Nickelodeon, no the Middle East keeps it self unstable, with its tribal mentality, and Moslem bigotry, it would do them a world of good to learn the Code of Bushido.
I don't think it is legal grounds for impeachment* but GWB's Iraq adventure has: (1) now caused more people die EACH MONTH than 9/11 did (and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!), (2) increased the rate of torture well above that of Saddam, (3) decreased oil flow from Iraq to about 2/3 of the pre-invasion level, (4) cost US tax payer (their grand children will die still owing on the interest) 300 billion dollars, (5) made it unsafe for American to travel alone in much of the world, (6) prematurely taken forces and intelligence agents from Afganistan with, result that Taliban is making big come back - too much for available NATO forces, (7) restored world learership in opium production, which the Taliban had ended, back to Afganistan, (8) caused governments in many areas to fear "regime change" and then supress democratic trends (Often with US propping dictatorships up), (9) necessitated FED's interest rates going to 5.25% (war job salaries do not produce consumer goods or services so drive inflation as more dollars chase same amount of goods), (10) polarized the US population. I could go on - perhaps when my blood pressure comes back down. ---------------------------------------- *That requires something seriously damaging to the US, like getting a blow job from a willing summer intern. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When did GWB do that? Was it related to one of the things he did supreme court ruled as unconstitutional? Perhaps his sworn records as to reporting to flight school duty while avoiding actual Vietnam war conflict? What are you referring to?
But meddling in the ME for personal gain like the US does certainly does not help the situation, surely even you can see that. It wasnt that long ago when Europe was unstable. It would have been worse if some great power from afar was deposing governments and installing puppets. Europe got pretty fed up with War after hundreds of years and is now largly peaceful. I don't know how long the US appetite for war is going to continue.
Billy T, are you really that uninformed? or are you not a American? Bill Clinton was convicted of Perjury for lying in a Grand Jury Proceeding. On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm#full1 1. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. House: Passed 228-206 Committee: Passed 21-16 2. The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition. House: Failed 229-205 Committee: Passed 20-17 3. The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. House: Passed 221-212 Committee: Passed 21-16 4. The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. (Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version.) House: Failed 285-148 Committee: Passed 21-16
Nickelodeon, tell me how not to be involved in the Middle East? a major portion of the worlds energy supplies come from there, and for stability of the world economy not only the U.S. is involved, but most of the rest of the world is, the Russians, French , Chinese, Germans, British, and a whole lot of other smaller governments. The Middle East contributes to the problem themselves by their own attitude of tribalism, adventurism, and continuous war against Israel, So tell me how not to be involved and still keep the area stable?
Well BR, at least you admit that the US is meddling in the ME for its own gain, and does not care about spreading freedom, democracy etc. Becasue this is what we see Bush saying over and over again in the Media till the words "freedom" & "democracy" become meaningless. The US can be involved, as with other nations, but they have to recognise that you can't simply step on people to get what you want and then act suprised when they get angry.
To Buffalo: Yes I know clinton was impeached and may have lied to grand jury when he said "I never had sex with that woman." (referring to ML) at least for those who not think "sex" equals "intercourse" (and only intercourse) Is heavy petting of bare tits "sex"? What about tounge kisses? -Most dictionaries imply answer to these is no, do not specifically mention "blow jobs" and many do equate sex and intercourse, so perhaps Clinton technically did not even lie on this one. Yes, he lied about some "hankie Pankie" with P.Jones - again a "white lie" at least partially to protect her (originally) and his image with daughter, Chelse, and his marriage. Point is Clinton's sex related lies were "white lies" of little consequence to US nation compared to GWB's lies: (1)"In Iraq because of WMD, (2)"In Iraq because of its terror bases, (3) (1)"In Iraq to make ME into Democratic area. With never a hint of truth: In Iraq because France and Russian had the oil contract he wanted his friends to have (and they do now), His and their gains are "blood money" - About 3000 lives per month now. Sudan's genocide is of no concern to GWB. 20,000 can die there each month with no US action as there is no oil there. Actions speak louder than words and by them, one can lie with your mouth closed! Clinton's sex related lies did not threaten the security of US, or the strength of the dollar as the following of GWB lies (LIES by his actions, when contrasted against his three stated reasons for invading Iraq and other promisses) do. Are you so lacking in perspective that you can not see which set of lies is truely dangerous to the US? (1) now caused more people die EACH MONTH than 9/11 did (and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!), (2) increased the rate of torture well above that of Saddam, (3) decreased oil flow from Iraq to about 2/3 of the pre-invasion level, (4) cost US tax payer (their grand children will die still owing on the interest) 300 billion dollars, (recall GWB & team told US the oil would pay for reconstruction etc.) (5) made it unsafe for American to travel alone in much of the world, (6) prematurely taken forces and intelligence agents from Afganistan with, result that Taliban is making big come back - too much for available NATO forces, (7) restored world learership in opium production, which the Taliban had ended, back to Afganistan, (8) caused governments in many areas to fear "regime change" and then supress democratic trends (Often with US propping dictatorships up), (9) necessitated FED's interest rates going to 5.25% (war job salaries do not produce consumer goods or services so drive inflation as more dollars chase same amount of goods), (10) polarized the US population.
Isn't any Iraqi oil revenue going toward reconstruction? Edit: Come to think of it, where IS Iraqs' oil money?
No, Not an accusation or BS. What you state is only based on your presumption, not the facts, and is wrong. Haliburton is officially in charge of all Iraq oil field operations. I have not tried to find answer to question how is currrent income from the oil sold being used?, but surely the treasurer of that company must know. I again suggest you contact haliburton and after you learn the answer, please post it here. I think it a fair question and would like to know what part, if any, is being used to reduce tax payer expenses, which current happen total (nearly exactly, not a gross rounding)* $1000 per EACH citizen (man, woman, child or baby) of the US. --------------------------------------------------- *For the numbers and analysis, see my post in the business & Economics forum's thread, "National Debt" - It is currently the next to last one.
Baron max, im glad that you have the courage to say you would like to see afganistan as a smoking hole and i completely agree. It sometimes seems like you are the only one in this thread with any kind of clue about teh world. I do not undersatnd how people can buy into the argument taht we are just as bad as they are for attacking them. THAT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! Heres the difference, we dont want to kill them--we dont have an intrinsic, bliniding desire to kill the people in the middle east. The same cannot be said about the extremists in the middle east. The only reason that The middle east has not nuked the US into a smoking hole is that they dont have nukes, i can assure u tey would as soon as tey got them. So there is the difference, even if we did nuke the middle east or whatever, it is out of self defense, becasue their development of nuclear weapons, or at least their aquiring of them through teh black market or whatever is 100%. It is not a matter of if they will get WMDs and destroy us, it is a question of when. I am 100% convinced that if we do not wipe out the middle east and its extremists the US will be destrroyed, maybe in 10 years, maybe in 50, but the bottom line is no matter what we do, they will hate us and they are only waiting for the opportunity to destroy us, and that opportunity becomes bigger and closer every day. I just hope that im dead before the shit hits the fan. so seriously, how can u possibly think that we are just as bad as them in attacking. If you want to argue that its selfish, that we are in war to protect ourselves and our economic interests, fine. That makes a whole lot of sense, after all, thats how u survive, protect your ass. The world is a harsh place, you have to look out for yourself, and sometimes that means attacking your enemies. Trust me, I would love to just talk to the extremists and reason out a solution and come to peace. I dont hate them, Im not a war-monger, im not against muslims (im atheist by teh way) I would love nothing more than to create peace wit them. However, unlike most people here, my logical and realistic and fact-oriented mind knows tat that will never happen. They hate us on a level far deper than anything we could ever resolve. I dont get it -- They will stop at nothing to kill us--HOW DOES THAT NOT MAKE IT OK FOR US TO KILL THEM TO PROTECT OURSELVES? WE CAN NOT BOTH SURVIVE IN THE SAME WORLD--I WOULD KINDA RATHER WE SURVIVE THAN THEM DOES THAT MAKE ME SELFISH AND CRUEL??? IF YOU SAY YES THAN WHY DONT YOU JUST DIE TO PROTECT SOME MUSLIMS SINCE U VALUE OTHERS' LIVES OVER YOUR OWN THAT IS FUCKING RETARTED.
The Middle East is not one homogeneous nation. I don't know if you noticed that. It makes no sense to kill everyone when some extremists attack us. There are like 2 billion Muslims in the world, many of whom might resent our killing their innocent brothers and sisters. You try to present yourself as a realist, but there is nothing realistic about your strategy, it's just barroom blathering.
Oh please, he is one man. He didn't do all of this by himself. Personally, I think that we should have immediately closed our borders after 911. Brought all of our people home and slammed the borders shut so tightly, we would have known if a flea entered or left the country. Then, swept the country clean of illegals while we told the rest of the world that it would just have to get by without us for a while since we had some serious housecleaning to do. Yes, I know the impact it would have had on the world economy. Perhaps that would have made other countries more kindly disposed to our problems.
I realize that teh Middle East is not one homogenous nation, but it is so difficult to distinguish the normal muslim from the extremist. That is what makes our intervention in the middle east so confusing. thats why vietnam was so diffferent and hard--we were fighting an enemy that lookd the same as our friend, so nobody could be trusted, not even children. Im surpised we did not learn from Vietnam to change our apporach in Iraq--we can not tiptoe around--we need to accept the fact that innocent lives will be lost in teh pursuit of a greater goal--its unfortunate but it must happen. The only way I can think of to separate the good from teh extremists is to let the good come forward and show their belief, such as the citizens of Iraq who voted in the elections. But you obviously disagree with this mission to free the people from ezxtremist control and would rather rant about how we are only there for oil. If you can think of another way to separate the terrorists from the people and then olnly kill the terrorists and not kill any innocent lives, please enlighten me and the rest of the world. We know our method isnt perfect, but we accept that there is no perfect way, we try what we think is the best way. Oh and also remeber that sometimes the innoent people, when they get a little money from their corrupt theocratic government, can be swayed to blow themselves up. I have a question--would you kill a muslim fundamenatlist if that was the only way to save a family member? would you kill 10 muslim fundamentalists? would you kill an innocent muslim to save a family member? do these questions change when it is a fellow american instead of a family member? If you ask me, and call me cruel and selfish, but I definitely value my own life and the lives of my family and other Americans over the lives of others. Its all great and wonderful to save other people and live peacefully, but when there is a direct and unavoidable conflict between other people's lives and my life, mine takes priority, sorry. Survival of the fittest, you have to look out for yourself first, others later.
