Should G. W. Bush be impeached?

[utopian]

It looks like a lot of discussion recently has been going on about Bush's treatment of the whole Iraq shebang. He's been called out on misleading the world about the extent Saddam's power and Iraq's weapons programs. His politicking has made the world a little less safe, and his administration is responsible for passing acts that seriously impinge on civil liberties and rights that citizens of the USA have had for quite some time.

I'm not sure if Patriot Act I and II are unconstitutional, as I don't know about the USA constitution and Bill of Rights all that much. I'd hazard a guess that they're causing a bit of outrage though. I know that there are a few people here who complain about Bush's Gestapo tactics and his essentially turning the USA into a police state.

Clinton was impeached for lying to his country and I think there was something in there about professional misconduct by having a bit on the side with that ugly cow that called itself an intern. My question is whether or not Bush is also guilty of lying to his country (and the world) and if he should be removed from office because of it.

[Scumbag]

Originally posted by utopian
Clinton was impeached for lying to his country and I think there was something in there about professional misconduct by having a bit on the side with that ugly cow that called itself an intern. Actually he was facing impeachment, but then he fessed up and they forgave him - it was just a blow job after all....its not like he killed tens of thousands of innocents with his lies is it?


Back on topic though, Yes he definately should be impeached!

Check out these sites for information as to why:

www.thefourreasons.org
www.impeachbushbumperstickers.com
www.impeachbush.tv
www.impeach-bush-now.org
www.votetoimpeach.org




Did you know that in Brussells, Belgium, A war crimes tribunal was setup not long after WW2 and basically anybody could be elected to be tried for warcrimes there (within reason of course). Not long after the coallition of the killing invaded Iraq, Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney and their cronies were (as expected) elected to stand trial. Donald Rumsfield then apparently threatened Belgium to drop the allegations or the US would pull the headquaters out of Belgium. Belgium already in the US's badbooks for not supporting the invasion, crippled and accepted the offer. Now the war crimes tribunal can only hold Belgians accountable for war crimes. :(

[utopian]

Phoneyhuh this is a thread about George Bush, not Donald Rumsfeld or Bill Clinton. How about you copy and paste some relevant sections from those sites, as I don't want to have to go and do your research for you.

[Scumbag]

Phoneyhuh this is a thread about George Bush, not Donald Rumsfeld or Bill Clinton. How about you copy and paste some relevant sections from those sites, as I don't want to have to go and do your research for you.

Your the one who brought up Bill Clinton! I simply corrected you, because what you wrote was not entirely correct.

Donald Rumsfield is in bed with Bush, I felt it was relevant to the argument.

OK, here are 4 reasons:


0. Operation Iraqi Freedom is illegal within the framework of the laws of the United States Constitution and the United Nations Charter. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/uswarcrimes/uswarcrimesiraq/iraqinvasion.html)


1. The war on Iraq has been planned for many years by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (
[URL=http://www.newamericancentury.org), an organization founded by a small group of right wing political visionaries and corporate elite dedicated to promoting American global leadership. The PNAC signatories hold the most powerful positions (http://www.thefourreasons.org/pnac.htm) in the current administration and other highly influential political offices. Read their Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) and note the signatories. Read the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (http://www.thefourreasons.org/PNAC/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) for a detail of their strategy for American hegemony. (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hegemony)


2. Many members of the Bush Administration (http://www.whitehouse.gov) are convicted criminals. In 1992, the International War Crimes Tribunal (http://www.thefourreasons.org/crimes.htm#_) found the senior officers in the first Bush administration guilty on 19 counts of Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and other criminal acts in Violation of the Charter of the United Nations, International Law, The Constitution of the United States and Laws made in Pursuance thereof, for crimes committed during “Operation Desert Storm”. View a list of our `elected' (http://www.thefourreasons.org/election2000.htm) officials, their appointees, and their criminal offenses. (http://www.thefourreasons.org/crimes.htm)


3. There is no degree of separation between the current administration and those who control the means of production, the means of communication, and the military-industrial complex. Those individuals (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/p/p0636100.html) will benefit unfathomably from this and many future wars (http://www.newamericancentury.org/defensenationalsecurity.htm) already planned by the PNAC. View information on who is making the money (http://www.thefourreasons.org/money.htm) from our “War on Terrorism”.


4. “We the People” (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution.html) pay for “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, the staging of “multiple theatre wars”, and the killing (http://www.thefourreasons.org/victimsofwar.htm) of the innocent peoples of foreign lands in the name of Freedom and Democracy, while 'elected' officials pass radical legislation taking away our rights (http://www.thefourreasons.org/critiques.htm) and controlling the flow of information. (http://www.thefourreasons.org/medialinks.htm)



That better ?

[DOGG]

Besides the lies, ommition of certain facts and misleading the public should also be reasons for impeachment. And running a government like a PR firm should definitely be agains the law.

[pleed]

I think the main reason Clinton was tried for impeachment was because he lied under oath.
When you become president, you take an oath saying you will lead the country to the best of your abilities, it doesn't say anything about telling the truth.
The oath is:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He has done this, and this was all he was asked to do and all he had promised to do.
Ie, No he shouldn't be impeached.

[durus]

But hasn't he been impinging on People's Personal Freedoms? Aren't they in the constitution. Isn't this grounds for being impeached?

[utopian]

Phoneyhuh, your number 3 point strikes me as weird. Seeing as the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces of the United States, wouldn't it be stupid to make a statement about there not being any separation between the control of the military complex and the control of the military complex?

Shit, I just did a bit more reading and found out that it's not even your point of view. Way to partake in a discussion. You can throw as much "evidence" at this as you like, but until you actually start posting your own thoughts on it, I will be posting as much useful stuff as you are, which is pretty much next to nothing. Do you have any comments of your own on the topic? Or are you just going to continue gallavanting about taking things off topic talking about Clinton and Rumsfeld when the thread is clearly about Bush Jr?

Upon further reading of those sites, it's come to my attention that this is where you got your style of "argument" from where you don't actually address the points at hand, you just skirt around them and talk about things that may be related to the topic at hand.

[pleed]

Originally posted by durus
But hasn't he been impinging on People's Personal Freedoms? Aren't they in the constitution. Isn't this grounds for being impeached?

I don't really know the constitution at all, I am from Australia, so which amendment, and when did he impinge anyones personal freedoms?

[utopian]

Originally posted by pleed
I don't really know the constitution at all, I am from Australia, so which amendment, and when did he impinge anyones personal freedoms?
Freedom to download music from the internet without being arrested.

Oh yeah, Bush owns the RIAA and the MPAA as well.

[pleed]

And I suppose there is the freedom to shoot people and deal drugs too :rolleyes:
Downloading music, although good, is illegal and there is nothing wrong with enforcing a law.

[utopian]

Originally posted by pleed
And I suppose there is the freedom to shoot people and deal drugs too :rolleyes:
Second Amendment allows people to murder others as long as it's done with a registered fire-arm. Not sure about drugs though.

[pleed]

I just looked it up and so it does. LOL.

[Asmodeus]

extra points if you knuckle dragging banana benders actually know what impeached means according to the US governemnt.

[Scumbag]

Originally posted by utopian
How about you copy and paste some relevant sections from those sites, as I don't want to have to go and do your research for you.


Can anyone else see the contradiction here ?


Originally posted by utopian
Shit, I just did a bit more reading and found out that it's not even your point of view. Way to partake in a discussion. You can throw as much "evidence" at this as you like, but until you actually start posting your own thoughts on it, I will be posting as much useful stuff as you are, which is pretty much next to nothing. Do you have any comments of your own on the topic?

[MoleTeaser]

Originally posted by phoneyhuh
Can anyone else see the contradiction here ?

I see no contradiction. He was being a condescending cocksucker both times. :D

[utopian]

I'll spell it out a little easier for you, phooeyhuh. Go to the website, copy and paste something and then put your thoughts on it underneath it, rather than going "SEE HERE'S A WEBSITE WHERE THEY TALK ALL ABOUT IT" and sending me to a page of links.

[RASPUTIN]

No I reckon he did what he had to do. Although I feel that war is a last resort and yes he played the truth along a lot imo Iraq will eventually be a better place for the people living there. I honestly feel that to leave Iraq in Sadams control was the worst of the two evils. So yeah I reckon to all still bitching about it get over it, it is done now and lets spend all the time and money fixing up the country instead of bitching about what was wrong about the initial trigger that started the whole take over thing happening.

Also I hope that what was done will make other freaked out countries take a step back and come into line with World policies.

[utopian]

Who are the "Freaked out" countries, and what are the world policies? Do you mean terrorist nations coming into line with the policies of the EU, or the USA?

[ersatz]

I think the rest of the world should follow suit and all implement first-strike policies to be conducted under dubious pretenses. Come one, come all!

[Scumbag]

Originally posted by ersatz
I think the rest of the world should follow suit and all implement first-strike policies to be conducted under dubious pretenses. Come one, come all!


Hear Hear! We should all invade the evil USA because they actually DO have weapons of mass destruction, they kill their own citizens and have the capability of launching attacks within 45 minutes.

If killing 50,000 Iraqi's was justified to Liberate the other 20 million Iraqi's, Then I think its justified to kill 250 million americans to liberate 4 billion people suffering in third world nations crippled by US foreign policy!

So who's coming with me ?



We can start by blowing up McDonalds, then were off to the embassy!

[pleed]

Impeachment, as far as the US law is concerned is a way to forcefully remove a President who have been found to "engage in Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Do you really think that he commited treason or any other high crimes?

[Scumbag]

Originally posted by pleed
Do you really think that he commited treason or any other high crimes? Higher than those of Clinton!

[utopian]

The Death toll in Iraq was 50,000? Where'd that number come from? You do realise that directly scaling that number up to meet the four billion number is only 10 million americans?

Not that those ten million americans actually set the US foreign policy.

Not that you actually care, seeing as you just love being a racist and talking about how we should kill the United States' general population as it's clear that every citizen is willingly comitting a war crime every second of the day.

Tell you what, if we can't get the 10 million quota from killing the US military, maybe we can make the rest of the numbers up by killing those Israeli dogs!

Sure, the USA might have been able to handle the Iraq/Saddam situation a little better, but you can't hold an entire country responsible for the acts of its administration, especially when the leader wasn't even elected by popular vote. And even if he was, not everyone over the legal voting age in the USA votes.

Stop damning the citizens of the United States for something that their government has done.

[scathing]

Originally posted by pleed
Impeachment, as far as the US law is concerned is a way to forcefully remove a President who have been found to "engage in Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Do you really think that he commited treason or any other high crimes?

I'd be more inclined to call sending citizens to murder and die in another country under false pretenses and against the will of the "international democracy" (a political system that you claim to support) more of a "high crime" than getting your cock sucked in an office.

Since they both lied, that part is moot.

[Asmodeus]

Originally posted by pleed
Impeachment, as far as the US law is concerned is a way to forcefully remove a President who have been found to "engage in Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Do you really think that he commited treason or any other high crimes?

close, but not quite. Impeachment is the bringing up of charges against a public official, that in itself doesn't get them removed from office, but can be astep in teh process. After impeachment, then there is the conviction or aquittal.

[Asmodeus]

Originally posted by utopian
[B]Sure, the USA might have been able to handle the Iraq/Saddam situation a little better, but you can't hold an entire country responsible for the acts of its administration, especially when the leader wasn't even elected by popular vote. And even if he was, not everyone over the legal voting age in the USA votes.[B]

oh please, lets not start this crap again, anyone who still uses that faulted logic just shows how little they actually know about how this government works. Tho coming from a non-citizen, its not as bad as coming from a citizen who still doesn't get the concept of an electoral college.

[utopian]

Could you post a thread about the American electoral system then, please? I know it's radically different from the Australian system, but I've never had it adequately explained. I'm sure there are a few others around who could stand to learn about it too.

[tikdoph]

Please don't attack the USA until I fly back home in a couple of weeks. Until then, I'll try to avoid McDonald's anyways.

P.S. You suck.

[Asmodeus]

Originally posted by utopian
Could you post a thread about the American electoral system then, please? I know it's radically different from the Australian system, but I've never had it adequately explained. I'm sure there are a few others around who could stand to learn about it too.

google is your friend. straight from the good ol guv'mints mouth http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm not only the way it works, but why its there.

[michaelmoore]

Originally posted by utopian
It looks like a lot of discussion recently has been going on about Bush's treatment of the whole Iraq shebang. He's been called out on misleading the world about the extent Saddam's power and Iraq's weapons programs. His politicking has made the world a little less safe, and his administration is responsible for passing acts that seriously impinge on civil liberties and rights that citizens of the USA have had for quite some time.

I'm not sure if Patriot Act I and II are unconstitutional, as I don't know about the USA constitution and Bill of Rights all that much. I'd hazard a guess that they're causing a bit of outrage though. I know that there are a few people here who complain about Bush's Gestapo tactics and his essentially turning the USA into a police state.

Clinton was impeached for lying to his country and I think there was something in there about professional misconduct by having a bit on the side with that ugly cow that called itself an intern. My question is whether or not Bush is also guilty of lying to his country (and the world) and if he should be removed from office because of it.

I like this thread because its like my latest book in three paragraphs, and that's really all its worth.

People like you and me will bring around regime change where it's needed most, the Good Ol' US of A! :)

[Asmodeus]

wow, suddenly the fuckwit meter went spinning.

[Scumbag]

The Death toll in Iraq was 50,000? Where'd that number come from? You do realise that directly scaling that number up to meet the four billion number is only 10 million americans? It was an estimate by Amnesty International. Of course we'll never know the real figure as theyve stopped counting dead Iraqi's. (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/344/world/BAGHDAD_Iraq_AP_Iraq_s_Health_:.shtml)


Not that you actually care, seeing as you just love being a racist and talking about how we should kill the United States' general population as it's clear that every citizen is willingly comitting a war crime every second of the day.

Tell you what, if we can't get the 10 million quota from killing the US military, maybe we can make the rest of the numbers up by killing those Israeli dogs! Im not damning the population of the USA for their foreign policies, but I think of their deaths as collateral damage in the liberation of the thirld world.

I also think of the deaths of Isreali's as collateral damage in the bid for liberation of Palestine, and the bid to rid the Middle East of a jewish homeland. Its downright disgracefull to the Islamic faith.

[durus]

BWAHAHAHAHA
Go Phoneyhuh. Always thought your posts were annoying untill this one. Best post EVAR!

I for one am sick of America's Government always dismissing other nation's casualties (particularly civilian casualties).
That and their stupid friendly fire incidents (fricken morons).

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by phoneyhuh
I also think of the deaths of Isreali's as collateral damage in the bid for liberation of Palestine, and the bid to rid the Middle East of a jewish homeland. Its downright disgracefull to the Islamic faith.

I don't know about that but it was a bit silly sticking it there in the fifties after WWII and displacing the Arabs that were living on that bit of land. What did they think would happen?

[durus]

Good question. But maybe the people who stuck it there WANTED it to happen?

[RASPUTIN]

Freaky countries - Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lybia/most of Africa, Nth Korea just to name a few.

The Bush administration did the right thing even though they are misguided thinking they could help a country that does not want help. These countires would prefer to be continually killed by their own people, live in poverty, be hungry all the time and see their children die from malnutrition and bombs and shit and go out and kill the infidels.

The whole wmd can't find them thing is crap. They know they had/have them as we supplied them with the shit in the cold war era and want it back.

Anyway at the end of the day all this impeachment talk it is a load of cods wallup. All we are seeing now is the big media hype crap attempting to discredit Bush as there is an ellection coming up. It would have been the same for whoever was in power at the time.

RASPUTIN's way: The whole world should join up properly and say simply to the rest of the World if you are in the alliance and follow our rules you can trade with us and have all the benefits. If you don't we wont trade or if in the case of disaster like an Earthquake for instance, don't come crying to us for help. Oh yeah also disconnect all Internet links to non members and setup jammers around that country stopping all comms in/out. Also if one of their satelites goes outside of their borders or looks/transmits to anything outside of their country we blow it up or take control of it. If any violent incursions into the World alliance from said nasty nation happens we run tanks from one side of their country to the other, blow the crap up out of every military or potential installation that could make weapons and stuff as a warning. If any bastards shoots at one of the retribution tanks we then drop a small bomb on that point where the baddy is shooting from and make a 1km round/deep crater. Hehe that would fuck em.

Oh yeah whilst we are at it making RASPUTIN's way work we should also stop the billions in foreign aid to said freaky countries and blow any boat person up as they will be terrorists (you'll see why in a sec). People that want to get out of the said freaky countries as they are not freaky can go to specially setup check points. These check points would be setup on the borders of the freaky countries as well as designated points throughout these countries. If freaky countries government hassles anyone trying to get to the check points again tanks will roll across that country and destroy above mentioned target.

See you should all listen to me as I have the answers.

[durus]

If only we could implement RASPUTIN's Way.
That would be tops.

EDIT:
DOH REALISE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG
Your only problem is this:
Many people feel tied to the land through ancestors etc. So even though they're not stupid ass freaky people they won't leave the freaky countries. So the bombing and tanks would kill "innocents" which kinda sucks. The rest of it is good though.

[utopian]

What about how that's even worse than the idea of American Imperialism? You'll end up with an alliance of a few strong countries and lots of weak countries who have to step in line or get bombed. Then you'll end up with a bunch of countries who will ally to stand up to this big group and you'll end up with armed conflicts everywhere and a huge loss of life.

I do not promote global war between two large powers. The results would possibly include the destruction of the planet.

We should be working towards global harmony, not global bullying.

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by RASPUTIN
Freaky countries - Israel, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lybia/most of Africa, Nth Korea just to name a few.

um, dude. Israel shouldn't be on that list. It doesn't belong. It's the U.S lovechild. The U.S don't hate Israel man. Get it together.

[Scumbag]

Originally posted by Ins0mniac
um, dude. Israel shouldn't be on that list. It doesn't belong. It's the U.S lovechild. The U.S don't hate Israel man. Get it together. You saying freaky countries are only those on the George Bush Axis of Evil list ?


Who the fuck is he to tell us whats evil ?

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by RASPUTIN
The whole wmd can't find them thing is crap. They know they had/have them as we supplied them with the shit in the cold war era and want it back.


Well, you're right. We know they did have them because we sold them to them.

But then the U.N came and dismantled 99% of them. And the U.S has been crying about the 1% missing and presumed in the "evil clutches of Saddam".

Originally posted by RASPUTIN
Anyway at the end of the day all this impeachment talk it is a load of cods wallup. All we are seeing now is the big media hype crap attempting to discredit Bush as there is an ellection coming up. It would have been the same for whoever was in power at the time.

"RASPUTIN's way: The whole world should join up properly and say simply to the rest of the World if you are in the alliance and follow our rules you can trade with us and have all the benefits.



Well then. That leaves the U.S out of the world loop...

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by phoneyhuh
You saying freaky countries are only those on the George Bush Axis of Evil list ?


Who the fuck is he to tell us whats evil ?

But he's the king

"Leader of the free world" and all that.

Heil Lord Bush II! The Darth Bush and the Dark Emperor Rumsfeld.


Um, whoops. This is in the "serious discussion" section.

Runs away.

[That Bloke]

Originally posted by michaelmoore
I like this thread because its like my latest book in three paragraphs, and that's really all its worth.

People like you and me will bring around regime change where it's needed most, the Good Ol' US of A! :)

Arseclown.........I've had correspondance with the real Michael Moore, you are not him, you attempting to pass your self off as him is an insult to his intelligence.

[Scumbag]

Originally posted by That_Bloke
Arseclown......... Youre not That_Bloke! I saw the real 'that bloke' at the pub the other day! He told me he doesnt like computers! Your nothing but a farce..

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by phoneyhuh
Youre not That_Bloke! I saw the real 'that bloke' at the pub the other day! He told me he doesnt like computers! Your nothing but a farce..

Fuck off phoneyhuh!

I saw the real phoneyhuh yesterday! ANd he was on his way for a trip to the Bahamas.

I'd be fucked if he'd take his laptop with him jus to post to this stupid website!

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by michaelmoore
I like this thread because its like my latest book in three paragraphs, and that's really all its worth.

People like you and me will bring around regime change where it's needed most, the Good Ol' US of A! :)

Michael Moore the leftist god!!!


may I suck your toes clean? :D


:banana: :banana: :banana:

[pleed]

Who would stand up and say to the rest of the world "hey, follow our country and enjoy our trade and benefits"? If the rest of the world looked at them and said "fuck off" then they would look like right dickheads forever.

We need a power who would rule with an iron fist. Who says "listen to what I say or I will blow you the fuck up!", then when a bunch of wino's come along and say "ooo, don't blow us up, we will do whatever we want", the power will blow them the fuck up, then noone will bitch about shit.

[RASPUTIN]

hehe we already have that scenario with USA, AUS and GB. The rest of the pansy world are wimps. Ooo I shouldn't say that as the Japs, Italians and a few others are joining in so who knows what will happen over the next few years.

[utopian]

Totalitarianism is pretty cool. And by cool I mean fucking stupid.

[asskickergod]

Originally posted by That_Bloke
Arseclown.........I've had correspondance with the real Michael Moore, you are not him, you attempting to pass your self off as him is an insult to his intelligence.

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/captobvious.gif

[Ins0mniac]

Originally posted by asskickergod
http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/captobvious.gif

Ah shutup! It was him. He gave me the secret "virtual handshake". :p

[asskickergod]

Could this "secret handshake" be described with the phrase "fevered pitch" and did it require Vaseline? If so then it would make me a believer.

[That Bloke]

Originally posted by asskickergod
http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/captobvious.gif

I pride myself on drawing attention to the obvious, on the internet these days people can miss the obvious if someone isn't there to expose it:D

[JessicaDV8]

This is the first time that I am posting a reply without reading the entire thread first.

Impeaching? What good would that do? It didn't work the last time.

In the past few years, I have seen eveything my country stands for mocked and ignored. Bush wasn't even elected -- does anyone actually think that impeachment would affect anything? The only hope I have is that people have been stirred from their complacency and we can vote Bush out of office -- I know that I only concerned myself with my pet issues until now. I hope that liberals and moderates can cooperate for once and rid our country of this threat.

I think that until now, the moderates have been running the country, no matter who was in office. Now the US has swung to the extreme and it will not benefit anyone, Republican or Democrat. I am seriously worried.

Christ, I'm getting political now. ugh.

[utopian]

Jess, how are the pre-election things going over there? Much of a huge contest? Who are the main candidates and what do they stand for?

[tikdoph]

It's hard enough to wade through political bs at the best of times, but come election time in the USA, the bs meter goes off the scale.

It's kinda funny watching candidates from the same political party trying to win support over the overs in the primary elections. You have to come across as the good guy, without being seen to shit on the other party members, while at the same time putting them down in order to make yourself look good.

Political races like these can turn on a dime with candidates dropping out with little to no warning. Or, candidates may be polling well, then will screw up in a televised debate, and find that their support halves in the space of a night.

It's a fickle electorate, motivated as much by personality as by policy.

[Haalen]

Bush was elected president, its our whacky, and archaic electoral voting system. Impeaching him wouldn't accomplish much, as long as the administration got 4 more years the same BS would continue. The only hope is if he loses the election. Been fucking up our country pretty bad for the past couple of years.

[Nodbugger]

I saw this poll on the homepage.

And every single post on her is filled with sheer ignorance. I hope you people like being complete dumb asses.

[Zan]

Woah, Noddy. This thread hasn't been posted in since January this year.

Incidentally (not really), there have been a number of points raised in this thread that I think are worthy of consideration. The original post:

It looks like a lot of discussion recently has been going on about Bush's treatment of the whole Iraq shebang. He's been called out on misleading the world about the extent Saddam's power and Iraq's weapons programs. His politicking has made the world a little less safe, and his administration is responsible for passing acts that seriously impinge on civil liberties and rights that citizens of the USA have had for quite some time.

I'm not sure if Patriot Act I and II are unconstitutional, as I don't know about the USA constitution and Bill of Rights all that much. I'd hazard a guess that they're causing a bit of outrage though. I know that there are a few people here who complain about Bush's Gestapo tactics and his essentially turning the USA into a police state.

Clinton was impeached for lying to his country and I think there was something in there about professional misconduct by having a bit on the side with that ugly cow that called itself an intern. My question is whether or not Bush is also guilty of lying to his country (and the world) and if he should be removed from office because of it.

This post, about how people view Americans because of the actions of their leader:
The Death toll in Iraq was 50,000? Where'd that number come from? You do realise that directly scaling that number up to meet the four billion number is only 10 million americans?

Not that those ten million americans actually set the US foreign policy.

Not that you actually care, seeing as you just love being a racist and talking about how we should kill the United States' general population as it's clear that every citizen is willingly comitting a war crime every second of the day.

Tell you what, if we can't get the 10 million quota from killing the US military, maybe we can make the rest of the numbers up by killing those Israeli dogs!

Sure, the USA might have been able to handle the Iraq/Saddam situation a little better, but you can't hold an entire country responsible for the acts of its administration, especially when the leader wasn't even elected by popular vote. And even if he was, not everyone over the legal voting age in the USA votes.

Stop damning the citizens of the United States for something that their government has done.

Or this quote, from no one trying to be anything more than concerned for herself and her interests (I don't mean that in a negative way, Jess).


Impeaching? What good would that do? It didn't work the last time.

In the past few years, I have seen eveything my country stands for mocked and ignored. Bush wasn't even elected -- does anyone actually think that impeachment would affect anything? The only hope I have is that people have been stirred from their complacency and we can vote Bush out of office -- I know that I only concerned myself with my pet issues until now. I hope that liberals and moderates can cooperate for once and rid our country of this threat.

I think that until now, the moderates have been running the country, no matter who was in office. Now the US has swung to the extreme and it will not benefit anyone, Republican or Democrat. I am seriously worried.


It's all very well to throw out such generalisations as 'every single post on her[e] is filled with sheer ignorance', but have you considered replying to the topic at hand?

Should George W Bush be impeached? I'd like to think that your opinion would be better received if it didn't include insulting those who hold a different one.

I voted the middle option, and I don't know why. I'm tempted to say that it won't have a great effect - and that he's still pretty popular with a lot of US citizens (</unfounded conjecture>).

I'd be interested to hear your argument for/against his impeachment.

This thread can stay in Discussions for the moment.

[Nodbugger]

He has done nothing to be impeached. If for some reason you think his actions in Iraq deserve impeachment than you might as well impeach the entire congress and the supreme court. The house voted to use force against Iraq (except for a select few) and the Supreme court is there to challenge the legality of any decisions made by the other two branches. If they don't see anything wrong you have no grounds for impeachment.

So for a foreigner who more than likely has no clue on how the American legal system works to comment on if Americas president should be impeached is just ludicrous and not worthy of an extensive discussion.

I do not care who Australia, or France elect as their leaders. As long as the selection was done in a Democratic way and the leader is a reasonable person who wants nothing more than for the citizens of their country to live free and prosperous lives ,I have no problem with it. So for them to butt into our election process is of utter stupidity because not only is it pointless, it is hypocritical. I know that the rest of the world sees us as a world police who gets into other countries business. Well guess what they are doing? They are attempting to undermine our freedoms by bitching about something they have absolutely no control over. I say shit down, shut the fuck up ,and let us do our thing.

[Ic3]

I saw this poll on the homepage.

And every single post on her is filled with sheer ignorance. I hope you people like being complete dumb asses.

What a fantastic post. Full of supporting evidence and terrific arguements!

[Zan]

I don't think that this thread was intended to make the decision for the American people, Nodbugger.

I find it curious that you say if someone doesn't have comprehensive knowledge of how X works (and I find the 'foreigner' comment a little underhanded, very 'us' and 'them'), they can't talk about it? How then, pray tell, are we supposed to form any sort of opinion about anything?

You are absolutely right that 'us foreigners' have no control over the election. If we don't have any control, how could anything we say or do possibly undermine your freedoms?

Just as an aside, did you happen to catch what Bush said about Latham a couple of months ago? If that's not butting into our election process, then I'm a nublie amazonian priestess. Which I'm not.

[ersatz]

then I'm a nublie amazonian priestess. Which I'm not.

you lied! I feel misled now.

Noddy, what do you think about the foreign observers sent to watch over your electoral process?

[Blink]

I think Bush could only be impeached if he was found to have knowingly misled Congress on Iraqi WMD. No doubt his advisors have piles and piles of documentation from US intelligence agencies saying pretty much what he said to Congress, the UN etc, so if any blame can be attributed it would be toward the CIA, NSA and whoever else was responsible for intelligence gathering.

A lot of the articles on the web, and on this forum are more fiction than fact. They are all pro or anti war. I have yet to read a completely impartial and truthful opinion on it...

[biomechanic]

Nodbugger do you hang out on Zgeek for any other reason than to Pimp bush?

[Ic3]

Nodbugger do you hang out on Zgeek for any other reason than to Pimp bush?

Or to start up dead threads that mention Bush?

[s3raph]

I don't know enough about US constitution to comment on some stuff, but its bad enough the damage that he was doing to the UN back when the war was starting. His "fuck you" policy towards the UN threatened to do it some serious damage seeing as the US has always been one of its major sponsors when other countries are breaking the law. I remember seeing footage of a protest in front of the white house with a bunch of sub-moronic american trailer trash carrying around plackards saying things like "UN Americans are UN-American" and stupid crap like that. What bush has done really isn't that bad as far as international crimes are concerned but with his high profile and responsibilities he definitely shouldn't be in office. I mean this is the guy with his finger on the trigger of the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and its most powerful nuclear arsenal.

[beowulf437]

Clinton did nothing to get impeached, but he was anyway. Impeachment does not remove a president from office it is a hearing to determine wether or not there are grounds to remove him.

So Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. He shouldn't have been asked about it in the first place. It was no one business but his own. Anyway it was probably a set up. What woman keeps a cum stained dress in a plastic bag for six months? I would be willing to bet that presidents that didn't get nookie on the side are few and far between. Hell Grover Cleveland, who is considered the most honest president ever, had an illegitamate son and married a woman 30 years his junior during his first term.

Now the lies and misrepresentations and half truths that Bush spouted have led directly to US citizens being put in harms way. For that there should be a special prosecutor crawling up his ass with a microscope. For that we should be having senate hearings. For that we should be considering impeachment.

[s3raph]

hear hear! I hope the prosecutor has cold hands, and has been keeping that microscope in the refridgerator.

[Nodbugger]

Clinton committed perjury. That is why he was impeached.

[beowulf437]

Why the fuck were they even asking him about Monica Lewinski. He was impeached for lying to congress. Bush lied to congress, shouldn't he be impeached.

[Bostonmess]

I would be willing to bet that presidents that didn't get nookie on the side are few and far between.

JFK did Marilyn.

Respect.

[Bostonmess]

Bush lied to congress, shouldn't he be impeached.

Which lie are you on about?

[Nodbugger]

Why the fuck were they even asking him about Monica Lewinski. He was impeached for lying to congress. Bush lied to congress, shouldn't he be impeached.

He lied under oath, hence perjury.

Bush has committed no lies.

[beowulf437]

I don't know. How about this one.

MARGARET WARNER: Ever since President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, these 16 words have been the fodder for fierce debate over the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

MARGARET WARNER: Administration officials said the president was relying on intelligence reports that Iraq had tried to purchase so-called "yellow cake," a uranium extract that can be used in nuclear weapons. The controversy deepened last July, when former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a "New York Times" op-ed piece saying, "Some of the intelligence used by the Bush administration was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

To back up his charge, Wilson revealed that he had been dispatched by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq tried to buy yellow cake in the West African nation of Niger. Wilson said he spent eight days there meeting with current and former government officials and uranium business people Afterwards, he wrote, he reported to the CIA, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

Three days after Wilson's article appeared, Secretary of State Colin Powell said President Bush should not have made the Iraq-Niger assertion.

Source:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/yellowcake_7-20.html

So Bush knew in 2002 that the Iraqi's were not buying uranium ore yet in 2003 he told congress they were. That's called lying to congress.

Gregory Thielmann served as a director in the US state department's bureau of intelligence and research (INR) until last September after 25 years.

Speaking at Washington's National Press Club Thursday, Thielmann said that when he heard Bush's uranium reference, he "wondered what new evidence had come into the administration", reported the Inter Press Service.

No doubt in his mind, says Bush

But, when he realised it was based on the already-discredited Niger report, he said he felt a "combination of surprise and disgust".

Source:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1386249,00.html

And what did the Bush adminstration do about his lie.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Valerie_Plame

[Nodbugger]

8 days isn't really enough time to come up with that plus he still had British Intelligence still saying that.


But Bush did some out and say it may have been a mistake to say it.

But as I said. He was not under oath and his committed no crimes. There are still 100s of other countries he could have gotten Uranium from.

[Bostonmess]

He lied.

[LevarBurton]

I saw the word IMP in IMPeached, and had to respond. hubba.

Bush should be imnuetured, imquartered, imsexchanged, and a whole bunch of other im-things that hurt.

My favorite is the IM-waterslide-of-lemonjuice-and-razors
also the degrading IM-hot-glue-bueaty-jewels-to-the-naked-body.

HEHE.

[beowulf437]

Nodbugger in case you didn't know when you adress the congress you are under oath. He said something he knew wasn't true, a lie, that's lying before congress. Clinton was impeached for saying he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski to congress, he was he was impeached for lying before congress. Which was the most damaging lie.

It was determined in Clinton's impeachment hearing that he should not have been asked the question in the first place because it had nothing to do with the goverment, nor was a crime committed. The question was delving into his private life.

Now if Bush's adress to congress contained at least one flat out lie, how many other misrepresentation did it contain?

The administration said there were thousands of tons of chemical weapons in Iraq and that they knew exactly where they were. So did they go to those places where all those chemical weapons were stored? What did they find? Jack and Shit.

This whole shit about Valerie Plame after Bush was caught in a big lie. Nodbugger, I work for a goverment contractor, if I were to reveal the names of the people I work with to the press, I would be subject to firing, a law suit, and possible jail time.

[Nodbugger]

Too bad you are way fucking wrong.

Can you prove any of this is lie? Do you know EVERYTHING?
You know shit. You know nothing. You are fucking ignorant and you call people liars. You are lying. You know not of what you speak of. You do not always address congress under oath. What lying fuck told you that? You also cannot prove a single shred of your last post. Saddam most certainly had wmd. Where they are ? We don't know. He was a threat and we got rid of him. Bush went with intelligence from 8 different countries. Your criticize him for not acting on Bin Laden...Well he acted on Saddam. Now stfu and stop being assholes. You are wrong and you will always be wrong. Live with it and stop bitching.

[Bostonmess]

http://gallery.zgeek.com/albums/uploads/noddy.gif Live with it and stop bitching.

Calm down Noddy, ask daddy for you teddy back.

[Nodbugger]

http://gallery.zgeek.com/albums/uploads/noddy.gif

Calm down Noddy, ask daddy for you teddy back.


He seems to be the one whining.

[LevarBurton]

That kid looks like he got raped and he lost his teddy bear

[Bostonmess]

He seems to be the one whining.

Of course. :D

Too bad you are way fucking wrong.

Can you prove any of this is lie? Do you know EVERYTHING?
You know shit. You know nothing. You are fucking ignorant and you call people liars. You are lying. You know not of what you speak of. You do not always address congress under oath. What lying fuck told you that? You also cannot prove a single shred of your last post. Saddam most certainly had wmd. Where they are ? We don't know. He was a threat and we got rid of him. Bush went with intelligence from 8 different countries. Your criticize him for not acting on Bin Laden...Well he acted on Saddam. Now stfu and stop being assholes. You are wrong and you will always be wrong. Live with it and stop bitching.

[beowulf437]

Nodbugger Bin Laden attacked us, Saddam did not.

So far I have pointed out distortions, misrepresentations, and outright untruths, I have supported these with statements from respected organizations and idividuals.

I have asked questions. The answer you give is I don't know. Commiting troops to combat is the single most serious thing a US president can do. I want the reasons for that commitment to be beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The US now has troops in Iraq, they will be there for the forseeable future. Invading Iraq has not increased the safety of US citizens world wide but increased the likelyhood of them being targets. Before it is over we will have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

To quote a news source you like Nodbugger the weapons were not moved to Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,107946,00.html

Others in the Bush administration are just as guilty. In September of 2002 Donald Rumsfeld told congress he 'knew' where the weapons were.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/sprj.nirq.rumsfeld.congress.ap/


The President of the US has at his disposal the largest, best funded inteligence apparatus in the world. He is supposed to be surrounded by the best and brightest advisors and analysts. It has come to light that before the war the Bush administration distorted facts, discounted or supressed information that contradicted them, and used documents and information that they knew was false, forged, or exagerated.

If a business owner in the US had used these same tactics to sell stock in his company he would be facing fraud charges.

[Enos]

Too bad you are way fucking wrong.

Can you prove any of this is lie? Do you know EVERYTHING?
You know shit. You know nothing. You are fucking ignorant and you call people liars. You are lying. You know not of what you speak of. You do not always address congress under oath. What lying fuck told you that? You also cannot prove a single shred of your last post. Saddam most certainly had wmd. Where they are ? We don't know. He was a threat and we got rid of him. Bush went with intelligence from 8 different countries. Your criticize him for not acting on Bin Laden...Well he acted on Saddam. Now stfu and stop being assholes. You are wrong and you will always be wrong. Live with it and stop bitching.

That is the best Bill O'Reilly impression I've ever seen...

[biomechanic]

Too bad you are way fucking wrong.

Can you prove any of this is lie? Do you know EVERYTHING?
You know shit. You know nothing. You are fucking ignorant and you call people liars. You are lying. You know not of what you speak of. You do not always address congress under oath. What lying fuck told you that? You also cannot prove a single shred of your last post. Saddam most certainly had wmd. Where they are ? We don't know. He was a threat and we got rid of him. Bush went with intelligence from 8 different countries. Your criticize him for not acting on Bin Laden...Well he acted on Saddam. Now stfu and stop being assholes. You are wrong and you will always be wrong. Live with it and stop bitching.

Tony Blair admits they were wrong:
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/29/nlab129.xml

Are you going to call him a liar too?

[Thyrd]

Isnt there an option to select the first 2 options?

Honestly I think he should definatly be impeached. Im seeing him as more and more of a danger to world peace. Especially after watching that doco on the abc about religeon and politics.

[and3w]

Unfortunatly you cannot be impeached for being a danger to world peace (as if such a thing existed. You also cannot be impeached for being as thick as a sackful of mist. It is his advisors who scare me, rumsfeldt, Cheney etc; they should be shot, never mind the impeachment.

[Nodbugger]

Nodbugger Bin Laden attacked us, Saddam did not.

So far I have pointed out distortions, misrepresentations, and outright untruths, I have supported these with statements from respected organizations and idividuals.

I have asked questions. The answer you give is I don't know. Commiting troops to combat is the single most serious thing a US president can do. I want the reasons for that commitment to be beyond the shadow of a doubt.

The US now has troops in Iraq, they will be there for the forseeable future. Invading Iraq has not increased the safety of US citizens world wide but increased the likelyhood of them being targets. Before it is over we will have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraq, money that could have been better spent elsewhere.

To quote a news source you like Nodbugger the weapons were not moved to Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,107946,00.html

Others in the Bush administration are just as guilty. In September of 2002 Donald Rumsfeld told congress he 'knew' where the weapons were.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/04/sprj.nirq.rumsfeld.congress.ap/


The President of the US has at his disposal the largest, best funded inteligence apparatus in the world. He is supposed to be surrounded by the best and brightest advisors and analysts. It has come to light that before the war the Bush administration distorted facts, discounted or supressed information that contradicted them, and used documents and information that they knew was false, forged, or exagerated.

If a business owner in the US had used these same tactics to sell stock in his company he would be facing fraud charges.


This entire POS post is 100% opinion. What makes you the expert on how safe we are now? Saddam is no longer In power. I am happy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?oref=login&pagewanted=1

Here is an article from the New York times, a very liberal paper. This Iraqi scientist in charge of his Nuclear program says Saddam could have started developing Nuclear weapons at any time. Now I'm sure you have heard about Iran's dealing with Nuclear weapons. Do you think Saddam would sit there while one of his enemies makes a Nuclear weapon? I don't think so! He would have been making them right along side. Sanctions would not have stopped them. They had figured out how to do everything and he buried everything in his garden.

as for your second link


Explaining that remark, Rumsfield told the panel that he was referring to suspected weapons sites, but he acknowledged that he had made it sound like he was talking about actual weapons.



When you forget that little piece it kind of makes you look right.

This is where you are wrong. The Bush administration did none of this.

Before September 11th happened, the Cinton and Bush administrations were given a slight warning about being attacked by Osama. Now you and many other says Bush knew about it and September 11th is Bushes fault. Now you are saying we should not have acted on our intelligence. Isn't that really hypocritical? We should have acted on the Osama information, but not the Saddam information? Even Putin told Bush Saddam planned to attack inside the US!

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=44286

When you are president and you are given this information from respectable sources you just don't let it go.

Bush has not lied about anything in this war. He may have said they got something from Africa, but he later corrected himself. But it is not like that matters since that is only one place they could have gotten it from.

[Nodbugger]

Tony Blair admits they were wrong:
"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge that and accept it."

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/29/nlab129.xml

Are you going to call him a liar too?

Well Tony Blair is trying to win an election.

[Nodbugger]

Isnt there an option to select the first 2 options?

Honestly I think he should definatly be impeached. Im seeing him as more and more of a danger to world peace. Especially after watching that doco on the abc about religeon and politics.

If you think there was world peace before this war you should go shoot yourself.

[SOC]

:yawn:
get a new tune, nobby

[beowulf437]

To say you 'know' something as a fact when you are really not sure would be inadmissable in a court of law. It is a misrepresentation of facts.

To say Americans are safer let's look at some facts.

Since the invasion of Iraq 1059 US military personel have died and 7384 have been wounded.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

Worldwide the number of terrorist attacks in 2003 were down from 2002. The number of major attacks were up.

The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

So far in 2004, 50 foreign nationals have been kidnapped in Iraq, 26 of those have been killed.

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=international&category=general%20news&story_id=335948&y=2004&m=9

How often do we hear stories like these.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/14/110716.shtml

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2451813

So the world is a much safer place now. I am so glad that Bush is defending my freedom over seas while John Ashcroft is taking them away at home.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

http://www.ala.org/ala/washoff/WOissues/civilliberties/theusapatriotact/alaresolution.htm

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,63702,00.html

[Nodbugger]

All of these attacks are happening in other countries. They are not in the US.

Spain got attacked and that is it. The other terrorist attacks were suicide bombings and car bombings throughout the middle east. Those were going to increase no matter what.

When you are fighting the people doing these things you'd expect them to hike it up a little bit.

They would do these things no matter what. They didn't decide to start doing it because we invaded Iraq. To think that is just stupid.

No body kills 35 kids while they are getting candy because of something like this.

We are fighting them and it may take a while, but it will be dealt with.

It has only been slightly more than a year! What ca you expect to happen in a single year?

World War 2 took 6 years. Vietnam we were there for 8. Korea we had 4 years. The American revolution was almost a decade!

You cannot make these statements when almost nothing in the big picture has happened. Everything starts out rough, but you are being a complete idiot thinking we should just stop from the get go.


You probably suck at life if you give up so easily.

[beowulf437]

Nodbugger I am not saying we should not fight international terrorism, I am saying that invading Iraq didn't help. You do not stop something like terrorism by turning world opinion against you, that is exactly what the terrorist want you to do. You do not stop terrorism by alienating your friends. You cannot stop terrorism with tanks and bombs. Unless you kill everyone, you will just create more terrorist.

You eliminate terrorism by targeting specific terrorist organizations and by coming to grips with the root causes of terrorism. It is a dificult and complicated job. Single grand gestures will not stop terrorism, nor will the invasion of countries. There are as many reasons for international terrorism as there are terrorist organizations and individual nutcases. To think that any country can deal with them all is being blind to the world situation.

Osama Bin Laden's greatest strength lies in his ability to unify despirate terrorist organization to a common cause. There is even a possibility that there has been contact between Al-Qeada and some ultra-right wing organizations in the west.

[Nodbugger]

Nodbugger I am not saying we should not fight international terrorism, I am saying that invading Iraq didn't help. You do not stop something like terrorism by turning world opinion against you, that is exactly what the terrorist want you to do. You do not stop terrorism by alienating your friends. You cannot stop terrorism with tanks and bombs. Unless you kill everyone, you will just create more terrorist.

You eliminate terrorism by targeting specific terrorist organizations and by coming to grips with the root causes of terrorism. It is a dificult and complicated job. Single grand gestures will not stop terrorism, nor will the invasion of countries. There are as many reasons for international terrorism as there are terrorist organizations and individual nutcases. To think that any country can deal with them all is being blind to the world situation.

Osama Bin Laden's greatest strength lies in his ability to unify despirate terrorist organization to a common cause. There is even a possibility that there has been contact between Al-Qeada and some ultra-right wing organizations in the west.


Saddam was one of those terrorist organizations. If we didn't invade Iraq do you seriously think Saddam would have helped with the war on terror? If we give them no safe place to be they can cause no harm.

You are alienating us. We are not alienating you. You are wrong and we know it. We have to get rid of every dangerous country before we can get rid of terrorism.

Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Palestine, Parts of Africa, some of the countries surrounding Russia. They all have terrorist in them and we must set up countries and government that will not tolerate them..

[Scythe]

You are alienating us. We are not alienating you. You are wrong and we know it. We have to get rid of every dangerous country before we can get rid of terrorism.

So does this mean you are going to be launcing military air raids on the White Supremacists, Black Power organisations and anti-Federalist militias which continue to operate throughout the United States?

[Nodbugger]

So does this mean you are going to be launcing military air raids on the White Supremacists, Black Power organisations and anti-Federalist militias which continue to operate throughout the United States?

Are they blowing people up or breaking the law?

[beowulf437]

Nodbugger, how am I alienating the US. I have lived in the US all my life. I have run for the House of Representatives twice as a independant candidate. I love the US and the people in it. I don't think the US is perfect but then nowhere else is either. It is the Bush administration that is alienating the US.

I agree with military action in Kosovo and Afganistan (though both could have been executed a little better), but I do not agree with the invasion of Iraq. If Bush had told the congress and the american people that the only reason was to remove Saddam Hussien from power would he have had the support for the invasion he had. Instead they used known bad inteligence, distorted facts, and made intentional misstatements to build a case for the invasion.

No one can force a type of goverment on another people. We cannot force the Iraqis into a republic style goverment nor can we force any other country into that form of goverment. I would be willing to bet that groups in the Shi'a (60% of the population) would be happier with a theocratic autocracy like Iran. While the majority of the Turkmen, Assyrians a Sunnis were actually happy with Saddam Husseins socialist military dictatorship (by the way Assyrians are predominately christians).

As for Ultra-right wing terrorist groups in the US helping Al-qeada why is David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan hanging out in the middle east.

http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=68231

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/15/njew15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/15/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=3947

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1089006/posts

[Scythe]

Are they blowing people up or breaking the law?

Occasionally the former, and the latter all the time .

[Nodbugger]

Occasionally the former, and the latter all the time .

How?

[geggle]

This thread has been good reading...

Because of beowulf437's posts and that post explaining the Electoral college system in the USA.

I think Bush seriously miscalculated how the Iraqies would receive USA forces - I'd bet he was thinking they'd be welcomed as heroes. And I suppose they were where they have made improvements to the way of life of the local Iraq population. The US isn't omnipotent, so the places where they've made a real difference would be relatively small. I'd imagine that there would be large swathes of the country which have seen no improvement, and possibly have experienced a worsening of the situation.

I have no problem in admitting that I supported the war on Iraq at the beginning. Seeing the events over the last year, I have reconsidered and now feel that there does not appear to be an end in sight. However, it is also difficult to be sure of anything with so much spin-doctoring in the media by all the interested parties.

With respect to impeachment, I would be surprised if an impeachment inquiry would actually succeed. On the other hand, if it occurred, it may serve to remind future presidents of the repercussions of their decisions. Having said that, I would imagine that the reason intelligence information may have been selectively used to support the president's case for war would have been, in part, to insulate the president from charges that he acted without any cause.

[Colonel Kurtz]

George W Bush isn't anti abortion - he just believes in aborting the child over 19 years of age in Iraq

[beowulf437]

Are they blowing people up or breaking the law?

Yes they are killing people and breaking the law.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/w/wo/world_church_of_the_creator.html

1994: Some COTC members in California planned two bombing sprees that were designed to attack Afro-American, homosexual and Jewish institutions. Police thwarted the terrorists' plans.

1999-JUL-3/4: A senior TCM member, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, went on a shooting rampage through the mid-west, killing one Afro-American and one Korean-American. Six orthodox Jews and three Afro-Americans were wounded. Smith then committed suicide.

BERLIN (AP) - Far-right crime in Germany last year reached the highest level since World War II, with offenses surging nearly 60 percent, new government statistics showed Friday, adding urgency to Germany's struggle against neo-Nazis.

http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/030301/usn_neonazi.shtml

Their numbers have grown substantially since Neo-Nazi Skinheads first appeared in the United States during the mid-1980s. Predictably, this growth has been matched by violence: since 1987, racist Skinheads have committed at least 43 murders in the United States as well as thousands of lesser crimes such as beatings, stabbings, shootings, thefts, and synagogue desecrations.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Extremism/White_extremism/Skinheads/skinheads.htm

Also, according to documents obtained by WND, a group of white supremacists known as the Aryan Republican Army, whose members reportedly included convicted OKC bomber Timothy McVeigh and possibly Terry Nichols, robbed banks in the Midwest in the years leading up to the bombing, in order to finance "terrorist acts" against the federal government.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23014

http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/third_position.html

P.S. White supremacist are not just a problem in the US, but throughout Europe and Australia.

[Nodbugger]

But he did not mention only white supremacists ,plus it is not a group. When they do plan to or do commit crimes we do take them down. Until then it is freedom of speech.

[Colonel Kurtz]

STFU noddy, go play with big ears, since you won't play with the golliwog

[beowulf437]

Not a group. The World Church of the Creator is not a group. The Aryan Nation is not a group. White Supremacist world wide have formed a loose confederation, much like Al Qeada, for the purpose of using terror, criminal activity, and propaganda to depose the lawful goverments in their own countries to establish fascist dictatorships. As a matter of fact the FBI has been treating some of these 'groups' as terrorist organizations.

[Scythe]

But he did not mention only white supremacists ,plus it is not a group. When they do plan to or do commit crimes we do take them down. Until then it is freedom of speech.

There's a word called sophistry, Nodbugger. I wouldn't be surprised if your picture was beside the definition.

These groups, particularily the anti-Federal Government militias, have been stockpiling weapons for years, for the express purpose of destroying the government of the United States. Are you saying that just because they are American citizens that they aren't terrorists, and can't be shipped off as "enemy combatants" just like all those foreigners?

[ersatz]

John Walker-Lindh got special treatment because he was a yank, why can't these guys? If they were treated like enemy combatants, that'd mean there were enemies amongst you. Denial is easier.

[Nodbugger]

John Walker-Lindh got special treatment because he was a yank, why can't these guys? If they were treated like enemy combatants, that'd mean there were enemies amongst you. Denial is easier.

They are American citizens, that is the difference. They get different rights.

I have never heard of a single one of those groups (you both probably had to go searching for them) and I have not heard of any attacks by them. So I guess they are not working.

[Scythe]

I have never heard of a single one of those groups (you both probably had to go searching for them) and I have not heard of any attacks by them. So I guess they are not working.

Or you didn't bother looking for any information.

Since beowulf already posted a bunch of links which, among other things, catalogue such attacks, i'm betting you didn't.

[beowulf437]

I have never heard of a single one of those groups (you both probably had to go searching for them) and I have not heard of any attacks by them.

I guess you do live in a cave. The World Church of the Creator is also known as 'The Creation Movement' having lost a law suit over the name.

http://www.milnet.com/domestic/data/wcc.htm

The Aryan Nations was just recently in the news as their founder died just last month.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002030871_butlerobit09m.html

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a83.html

I suppose you also haven't heard of the Ku Klux Klan either.

David Duke former head of the Klu Klux Klan and republican candidate and convicted felon. Has spent much time in the middle east looking for what?

[Nodbugger]

Or you didn't bother looking for any information.

Since beowulf already posted a bunch of links which, among other things, catalogue such attacks, i'm betting you didn't.

I don't care about them. that is the difference. That is why I have never heard of most of them. They are some idiots doing stupid shit. If they break a law they get prosecuted. If they don't commit a crime, oh well. stop bitching.

[Nodbugger]

I guess you do live in a cave. The World Church of the Creator is also known as 'The Creation Movement' having lost a law suit over the name.

http://www.milnet.com/domestic/data/wcc.htm

The Aryan Nations was just recently in the news as their founder died just last month.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002030871_butlerobit09m.html

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/a83.html

I suppose you also haven't heard of the Ku Klux Klan either.

David Duke former head of the Klu Klux Klan and republican candidate and convicted felon. Has spent much time in the middle east looking for what?

And I don't give a fuck.

[Scythe]

I don't care about them. that is the difference. That is why I have never heard of most of them. They are some idiots doing stupid shit. If they break a law they get prosecuted. If they don't commit a crime, oh well. stop bitching.

a) To my knowledge, Saddam never broke a single American law either.

b) Where did you get the strange idea that because you are not interested in looking for information that might contradict your insular beliefs, and thus have never heard of any of these groups, which operate within the borders of your own nation, that means that they are "not working"? Despite what you may believe, the entire universe does not in fact revolve around your limited knowledge of things.

Edit: By the way, Nodbugger, i'm still waiting (http://forums.zgeek.com/showpost.php?p=369203&postcount=16)

[beowulf437]

The point I am trying to make is that there really are terrorist everywhere, as well as those who support and promote terrorism. They are not all in foreign countries nor are they all Islamic. Most use the same sort of tactics. Many of them have contacts with other terrorist groups.

I try to keep tabs on the ones that might affect me most. I being a mixed race Buddhist with both Jewish and black friends.

The face of terrorism does not always wear a beard and turban. It may be blonde haired and blue eyed, or speak spanish, or be any race or religion. What defines a terrorist is his actions. Terrorist are the smallest minority trying to force the majority to bend to their will.

[Fuzzy Dice]

Terrorist are the smallest minority trying to force the majority to bend to their will.

I would say that terrorists are a group of people with views they so believe to be correct that they are willing to take military action against a much larger force to get their point across. In many cases 'terrorists' would have quite a broad support for their views, but most people lack the conviction to fight for them.

One man CAN make a difference, if he's got 20 pounds of c4 strapped to his torso...

Is it irony, karma or both that the united states developed, funded and trained the founding members of many of the terrorist groups they're now trying to combat?

[ersatz]

Noddy would say it's coincidence.

Hang on, Noddy would say it's a lie and call you stupid.

[catt]

Noddy would say it's coincidence.

Hang on, Noddy would say it's a lie and call you stupid.
shouldn't that read, 'Noddy would say it's a lie, and we're dumb asses and fucking stupid for believing it? :(

[Sapper]

It's not karma, or coincidence, or anything like that. The US armed and trained Afghan guerillas to fight against the Soviet Union because it was considered convenient at the time to do so. No more, no less.
No doubt there were some vested interests, i.e. some people in positions of influence at the time thought it was fair payback for the Soviet Union's actions in the Vietnam conflict, others thought it a handy scenario for testing new weapons (Stinger SAMs) without having to expose actual US troops to enemy fire. But the bottom line was it was convenient. After getting a Class-A asswhipping from a peasant army in Vietnam, I can't really blame them for wanting a little comeback via the same methods.

[Nodbugger]

After getting a Class-A asswhipping from a peasant army in Vietnam, I can't really blame them for wanting a little comeback via the same methods.

You know absolutely shit about Vietnam.

[SOC]

You know absolutely shit about Vietnam.

Dear Nodbugger,

Could you please supply some written evidence, validated and duly notirised by an official, of your statement that Sapper has absolutely no knowledge of the Vietnam conflict that took place in the 1960s and '70s?

Thanks

SOC

[beowulf437]

Actually US troops 'won' nearly every engagement with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong units. The war was 'lost' by the lack of an overall strategy, tactics in the field being decided by politicians in Washington, and by a lack of understanding of warfare by those in charge. A land war cannot be won by maintaining the status quo.

[Nodbugger]

Actually US troops 'won' nearly every engagement with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong units. The war was 'lost' by the lack of an overall strategy, tactics in the field being decided by politicians in Washington, and by a lack of understanding of warfare by those in charge. A land war cannot be won by maintaining the status quo.

Exactly, if they let the military do their job it would have ended in 1970.

[Sapper]

You know absolutely shit about Vietnam.
The brevity of your response reveals your ignorance of other people's knowledge. That you need to resort to petty insults gives the lie to your understanding of that same knowledge.

I know plenty about Vietnam, as well as many other wars. I've heard from, read books and studied papers by all sorts of people who were present there, at many different levels, from field grunts to theatre commanders. The United States, although the most powerful nation on the planet and the most involved at the time, was not and is not the only one to learn lessons from the events of that time. The American involvement in the Vietnam conflict was first and foremost a political one, with scant regard paid at most times by senior officials to how the warfare component should be conducted.

It's been said by many people who were there at the time, including Norman Schwarzkopf (Army) and Chuck Horner (Air Force) - both later comanders in the Gulf War (I), that the war could and probably would have turned out differently has there not been political considerations and corollary restrictions imposed from above, most notably by the SecDef at the time, Robert McNamara. The Vietnam conflict was a rude shock and severe embarrassment to the US military, with 'peasant warfare' not being factored into their planning, and the lessons they learned there and adapted from were crucial to the training programs started and equipment purchased in the late 70s and throughout the 80s - i.e. a technological advantage, with information systems such as AWACS and IVIS being prime examples.

Although it's easy to say many of these things now (which is also an important point about the actual topic of this thread, should Bush be impeached), I also know about how difficult it was and must have been to make some of the decisions that were made. Hindsight is always 20/20, but even a timely wrong decision is better than no decision at all. The same applies to both those in authority during the Vietnam years, and those in authority now.

[Nodbugger]

Then why the hell did you make an obviously false statement like that?

[Sapper]

You make no sense.

[LauraleeBug]

You make no sense.

He never does sapper!

You know more about the vietnam war in your little pinky than he does about tying his own shoes....

He's an unfortunate example of the kind of yank I do not like (and do not want to be associated with). Others of us, however - like Asmo, Beowolf, etc., I mostly agree w/them.

I grew up during the Vietnam war. Every night on TV there were body counts like as if they were reading the weather.... The media was trying to help ppl became desensitised to it. Because Johnson was out-of-control and not letting it go (sound familiar? like Bush Sr? Regan? Nixon?) and throwing heaps of money and young boys (the draft was in then) at the situation, and the american ppl got tired of it.

My friends brothers/dads, etc. were coming home either in a box; or as a junkie (if they were lucky) the others came home missing pieces of either their body/brains or both.

Watch the movie "the Killing Fields" about the fall of Saigon. Yes, the US did fuck it up there. Sorry, but I lived through it and that's how I see it.

And also don't think it's cool to be a young unibomber with a bad attitude, either, Noddy. You're just doing a 180 on all us hippie geeks because you need attention, or you've probably got an illness known as a "sociopathic tendencies"....

J/w - Have you tried to join the US military? If not, why don't you? Bet you won't get in. They have EXTENSIVE psychological testing. You definetly wouldn't pass. But worry not - the NRA will take anybody LOL!


TRUE STORY
Me - I was offered a place in the Airforce Academy @ Colorado Springs, because I was nominated my a congressman in my state att. My stepfather(the bastard who acts just like you with all the blood&gutsglory thang) forced me to apply.

Now, get this - prerequisite for AFA is 5 ft tall, at least 100 lbs, and at least 20/30 vision. I met NONE of these requirements. I was 4'11", 90 lbs and had 20/100 vision. Yet they wanted me anyway. They wanted to give me a free education & put me straight into officers school after that with a great starting salary. Why? Because I wanna kill things? No, musta been my SAT/ACT/IQ scores.

Now me, I don't take orders very well and DID NOT in any way, shape or form belong to the military! Like, I am the LAST PERSON ON EARTH who would be caught dead in the military!

The only passive-aggressive way I had to get out of what would be the next 6 yrs of my life to Uncle Sam was: to fail the physical. And unfortunately, that - they couldn't waive...I couldn't even do ONE chinup! LMAO!

Hehe! And you think we're dumb? LOL!


I moved here the very MINUTE GWB "stole" the election; and wouldn't even discuss it w/Al Gore!

BTW ppl, the voting machines that messed up in Fla - (y'know, good ole Jeb's state - he's the governor (premier to you aussies) there)? Well, they're still NOT fixed. They had 4 years, mebbe the teamsters were on strike? Maybe Lockheed/Martin had a lotta sick-outs - who knows? But isn't it AWFULLY convenient????

I'll be happy the day he LOSES and only gets ONE TERM - just like his dickhead warmonger dad before him.

And that's all I got to say about that! :hippie:

[Nodbugger]

You make no sense.

You said we got a class-A ass whopping in Vietnam by peasants.

That is far from the truth.

[Sapper]

It is the precise truth. Political indecision and high-level tactical blundering, most notably the process of 'clearing' an area of VC, then abandoning it completely, effectively negated every victory US ground forces had in theater. And at the end, the North Vietnamese annexed the South. How is that not a loss? If you hand your opponent the ball back as soon as you take it off him, you're still going to be the loser at the end of the game. Such it was for the US in Vietnam. Many small victories achieved no large ones, because of political considerations.

The same was true for the air war component of the conflict. The USAF was hamstrung by not being allowed to operate to full capacity. Being unable to attack targets within 25 miles of the border meant that the Viet Cong had a 25-mile wide corridor to move a continuous line of supply. In a jungle conflict where accurate close air support was a dicey affair at best, this restriction was crucial for the North Vietnamese victory.

The end result was that the most powerful military force in the world was slowly brought to its knees by restrictions, infighting, and an enemy that was prepared to fight for decades, if necessary, to achieve their goals. What made it an asswhooping was the contrast between the two sides. Peasants with rifles on one side, college graduates with fighter jets on the other.

[Nodbugger]

It is the precise truth. Political indecision and high-level tactical blundering, most notably the process of 'clearing' an area of VC, then abandoning it completely, effectively negated every victory US ground forces had in theater. And at the end, the North Vietnamese annexed the South. How is that not a loss? If you hand your opponent the ball back as soon as you take it off him, you're still going to be the loser at the end of the game. Such it was for the US in Vietnam. Many small victories achieved no large ones, because of political considerations.

The same was true for the air war component of the conflict. The USAF was hamstrung by not being allowed to operate to full capacity. Being unable to attack targets within 25 miles of the border meant that the Viet Cong had a 25-mile wide corridor to move a continuous line of supply. In a jungle conflict where accurate close air support was a dicey affair at best, this restriction was crucial for the North Vietnamese victory.

The end result was that the most powerful military force in the world was slowly brought to its knees by restrictions, infighting, and an enemy that was prepared to fight for decades, if necessary, to achieve their goals. What made it an asswhooping was the contrast between the two sides. Peasants with rifles on one side, college graduates with fighter jets on the other.


It was in no way an ass whopping. Even with our restrictions we still won nearly every engagement.

They were also not peasants. the North Vietnamese Army was peasants? China was full of peasants? There were a few guys who were peasants, but when you do the things they do, guerrilla warfare and that crap, you should expect some screwed up things happening.

In no way did we get an ass whooping.

BTW, the process of Vietnamization started in the early 70s. As we withdrew , American soldiers were replaced by South Vietnamese soldiers. When the last American soldier left Vietnam , th South was still under its own control.

[beowulf437]

Well Bush has finally admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the US invaded.

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20041007-001099-1446

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-bremer06.html

Like Nodbugger, he is using the defense that even though I was proved wrong I am still right. Bush is sounds like a 17 year old kid.

Nodbugger earlier in this thread said we should invade several more countries. Since our president has decided he can invade countries just because he thinks they need invading (sounds like the Texas 'He needed killin' defense), we should take to the next level. Some of the countries Nodbugger mentioned have, like Iraq, received military support and training from China. Chinese made weapons have been found in the hands of known terrorist. China has a repressive regime, known to use tanks to break up peaceful demonstrations. China jails and executes political dissidents. China admits to having weapons of mass destruction.

So what are we waiting for LET'S INVADE CHINA!

Sure they may have an Army of about two million, but they don't have much of a navy or airforce. We have let China support international terrorism for too long. We should strike now. So what that a couple hundred thousand young americans would probably die, it would help the economy. We draft all the people collecting unemployment and wefare and all the kids from poor areas of the country no one will miss them. Of course we will have to make exception that any white kid whose father make over $250,000 a year is exempt from military service. We be able to cut taxes while we do it. We'll just borrow another couple of trillion dollars from our friends.

P.S. I hope you guys don't think I mean that last part. I'm just pissed off at Bush.

[gooey]

It was in no way an ass whopping. Even with our restrictions we still won nearly every engagement.



what are you saying - you stupid little turd?

america won the vietnam war??

you fucking lame idiot

[Nodbugger]

Well Bush has finally admitted that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the US invaded.

http://www.smartmoney.com/bn/ON/index.cfm?story=ON-20041007-001099-1446

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-bremer06.html

Like Nodbugger, he is using the defense that even though I was proved wrong I am still right. Bush is sounds like a 17 year old kid.

Nodbugger earlier in this thread said we should invade several more countries. Since our president has decided he can invade countries just because he thinks they need invading (sounds like the Texas 'He needed killin' defense), we should take to the next level. Some of the countries Nodbugger mentioned have, like Iraq, received military support and training from China. Chinese made weapons have been found in the hands of known terrorist. China has a repressive regime, known to use tanks to break up peaceful demonstrations. China jails and executes political dissidents. China admits to having weapons of mass destruction.

So what are we waiting for LET'S INVADE CHINA!

Sure they may have an Army of about two million, but they don't have much of a navy or airforce. We have let China support international terrorism for too long. We should strike now. So what that a couple hundred thousand young americans would probably die, it would help the economy. We draft all the people collecting unemployment and wefare and all the kids from poor areas of the country no one will miss them. Of course we will have to make exception that any white kid whose father make over $250,000 a year is exempt from military service. We be able to cut taxes while we do it. We'll just borrow another couple of trillion dollars from our friends.

P.S. I hope you guys don't think I mean that last part. I'm just pissed off at Bush.

You are an idiot because of this post. Your IQ must have made a significant drop in the last day.

[Nodbugger]

what are you saying - you stupid little turd?

america won the vietnam war??

you fucking lame idiot

Go back to smoking your moms cock.

[gooey]

no worries - ive finished smoking your mums

and she liked it too!

[LauraleeBug]

And also don't think it's cool to be a young unibomber with a bad attitude, either, Noddy. You're just doing a 180 on all us hippie geeks because you need attention, or you've probably got an illness known as a "sociopathic tendencies"....

J/w - Have you tried to join the US military? If not, why don't you? Bet you won't get in. They have EXTENSIVE psychological testing. You definetly wouldn't pass. But worry not - the NRA will take anybody LOL!

So, Noodles - How come you didn't answer MY question (and don't tell me you're too young for AT LEAST rotc). So, inquiring ppl wanna know - wtf are YOU doing to backup your mouth from writing checks your ass can't cash??

Don't try & bullshit me, boy - I'm a seppo, too.... And unlike you, I can read, and I WAS THERE! Because the only idiot around here is the one that YOU got YOUR values & facts from. (Betcher daddy is a steeldriving man, yeah!)

So, what grade have you reached? Have you been to boot camp yet? Do you know a soldier's starting salary as compared to Navy, Marines, AirForce, etc? Which branch have you set upon & why? Or are you just a big bad blowhard that has no intention of putting his money where his mouth is???

Send me a letter from your first overseas post on the front. Then we'll talk...


Lauralee >8)>=<< Bug
Only Wimps >8)>=<< Need Power
The Rest of Us >8)>=<< Are Too Smart to Want it! :1337:

[Nodbugger]

I am in ROTC. I plan on going into the Army after College. I have answered that question many times.

[beowulf437]

Why wait Nodbugger, sign up now, you could be in Iraq by the summer of 2005.

You want the US to overthrow the goverments of North Korea, Iran, and several others. Where are we supposed to get the troops to do so? The arguments I presented for invading China are just as good as the justification for invading Iraq, especially since Iraq had no WMDs and did not present a immediate threat to world security.

Fact for all it's window dressing reforms the Chinese goverment is still repressive.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=105001666

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1999/2/28_2.html

http://www.savetibet.org/News/News.cfm?ID=2095&c=6

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21161

Fact China has supplied arms and technology to countries that support terrorism. Including missile and WMD technology.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/23375.pdf

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/1998/issue2/jv2n2a7.html

http://www.nisat.org/west%20africa/news%20from%20the%20region/MAIN%20NEWS%20PAGE/Liberia/2003-05-11%20Hong%20Kong%20linked%20to%20illegal%20arms%20 trade%20in%20Liberia.html

http://www.indianembassy.org/pic/congress/crs-newt.htm

Fact the Chinese have invaded other countries.

http://www.savetibet.org/Tibet/Tibet.cfm?ID=195&c=22

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/prc-vietnam.htm

Aren't these the 'reasons' we invaded Iraq.

P.S. Given a little time and research I could probably come up with the same kind of reasons to invade almost any country. Just China is way too easy.

[Nodbugger]

Good the fuck for China, but we invaded Iraq.

Saying we should attack everyone is just stupid. It is like saying if you can't cure all cancer patients you shouldn't cure any of them.

[Thyrd]

Saying we should attack everyone is just stupid. It is like saying if you can't cure all cancer patients you shouldn't cure any of them.

So if we give them the cure that fucks them up worse than before? Thats okay?
Saying its okay to invade one country that poses little thread to world security, while turning around and rufusing to do anything about a country which sells technology and weapons to nations that support terrorism? seems a bit suspiscious to me.

IMHO there is more of a case for invading china than there was Iraq.

[Bostonmess]

Logic would have you go for the bigger threat rather than a none existant one?

[Nodbugger]

There was a threat you fucking retards.

Don't you ever stop thinking about today and start thinking about tomorrow or two years from now?

Saddam had and used wmd.
He planned in getting them again.
Putin said Saddam was going to attack us.

The latest report confirms all this plus the illegal transactions between France, Russia and China with Iraq.

It says all these things. Iraq was a threat and would still be a threat if we did not go in there. The situation is in no way worse.

There was never peace and this war has not disrupted it, if anything it has brought us closer. Because Freedom and democracy allows people to be more reasonable in their decisions.

[Thyrd]

The latest report confirms all this plus the illegal transactions between France, Russia and China with Iraq.

Does this report also confirm business transactions took place between bush's family and Bin Laden's family?? :fu:

[Zan]

I was hoping that this would stay a discussion about GW Bush without re-hashing 'the war', which as been done countless times in a great many threads in 'The War' subforum.

Unfortunately, the discussion has moved in said direction.

Personal attacks and rhetoric really don't belong on these fora, guys. If you disagree with others' ideas, then provide a counter-argument. You do nothing for their willingness to listen to your point of view by simply calling them things such as:

you fucking lame idiot
STFU noddy, go play with big ears, since you won't play with the golliwog
you fucking retards

I realise that there are many of you who feel passionately about this subject, and it's unlikely to be resolved between all of you before Marvin the Paranoid Android stops functioning (Adams, 1986, pp. 586-588), but there's no need to let your discussions degenerate to name-calling.

[Bostonmess]

There was a threat you fucking retards.

I might weigh a lot, but I am still only one person. You imbecile.

The way you look at the fucking world, there's a threat from every cunt.

[Zan]

Thanks for taking my post on board, Bostonmess.

:bishisad:

[s3raph]

Does this report also confirm business transactions took place between bush's family and Bin Laden's family?? :fu:

Theres nothing wrong with bin ladens family, they're just regular ultra rich saudi's. Just cause they have the bin laden name doesn't mean they're terrorists, I heard they disowned him back in the 1980's.
And as for the comments about china, yes theres a far more solid case for invading them, whats more north korea was practically begging for US military attention while Bush was trying desperately to make his case for war in Iraq.
Whatever reason there was for this war it sure as hell wasn't terrorism or WMD, or even to get Saddam. We may never know the truth but at least we know what the lies were, and anyone who can't see them really needs to open their eyes.

[Nodbugger]

Does this report also confirm business transactions took place between bush's family and Bin Laden's family?? :fu:


So was Hitlers family responsible for the holocaust?

I think not you dumb fuck. The Bin Laden family disowned him a long time ago. Stop listening to your liberal propaganda Michael Moore love dolls.

[Chopper]

I do not care who Australia, or France elect as their leaders. As long as the selection was done in a Democratic way and the leader is a reasonable person who wants nothing more than for the citizens of their country to live free and prosperous lives ,I have no problem with it. So for them to butt into our election process is of utter stupidity because not only is it pointless, it is hypocritical. I know that the rest of the world sees us as a world police who gets into other countries business. Well guess what they are doing? They are attempting to undermine our freedoms by bitching about something they have absolutely no control over. I say shit down, shut the fuck up ,and let us do our thing.


Maybe we should invade you and make you do it our way heh heh!

[Chopper]

Too bad you are way fucking wrong.

Can you prove any of this is lie? Do you know EVERYTHING?
You know shit. You know nothing. You are fucking ignorant and you call people liars. You are lying. You know not of what you speak of. You do not always address congress under oath. What lying fuck told you that? You also cannot prove a single shred of your last post. Saddam most certainly had wmd. Where they are ? We don't know. He was a threat and we got rid of him. Bush went with intelligence from 8 different countries. Your criticize him for not acting on Bin Laden...Well he acted on Saddam. Now stfu and stop being assholes. You are wrong and you will always be wrong. Live with it and stop bitching.

Are you Jesus?

[Chopper]

The turd I left in the toilet this morning has more brains than you Noddy.

All of these attacks are happening in other countries. They are not in the US.

So I'm alright Jack is that what you're saying....F&ck everyone else....wait! you do say that all the time

Spain got attacked and that is it.

Really??? ...what about Bali? and all the crap that's happening in Egypt and North Africa?

The other terrorist attacks