Great idea! Not only wasn’t Iraq a threat to the USA, it had nothing to do with the Islamic terrorists. Now, had Bush payed attention in history class or read some books, he might have learned from what happened in the past instead of repeating the same old mistakes again.
Not to mention that we removed the resources who were fighting the real terrorists to go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with terrorism. Now they are in Iraq, thanks to Bush. Osama is still laughing at us in Pakistan. Great job. Don’t the true believers understand anything about what happened in the past two years?
My paycheck was a lot better under those evil Democrats. My brother’s paycheck was a lot better, having been employed steadily then. Unless you’re a millionaire, I bet you’re not doing that much better. Just wait until the interest rates rise, then you’ll be saying, Dude, where’s my recovery?
It is so nice to know that you don’t think the war on terror is worth sacrificing your tax cut for. Just stick it on the children. You just think me, me, me and don’t want to pay for what your buddy the no tax and spend Republican is sticking on us.
The Pakistani government seems to be pretty intent on catching Osama, perhaps even more than the US is. I don’t think he will be found within the reach of the Pakistani military.
Vote Bush 2004: He won’t lie to us anymore.
Flash Presentation. Link
It’s definitely not about tax cuts. It’s about enviromentalist turdheads fucking my industry over. BTW, if I was a millionaire, I’d probably have retired to Mexico. Too many fucking Petards and Humaniacs ruining this country.
Could you explain in detail why the US had in your view “the right” to be concerned. This in opposition with your former claim that people who are born and live in the region - such as myself - have no right to be concerned about the US mixing itself in the region up to the point of invading nations, occupy them, destroy them and kill thousands of the citizens. All this while while threatening continously other nations in that same region.
Where is that spectacular UN resolution published?
- Why in your opinion would the UN “stepped in it” and I think you refer to:" invade Iraq" if there was no legal justification for such an action to be taken against an other UN member?
- Why in your opinion “should” Hussein and his regime be “removed from power” all of a sudden and all of a sudden so urgently ? (Do you ever read something on history)
- Why do you think the US can plot killing people in other nations, invade and occupy other nations and then claim it is not a terrorist state, while whenever an other nation would do the same it would be a “terrorist state” or “rogue nation” or whatever the US calls nations that don’t look like the US would like them to look like?
Really? Can you quote me on that?
I think you should learn to read what is written.
I state continiously that Bush and his Maffia are lying arrogant murderers who have plotted to invade a sovereign nation, with the outspoken intention to kill its president and with the knowledge that they would cause the death of thousands and thousands of people in that nation. If Hussein was the president of that nation or not has nothing to do with that.
- Why would I need to “offer a solution” to Iraq? I didn’t plot and command an invasion there.
- What had Iraq to do with “network of Islamic terrorists” (and note: there is no such thing as “Islamic terrorism”)
- Why would I need to offer “a solution” for a world wide problem which’s occurence has everything to do with:
a) the course of the US foreign policy the last decades.
b) the interference with the ME and European colonisation and its aftermath
c) the stupidy of the UN to place an Israely state where they located it with all the consequences we see at work today still.
d) connect point C again with point A.
e) organisations like the IMF who serve the capitalistic policies of former occupiers and of the USA
I can go on with the list. Are you saying I am responsible for all of that and thus “must offer a solution”? Thank you very much for taking me for The Leading Man in all these countries and organisations. I am very glad that I am not and that I am not involved in anything I do not want to be involved, for the time being.
Yes. That is exactly what the USA should have done. Letting the inspections team finish the job. (I suppose you never heard of Hans Blix)
And for your information: There was enough opposition against the regime in Iraq. But it is a bit difficult t put your mind on politics if you hardly can manage to survive because of more then a decade of outrageous murderous santions make you starve and your children die, even from the most simple diseases.
Why do you think the CIA, already very busy in Iraq (together with a few other of these foreign terrorist groups of Western signature and one of ME non-Muslim signature) was never interested at all in organizing and helping this opposition in Iraq in order to have Mad Saddam roasted by his own population?
Salaam. A
Senggüm, I’m interested in resolving our little debate over the recession start date. In the interest of settling this once and for all, here are multiple cites from government websites stating that the recession began in March 2001.
Now, Senggüm, way back in this post, I linked to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research which gives March 2001 as the recession start date. Some time after I made this post, you claimed that none of my cites were official. But now, I have here a report from the Congressional Budget Office, an organization of the United States government, which you may be interested in. From the official government report (emphasis mine):
(Terminology note: recessions start at the peak of a business cycle)
There you have it. A report from the Congressional Budget Office gives the recession start date as March 2001, and credits the organization you dismissed as being the “official arbiter”.
Want more? Here ya go! All my cites in this post are hosted on government web sites.
Press release from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Note that this government press release uses recession dates provided by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This is the organization whose report I linked to, the organization whose declaration of a recession you rejected because it was not “official”.
Speech by Ben S. Bernanke, member of Federal Reserve Board of Governors (emphasis mine):
This man, who serves on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, cites the organization I cited earlier, and refers the recesssion as the “2001 recession”
Report [.pdf] from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center:
This cite repeatedly lists the recession start date as March 2001.
Report [.pdf] from Pennsylvania:
Executive summary [.doc] of a report from the FAA:
There’s my organization again. And there’s that word again: “officially announced”. And the magic date: March 2001.
Footnote from a statement by the director of the Congressional Budget Office:
Once again, the organization I cited as setting the recession start date as March 2001 is referred to as “official” by a member of our government.
Unless you provide information to seriously challenge the credibility of these government cites, I am done debating this with you.
Sure they are. And they are deadset against nuclear proliferation too.
Remember just after we let their nuclear salesman off, and they claimed they had a big aQ leader surrounded? Why did they think so? Because someone was shooting at them. Remember who they caught? Nobody significant. If you’re expecting Pakistan to catch bin Laden for us, you’re going to be waiting a long, long time.
So what’s your industry? I remember in the 70’s, when various industries claimed that the new environmental laws were going to drive them into bankruptcy. They came out just fine. Except for Detroit, who might have done a bit better worrying about safety and fuel efficiency then.
:: UNCLE! :: Your elaborate dissertation has convinced me that the Bush economic policies in the first two months of his administration caused the 2001 recession.
Master Wang-Ka wrote
Amen to that, brother. I would only add that rabid, aggressive mindlessness in the dismissal or rejection of ANY cause (coughAldebaranBrutuscough) appalls me, too.
If you want discussion than answer simple questions. Answering a question with a question is pointless.
To answer one of your points, those sanctions were imposed by the UN. Saddam managed to store roomfuls of money during this time period so any problems you have with the conditions of Iraq should be addressed to Saddam or the UN.
You write as if we should have left the region after the first Gulf War. Well, that would have been the preferred thing to do but NOBODY VOLUNTEERED TO HELP.
I would love to see US troops out of the region. Maybe the country you won’t admit to living in will supply the necessary troops to maintain order during the transition. With Saddam out of the way, it should be easy. You’ve got my vote.
…and there, folks, we have the voice of the wealthy, ‘educated’ Arab elite. He takes no responsibility, offers no path for the future, no solutions; he is always looking backwards, fixated on real or imagined slights in the past.
YES!!! If not you and yours, who?? You can’t change the past, but what about the future? Caliphs and kings and isolated feudal tribes are no longer a viable way of life in the 21st century–let them go and finally, really, join the world. We’re waiting. Don’t be so scared of differences–embrace them.
And oh yeah, the people I know haven’t really thought about the election yet, and the few that have are so far sticking to their parties pretty much.
Domestic Oil & Gas
It must have been pure t hell protecting the Texas skies from the Viet Cong air force. I mean flying once a month and drinking and doing blow the rest of the time. It had to be tough. Kudos to Duhbya.
And all Kerry did was get shot at by real VC and NVA.
With real bullets even.
What was I thinking?
Remember kiddies, ability to fly a plane == ability to run a country. I mean, they both have a lot of buttons and switches, right?
I don’t know what you tihnk is so bad about Bush. I mean, he’s so great that his administration can even proudly trumpet programs that he spent three years trying to cut and eliminate.
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040519/ZNYT02/405190381/1004/LOCAL
Here’s a great resource! Lots of reasons to get rid of Bush all in one place.
I certainly can. The United States along with every other country in the world has a legitimate interest in limiting the number of countries with nuclear weapons. The interest is greatly heightened when dictators or theocracies espicially ones that have started multiple wars attempt to get them or other WMDs.
The United States also has an interest in preventing global terrorism and the majority of recent terrorists have been from the middle east. It goes beyond the terrorists just coming from the region countries in the region actively give them support.
Oil. The economy of the world and the economy of the United States depends on an ample supply of oil. Instability, war, or hostile countries to the United States and the world threaten the stability of our economy.
Israel. Multiple countries in the region have a goal of invading and destroying Israel which is an ally of the United States.