July 6, 200718 yr Yes he was but there are dozens of countries in the world where stuff as bad if not worse than what Saddam Hussein was doing was going on, a life to me is a life be it an America, Iraqi, Zimbabwean or whatever, I am not suggesting that Saddam was a nice man but there are still many Saddam's out there today plying their trade and being allowed to go unpunished because their is no oil in their country again you are forgetting that there was a real concern that this unstable dictator was producing wmd's... im not overly sold on 'its all about oil', though im pretty certain oil is a major factor. you cant let a nutter such as sadam hussain have wmd's, as his track record showed that he WAS killing thousands of his own people. so i dont think you can compare iraq with zimbabwe. (i abhor all killing though). bottom line is.... people were going to die, unless sadam completely complied with the un ... but he couldnt do that, he already had iraqi blood on his hands. it was a 'no win' situation.
July 6, 200718 yr again you are forgetting that there was a real concern that this unstable dictator was producing wmd's... im not overly sold on 'its all about oil', though im pretty certain oil is a major factor. you cant let a nutter such as sadam hussain have wmd's, as his track record showed that he WAS killing thousands of his own people. so i dont think you can compare iraq with zimbabwe. (i abhor all killing though). bottom line is.... people were going to die, unless sadam completely complied with the un ... but he couldnt do that, he already had iraqi blood on his hands. it was a 'no win' situation. No, I reckon you miss the point a little bit mate... I question just why there even was all this focus on Saddam, when there was (and still is..) an even greater, far more dangerous situation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir for much of the 90s.. Both countries have Nukes, both have threatened to use them against the other, and Musharraf, like Saddam, is a military dictator who overthrew a democratically elected Govt. Did we send a huge task-force out to the borders of Pakistan and India to attempt to seize their WMDs..? No, we did not, because we would not have won any such war. I would say that this was a more pressing concern than anything Saddam was getting up to tbh, who had really stated no actual intent to use WMDs against any specific country, he sought merely to defend himself against US and Israel... Nah, it's all about the oil at the end of the day, that and the fact that us and the Yanks are a bunch of cowards who pick on third world nations who have little or no means to fight back (oh, aren't we soooooo fukkin' brave...? Bombing the c**p out of a country that cant fight us on anything like an equal term <_< ), and we just let the real bad guys like China and Russia get away with murder, cos they have nukes and huge standing armies that'll kick the sh!te out of us if we even attempted to pull something like that....
July 6, 200718 yr No, I reckon you miss the point a little bit mate... I question just why there even was all this focus on Saddam, when there was (and still is..) an even greater, far more dangerous situation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir for much of the 90s.. Both countries have Nukes, both have threatened to use them against the other, and Musharraf, like Saddam, is a military dictator who overthrew a democratically elected Govt. Did we send a huge task-force out to the borders of Pakistan and India to attempt to seize their WMDs..? No, we did not, because we would not have won any such war. I would say that this was a more pressing concern than anything Saddam was getting up to tbh, who had really stated no actual intent to use WMDs against any specific country, he sought merely to defend himself against US and Israel... Nah, it's all about the oil at the end of the day, that and the fact that us and the Yanks are a bunch of cowards who pick on third world nations who have little or no means to fight back (oh, aren't we soooooo fukkin' brave...? Bombing the c**p out of a country that cant fight us on anything like an equal term <_< ), and we just let the real bad guys like China and Russia get away with murder, cos they have nukes and huge standing armies that'll kick the sh!te out of us if we even attempted to pull something like that.... well... i cant really argue against that :)
July 6, 200718 yr He won a 2nd term because 1) The incompetence of John Kerry 2) The speech by Osama Bin Laden saying he would like a Kerry victory 3) Because many Americans haven't got the intelligence to know otherwise 4) Through vote fraud and glitches in electronic voting. Bush's victories were about as legitimate as Mugabe's win's in Zimbabwe mate Voting fraud in the final deciding state, Ohio, was rampant. Also Bush and his cronies spent the first 4 years of their administration gerrymandering, meaning they re-disctricted areas to better the chances of republicans. In Texas that piece of $h!t Tom Delay (who was later indicted on fraud charges and shamed like EVERY OTHER BUSHIE) redistrcited urban and subruban regions, splitting heavily democratic areas so that it became nearly impossible to get a democrat elected even in heavily democratic areas. Bush was re-elected because, well because it was simply impossible for him to lose. His campaign was scare-mongering on the most despicable level. Do you know he had video footage of the flaming World Trade Center on his RELECTION COMMERCIALS?! utter filth, the most disgusting man imaginable. He and his cronies also engaged in a massive and slanderous campaign to disgrace Kerry. They spent tens of millions on commercials and press releases lying about Kerry's war record and suggesting his numerous medals and awards of merit and honor were all fake. Democrats always get laborers and unions, democrats always get women, democracts always get youths, Blacks, hispanics and Catholics. But Bush changed this in 2004 because instead of a campaign based on traditional republican stances (small government, low taxes, family values, etc.) he said "Vote for me or 9/11 will happen again" People do stupid things when they are scared...
July 6, 200718 yr "Fine Presidency"????? Are you actually serious with this comment mate????? I mean, even taking aside the whole "Iraq" thing, this man has been utter POISON for the American people and the American economy (I dont know a single American who actually has anything nice at all to say about the man)..... America is over THREE TRILLION DOLLARS in the red because of his disastrous economic policies, compared to Clinton's masterful handling of the American economy and of domestic issues in general, what Americans have been enduring for the past 7 years has been the politics of fukkin' Noddy and Big Ears.... How can you go from a surplus in the Clinton years to a HUGE deficit thanks to Bush Jr....?? As Clinton once said "It's the economy, stupid"...... The only reason Bush won the election in '04 was because the Democrats picked a candidate who was frankly the WRONG man for the job (Kerry had all the charisma of a dead fish..), Howard Dean should have been the nominee, he would've wiped the floor with Bush Jr on the issues. But, naaah, w/ankers that they are, they picked Kerry simply because he was a sodding "war veteran".... <_< Idiots.... Here's hoping they actually get it bloody well right next time and pick Hillary Clinton.... Bush has the dubious honor of the most unpopular president in the history of the US. His approval rating now regularly dips below that of Nixon during his impeachment! His policies, domestic and international, have ALL FAILED. I can't think of a single success, even domestically, not one. He's not even a real conservative! He's spent hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars - he's not thrifty when it comes to tax dollars. His policies are policies of corruption. Never in the US has an administration been so deep in corruption - nearly every Bushie up there has been indicted and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are next in line. Even conservatives in this country are ashamed.
July 6, 200718 yr Can Gore actually run again..? :unsure: I wasn't sure that there was some rule that said if candidates lost they couldn't run again or summat... Well, if Gore can do it, then I reckon he damn well should, then the US could get the President they should've had in 2000..... And I agree, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should all be tried in an Iraqi court for war crimes and crimes against the people of Iraq... One important name missing there though mate - Tony Blair, who I regard as an accessory and co-conspirator before, during and after the fact.... So, he should be swinging as well.... No Gore can run as many times as he wants. People are practically begging him to run, but he has consistently said he will not run again. The election in 2000 is widely known to have exhausted and disheartened him. Think about it. He had a more successful campaign, got more votes, watched a degenerate who couldn't form a complete sentence win through voting fraud and a suspect Supreme Court vote, and then watched the horror unfold under the Bush regime. That must be really damaging to someone. I'm not a huge Hillary fan. She voted for the Iraq war in every bill until a spending bill about 2 months ago. Barack Obama has the advantage of having a spotless anti-war record since before the Iraq debacle began. He will win the democratic nomination.
July 6, 200718 yr No Gore can run as many times as he wants. People are practically begging him to run, but he has consistently said he will not run again. The election in 2000 is widely known to have exhausted and disheartened him. Think about it. He had a more successful campaign, got more votes, watched a degenerate who couldn't form a complete sentence win through voting fraud and a suspect Supreme Court vote, and then watched the horror unfold under the Bush regime. That must be really damaging to someone. I'm not a huge Hillary fan. She voted for the Iraq war in every bill until a spending bill about 2 months ago. Barack Obama has the advantage of having a spotless anti-war record since before the Iraq debacle began. He will win the democratic nomination. Obama is unelectable though, I think he would make a very good president but there is no way I see America electing a black president, there is a very deep rooted racism in some southern states and I really do not see there being a black president in my lifetime
July 6, 200718 yr Stranger things have happened, Margaret Thatcher didn't believe there would be a woman Prime Minister in her lifetime. There is no justification whatsoever for terrorists' attacks targeted at innocent civilian populations in any country on any grounds.
July 6, 200718 yr Want to give my opinion here which I'm entitled to. George Bush is a great President. He has guts. Saddam needed stopping and George did it. WMD or not he was an evil dangerous man. He's where he belongs now. Posters here who say we should have left him alone consider this. What if he and Blair told a few lies. So what? At least the to**er Saddam is dead. The UN was spineless. George did the job. Pity he can't run for a third term. If more world leaders had guts like George and Tony, ie the spineless French, the world would be a better place. Okay it made us a target but so what? The job needed doing and was done. End of. Oh and I live in East London and my wife works in Central London, travels on the tube every day. I cheered when George bombed Iraq. They weren't "dirty deeds" either Grimly, as you call them. They needed doing. We need more great world leaders like George and Tony, real men with backbone, prepared to do what's right. I agree with you on just one point. It is indeed a pity Bush can't run for a third term. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see him utterly humiliated in an election next year. We'll be denied the sight of the heaviest defeat for an incumbent president in history.
July 6, 200718 yr I agree with you on just one point. It is indeed a pity Bush can't run for a third term. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see him utterly humiliated in an election next year. We'll be denied the sight of the heaviest defeat for an incumbent president in history. I would get even more pleasure seeing him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair swinging from the same gallows as Saddam Hussein
July 6, 200718 yr I would get even more pleasure seeing him, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Blair swinging from the same gallows as Saddam Hussein and thatcher.... shes equaly as guilty of killing unnessercarily
July 7, 200718 yr No Gore can run as many times as he wants. People are practically begging him to run, but he has consistently said he will not run again. The election in 2000 is widely known to have exhausted and disheartened him. Think about it. He had a more successful campaign, got more votes, watched a degenerate who couldn't form a complete sentence win through voting fraud and a suspect Supreme Court vote, and then watched the horror unfold under the Bush regime. That must be really damaging to someone. You know, I REALLY hope that Coolchris has been reading your posts concerning Bush Consie and is eating his rather foolish words of praise he had.... :lol: Such a great destruction job you've done on the Bush Admin.... I can see your point about Gore, I can see how he would be totally disheartened and how it would shatter the faith he once had in the US system... No wonder he chose to go the path he has of being a committed campaigner for the environment... BUT, I would still love to see him run for President, America needs someone with his moral courage and principle....
Create an account or sign in to comment