george w bush

[WayneB]

bush is building up your army, but destorying OUR enviroment. id say read the michale more book "stupid white men" for all the facts and statistics, but your all so set on defending bush, whats the point? you honestly dont think that $80BILLION couldnt be better spent on peace instead of war? if you had more allies (mabey going through the UN route to start a war instead of gun ho) you could rely on them?

as for britain, public donations for the tsunami have reached over

[Steff]

Third, ask yourself what should be done when diplomacy doesn't work? Study pre-WWII Germany and learn how deceptive Hitler and the Nazi party was. He signed many treaties and then broke them when it suited his goals. Russia tried to negotiate a peace and opened themselves up to Hitler's war machine.

Paul, you are deceived and you are not being intellectually honest with yourself. To say that Bush does for Christianity what Bin Laden does for Islam is quite unfair and offensive. I challenge you to study your own history and ask yourself...where would Great Britain be today IF the United States had not come to her aid when she was attacked? I would also venture to say that IF Roosevelt was more like Bush, the Brits (and all of Europe) would not have had to wait so long for the United States to come to your aid.

Except that the analogy is false. Iraq never attacked or even threatened the US, nor had anything to do with 9/11.

That's like comparing a dump truck to a compact car, sure they both have wheels, but they aren't the same thing.

[WayneB]

Third, ask yourself what should be done when diplomacy doesn't work? Study pre-WWII Germany and learn how deceptive Hitler and the Nazi party was. He signed many treaties and then broke them when it suited his goals. Russia tried to negotiate a peace and opened themselves up to Hitler's war machine.

Paul, you are deceived and you are not being intellectually honest with yourself. To say that Bush does for Christianity what Bin Laden does for Islam is quite unfair and offensive. I challenge you to study your own history and ask yourself...where would Great Britain be today IF the United States had not come to her aid when she was attacked? I would also venture to say that IF Roosevelt was more like Bush, the Brits (and all of Europe) would not have had to wait so long for the United States to come to your aid.

Except that the analogy is false. Iraq never attacked or even threatened the US, nor had anything to do with 9/11.

That's like comparing a dump truck to a compact car, sure they both have wheels, but they aren't the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nazi Germany under Hitler's leadership NEVER attacked or threatened the United States either Steff nor did he have any direct connection to Pearl Harbor. Actually, Hitler's policies were designed to keep the United States OUT of the war...then the moron attacked Russia.

Iraq under the leadership of Saddam was a threat to the entire middle east and our allies. Even those who publicly stated an opposition to the war produced policies that contradict their "public" position.

Another interesting tidbit? Vladimir V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation, supported the reelection of George Bush! Why? "If Bush wins, then I will be able to rejoice that the American people did not allow themselves to be scared and made a right decision," said the Russian leader, cautioning that it is necessary "to wait for official results." MOSCOW (AFP) 11/03/2004

Therefore, the analogy is a perfect fit AND your use of comparisons sophomoric at best.

Be Blessed,

Wayne

[Guest LadyC]

i'm still laughing over the suggestion to read michael moore!!!! too funny!

steff, i don't know why i'm bothering saying this, because you will never believe it, but once again, wrong... iraq under hussein was supporting al quada financially and otherwise. he even allowed them to have training camps for terrorism in iraq. it really doesn't matter whether there was any direct involvement with 9/11, because by supporting and helping them with training facilities and moneys, it helped make the attack on our country possible. besides, that wasn't the reason we went in for hussein. we went in because he violated SEVENTEEN resolutions, including the final resolution which had unanimous agreement within the UN that force be taken if met with noncompliance again. the fact that FOUR countries "changed their minds" is irrelevant. tough luck for them. maybe they should have thought a little more about covering the tracks of their duplicity prior to signing the resolution.

now, for everyone... it really makes zero difference whatsoever what you think of the war, or bush, or anything else. you don't have to agree with it. the bottom line is this... thousands of american sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, are over their doing what they have to do. it's ok for you to hate the reason they are there, but it is NOT ok to decide that they aren't worth giving the necessary equipment and food to protect themselves.

[Steff]

Nazi Germany under Hitler's leadership NEVER attacked or threatened the United States either Steff nor did he have any direct connection to Pearl Harbor. Actually, Hitler's policies were designed to keep the United States OUT of the war...then the moron attacked Russia.

Uhh Germany declared war on us.

"To the Congress of the United States:

On the morning of December 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world

conquest, declared war against the United States.

The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere.

Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty, and civilization.

Delay invites greater danger. Rapid and united effort by all the peoples of the world who are

determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism.

Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and

Germany and between the United States and Italy.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

THE WHITE HOUSE, "December 11, 1941."

Iraq under the leadership of Saddam was a threat to the entire middle east and our allies. Even those who publicly stated an opposition to the war produced policies that contradict their "public" position.

China is a threat to us, so I suppose we should go to war with them? Sorry but that is a false analogy again.

Another interesting tidbit? Vladimir V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation, supported the reelection of George Bush! blink.gif Why? "If Bush wins, then I will be able to rejoice that the American people did not allow themselves to be scared and made a right decision," said the Russian leader, cautioning that it is necessary "to wait for official results." MOSCOW (AFP) 11/03/2004

Sorry but another countries president's opinion does not legitimize going to war with Iraq.

Not to mention the opressive shenanigans Putin has played with Chechniya devalues his credibility to 0.

According to a constitutional declaration of war the country must present a clear and present danger to the United States and it MUST be delcared by congress, not the president. Iraq presented none of these.

we went in because he violated SEVENTEEN resolutions, including the final resolution which had unanimous agreement within the UN that force be taken if met with noncompliance again. the fact that FOUR countries "changed their minds" is irrelevant. tough luck for them. maybe they should have thought a little more about covering the tracks of their duplicity prior to signing the resolution.

Sorry, again this argument is FALSE. The UN is a illegitimate body that has no bearing over the laws or actions of the United States. To quote UN resolutions as a reason for going to war violates every ideal put forth in the constitution. Israel has violated over 85 UN resolutions, should we go to war with them?

[Guest yod]

But the bigger point that Steff keeps (intentionally) missing is that this isn't a war on Al Queida or Saddam Hussein. It is a war on paramilitary groups whom we've labeled as "terrorists" and they are doing the bidding of Islamic states that hide behind diplomatic cloaks.

The Taliban and Saddam were the most brazen and we had to start there to let the rest know we are serious...

The "insurgents" we are fighting in Iraq are not only funded by Iran and Syria...they ARE Iranians and Syrians...mixed with various other nationalities such as Jordanian, PLO, Saudis, Eygyptians, and French!

Bush was very clear about our resolve to swat these flies four years ago and repeated it at the inaguration.

[Joe Christian]

Couldn't have said that any better myself Lady C. Yeah, Micheal Moore...John McCain had his number, didn't he?

[WayneB]

Nazi Germany under Hitler's leadership NEVER attacked or threatened the United States either Steff nor did he have any direct connection to Pearl Harbor. Actually, Hitler's policies were designed to keep the United States OUT of the war...then the moron attacked Russia.

Uhh Germany declared war on us.

Yup, but only after we declared war on Japan. Some would argue that Hitler declared war on us because of our obvious support of Russia and Great Britain with the lend-lease act. He was under no obligation to his allies otherwise. Regardless, he saved Roosevelt and the United States' congress the trouble.

Hitler made two major errors. He attacked Russia and he declared war on the United States AFTER we declared war on Japan.

Saddam made two major errors. He attacked Kuwait back in 1990 and he refused to comply with the United Nations resolutions since.

Both were threats to world peace. The difference? We waited too long to enter the war in Europe.

[Steff]

But the bigger point that Steff keeps (intentionally) missing is that this isn't a war on Al Queida or Saddam Hussein. It is a war on paramilitary groups whom we've labeled as "terrorists" and they are doing the bidding of Islamic states that hide behind diplomatic cloaks.

The Taliban and Saddam were the most brazen and we had to start there to let the rest know we are serious...

The "insurgents" we are fighting in Iraq are not only funded by Iran and Syria...they ARE Iranians and Syrians...mixed with various other nationalities such as Jordanian, PLO, Saudis, Eygyptians, and French!

Bush was very clear about our resolve to swat these flies four years ago and repeated it at the inaguration.

Terrorists are criminals and should be treated as such. I have no problems with high value bounties, small military actions to capture criminals, special forces ect.

I do have a problem with the President waging a illegitimate war overseas that has nothing to do with United States security.

[Guest LadyC]

well pick me up off the floor steff, i actually agree with part of what you said! the UN is illigitimate, they're irrelevant, and they SHOULD have no bearing on the policies and decisions of the united states. BUT... whehter they should have or not, they do. or at least they did. you're probably the only anti-bush person i've ever met who is also anti-UN, and i'm not sure what to make of that.

still, the majority of people against this war like to toot their horn as someone else already did in this thread about how we went in without UN support. that is the argument that is false, and i hope you will point that out to the person who said it. we had allies.

the united nations is made up of 191 countries. of the UN, the 17th resolution as i said was unanimous, minus the obvious, iraq itself. only four of the remaining 190 backed out. and yet so many people like to insist that we had no support! hello, there were 186 countries (including our own) that supported the war. that's nothing to spit at!