discover that it was actually the USA that funded him and kept him in power - until he overstepped into Kuwait.

Finally, if we were serious about getting to the root of terrorism, we'd do an about-face and go into Saudi Arabia.

The British are much better informed than we are. The lies and the liars that lie are being unmasked in the press. The news is reporting that nearly 50% of the Brits now want their Prime Minister to resign after essentially lying to them of the need to join this war. A full 75% call for the defense minister's resignation.

Perhaps reflecting the US press's lack of critical analyses (simply repeating to us whatever the spin doctors say), in a Time/CNN poll conducted here, 63 percent believed going to war with Iraq was the right decision.

Still this administration's facade is cracking and now one of the greater threats to America is the Bushies are going to have to find a way to crank up the 'fear factor' to remain in control. Stay tuned.

This is all my opinion not supported by any facts whatsoever.... Flame me if you wish!

It is my belief that we may never know if sadaam played a role in terrorist activities. I believe that financial support of terrorism will never be discovered. No bank transactions will surface mainly because he had lots of cash at his disposal. What was it 100 million or something like that that he tried to escape with... probably a drop in the bucket. The easiest way to get something or someone is by cash... not very many terrorist take american express....

He was a bad man and he hated americans...


I recieved this by email, take it for what it is worth.... It may be a fabricationion for all I know.... But hey, If it is for real... it is all the proof that I need that what we did was right.

We need a translation, regardless of authenticity (which I seriously doubt...I'm sure that would have made the news).

Like I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, the same opinions by the same people.

Jimmy Carter is a good humanitarian with strong religious beliefs ....that should be enough to make most of you freak out...considering alot of the historical posts that are anti-Bush etc.....also anti-religion and anti-God. Does Jimmy get an exemption because he is a left wing Democrat? Religion is only evil if the religious are Republicans???

My reference to Jimmy was related to foreign policy where , in my opinion, he blundered badly. Check out his last effort in North Korea. I am quite sure he would have tried to reason with Saddam and Osama just like he did with Kim Jung Il in North Korea. And don't forget his support of Yasser Arafat...Didn't he get the Nobel Peace prize ....so did Jimmy didn't he?

Appeasers with weak knees and spines attract the people who want to kill us to attack us more and kill more of us. Isolation has proven to be a failed idea as well. The gang of 9 (Democratic contenders) are all soft on terrorism except Leiberman. Maybe Jimmy should build a house for Arafat and Saddam and Osama. He could win another Nobel prize for that humanitarian jesture I'm sure.

Nicely said grandpa2

Saddam Hussein is the modern day version of Hitler or Stalin.

He has stolen the resources of his own country to enrich himself. Prior to our most recent invasion, Saddamland and Iraq were the same country. He is a meglomaniac.

He has committed horrific acts against different segments of his own country, other sects of the Muslim religion including the Kurds and Shiite's. These acts include the use of death squads, and chemical and biological warfare. His actions have shown that he singles out minorities and kills them.

He has killed his friends, and even members of his own family.

Until he was removed from power, no Iraqi dared to say anything against him for fear of their life, or the lives of their family.

I don't know or care about these WMD. Never did. Don't think I even commented on them.

If he were to remain in power he would have tried to annex portions of surrounding countries like he tried with Iran in 1980 or Kuwait in 1990.

There are some pretty amazing similarities between Saddam, Hitler, and Stalin. History has a way of repeating itself.

Can you can honestly say that the world would be a better place with him in full control of his country? I think not.

Dogfish, there are a lot of us here that, while we don't care for the way things were/are being handled in Iraq, don't disagree with any of your statements.

My problem is with people that state their obvious opinions as fact, then slam anyone that disagree with them and label them all as "Bush haters", "bleeding heart liberals", and such.

I personally don't think being the world's police force is a good idea unless you have a world body that can effectively act as a judicial and executive branch. Otherwise there is no consensus, and you have what we're looking at right now. A candy assed UN trying to look valuable, a bully USA that is daring someone to knock the chip off it's shoulder, and a part of the world that continues to hate us more every time we turn around.

I'm very afraid that the hatred for us is going to far outweigh any attempts to make this a safer place to live.

I don't believe I have labeled anyone as such, and I know you are not saying that about me. Thank you for a good discussion on your part, SW.

The real issues, I believe, are the ones I have pointed out. Saddam is a very bad man. Nobody else has the power, ability, and interest (oil) to accomplish this. Sometimes you have to step up tp the plate, no matter how hard it is, to take the issue head-on because it is the right thing to do.

If we took the attitude at the beginning of WW2 (during the battle of Britain or after Pearl Harbor) that we were scared of the enemies we might make defending freedom, we wouldn't be the country we are today, and world politics would be completely different. The attitude you suggest goes against everything this country represents. Please don't take this as a personal attack, I am just refuting your argument.

Sometimes you have to "nut up" in the face of criticism to do the right thing and face the consequences afterwards.

The friend of my enemy is also my enemy.

Dogfish, I don't disagree with any of your points of fact, your predictions of what might happen of course can not be confirmed, but I believe that they are not totally out of the realm of possibility. Here is what I have a problem with: When a man (Pres. Bush) tries to sell me a duck but he tells me it is a dog, I lose trust in his capacity for honesty. Now, in my more cynical moments I have thought that honesty is not a needed value as a President, but I would sure like to have a bit of trust that my President is telling the truth. President Bush either lied or he was very mistaken about WMD and links to Al Quaeda. His inability to "come clean" with the American people will not earn him my vote in Nov. 2004. I'm pretty sure he can live with that and probably get a good nights sleep as well. That may be the biggest reason of all why he should not be reelected. My $.02.