for You Have Got To Be Kidding, Mr Bush11/12/2006 c1 
74Itzcoatl
That's probably the biggest mistake Bush could possibly make. Iran has 3x the population of Iraq and 2x the area. We'd fight an insurgency on gigantic scales and we'd need every soldier we had to win
74ItzcoatlThat's probably the biggest mistake Bush could possibly make. Iran has 3x the population of Iraq and 2x the area. We'd fight an insurgency on gigantic scales and we'd need every soldier we had to win
1/1/2006 c1 13sNiCKeTFiRE
you're a very political oriented writer ... uh ... and that's all i can really say thus far.
13sNiCKeTFiREyou're a very political oriented writer ... uh ... and that's all i can really say thus far.
10/26/2005 c1 196relying on youth
Wow. You know. That was probably the hundreth essay I've read on this subject and you're the first one to mention the troops. I truly deeply believe that you are right.
Now. I know that I don't really have any voice in the American issue because I don't live there and our country definatly has little part in the war, but I watch CNN. Oh, CNN, and CNN makes it very clear that this war has little point, but then again, I'm more anti-bush than anti-war, so therefore, my opinion on the war is probably upholded by my hatred of Bush.
Second. If they do have nuclear weapons, which I highly doubt, they wouldn't just kill a few million citizens of the US. They'd kill everyone who recieves water that passes through the U.S.A, anyone who depends on the sun for life, and probably everyone in North America. That is if they set off a reaction with well, the U.S.A's many nuclear warheads. Oh, and that would include them too. So, these Irans are really suicidal. If they hate your guts and if they sponser terrorists the terrorists must be suicide bombers.
Yes, deficit means something to everybody, but then again, it's not the government that is paying it off, it's the taxpayers. Quite frankly, democracy doesn't mean that everybody has a say in the whole war-no war issue. That is all the Government of Bush, and I highly doubt that Bush is concerned with the increasing unemployment rate, if he was then he would be more concerned with that than banning gay marraige and blowing someone up. Deficit means something to everyone, just something different to the people creating it.
People may have voted for Bush but I'd like to remind you of that whole ballot scandel in Texas. 30 more people voted (for Bush) than there were legal voters in Texas. Not to mention that majority of 1st World nations are brainwashed into thinking that Republican, Bibles, and Guns is the way to go, which is somewhat ironic don't you think. Not to say that every brainwashed person voted for Bush, nor that everyone who voted for Bush is brainwashed.
Also, you'd think that because the U.S.A is a free nation (they are free to express their opinions and FOLLOW THEIR OWN RELIGION) Bush wouldn't use God as a backbone. I mean, religious people praise him because everything he does is Godly, but really, this guy who is following God is ordering his soliders to shoot innocent people and bomb Advil Sweatshops. That isn't very Godlike.
I actually think that Hilter led one of the most effective wars in history of the world. Which is a really bad thing for me to say, but Hilter was a genius, and brilliant mad scientist. Everything he did was to support a belief that Germans were a superior race, a belief that he firmly held to his entire life, a belief that he thought was real and true. Infact, I'd say the Hilter's Germany played the most important war in the world and came out on top, although they surrendered. The mere fact that Hilter commited suicide after the surrender shows something, he got as far as he could and knew he couldn't push, he spared lives although not as many as he killed. I think that because Germany attacked so many places at once they won a greater prize than any other war has. The occupation was terrorizing, it was a massacre that made history. Without World War 2 we wouldn't have been pulled out of depression would we? It was a milestone, Bush's America will probably be too. It kills so many people but it also makes people understand their lives, or at least see it on a more efficant level. It's a interesting theory, but one I believe in.
Anyways. I loved this, good-job. Oh yes, thank-you for your review.
196relying on youthWow. You know. That was probably the hundreth essay I've read on this subject and you're the first one to mention the troops. I truly deeply believe that you are right.
Now. I know that I don't really have any voice in the American issue because I don't live there and our country definatly has little part in the war, but I watch CNN. Oh, CNN, and CNN makes it very clear that this war has little point, but then again, I'm more anti-bush than anti-war, so therefore, my opinion on the war is probably upholded by my hatred of Bush.
Second. If they do have nuclear weapons, which I highly doubt, they wouldn't just kill a few million citizens of the US. They'd kill everyone who recieves water that passes through the U.S.A, anyone who depends on the sun for life, and probably everyone in North America. That is if they set off a reaction with well, the U.S.A's many nuclear warheads. Oh, and that would include them too. So, these Irans are really suicidal. If they hate your guts and if they sponser terrorists the terrorists must be suicide bombers.
Yes, deficit means something to everybody, but then again, it's not the government that is paying it off, it's the taxpayers. Quite frankly, democracy doesn't mean that everybody has a say in the whole war-no war issue. That is all the Government of Bush, and I highly doubt that Bush is concerned with the increasing unemployment rate, if he was then he would be more concerned with that than banning gay marraige and blowing someone up. Deficit means something to everyone, just something different to the people creating it.
People may have voted for Bush but I'd like to remind you of that whole ballot scandel in Texas. 30 more people voted (for Bush) than there were legal voters in Texas. Not to mention that majority of 1st World nations are brainwashed into thinking that Republican, Bibles, and Guns is the way to go, which is somewhat ironic don't you think. Not to say that every brainwashed person voted for Bush, nor that everyone who voted for Bush is brainwashed.
Also, you'd think that because the U.S.A is a free nation (they are free to express their opinions and FOLLOW THEIR OWN RELIGION) Bush wouldn't use God as a backbone. I mean, religious people praise him because everything he does is Godly, but really, this guy who is following God is ordering his soliders to shoot innocent people and bomb Advil Sweatshops. That isn't very Godlike.
I actually think that Hilter led one of the most effective wars in history of the world. Which is a really bad thing for me to say, but Hilter was a genius, and brilliant mad scientist. Everything he did was to support a belief that Germans were a superior race, a belief that he firmly held to his entire life, a belief that he thought was real and true. Infact, I'd say the Hilter's Germany played the most important war in the world and came out on top, although they surrendered. The mere fact that Hilter commited suicide after the surrender shows something, he got as far as he could and knew he couldn't push, he spared lives although not as many as he killed. I think that because Germany attacked so many places at once they won a greater prize than any other war has. The occupation was terrorizing, it was a massacre that made history. Without World War 2 we wouldn't have been pulled out of depression would we? It was a milestone, Bush's America will probably be too. It kills so many people but it also makes people understand their lives, or at least see it on a more efficant level. It's a interesting theory, but one I believe in.
Anyways. I loved this, good-job. Oh yes, thank-you for your review.
3/13/2005 c1 1The Harlequin King
"1)You have a troop shortage already, and I don't know that anyone's rushing up to join now."
The U.S. does not have a troop shortage, we're just deployed in so many places that it looks like it. And I know of quite a few people here in the U.S. who are enlisting.
"2) Iran actually DO have nuclear nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your governments collective ass off with it, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
Iran has no nuclear weapons, they are developing them, but they don't have usable ones yet. And also, Iran is a theocracy that hates our guts and sponsors terrorists.
I think if we decide to attack them, they've got it coming.
"3)Uh, does the word DEFICIT mean anyone to anybody? War is really freakin' expensive."
So is running a nation.In case you didn't notice, the U.S. debt was about 3 trillion dollars before the war.That was not from the war, you can't blame it on Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sorry, but I find all the Michael Moore stuff is a bunch of bullshit.I'm afraid I don't hang on every word he says and accept it as if it were the Gospel truth.(Which I don't accept either, I'm not a Bible Thumper as Bloodflower likes to call us Conservatives.)
Your views are welcome, but you need to think your accusations out a little better, maybe do some actual reseach.
Oh and Bloodflower, my family votes Republican.We voted Bush.My father is a college graduate, and a highly skilled computer technician and programmer.
My mother has a Master's degree in teaching.
Undereducated my ass.
1The Harlequin King"1)You have a troop shortage already, and I don't know that anyone's rushing up to join now."
The U.S. does not have a troop shortage, we're just deployed in so many places that it looks like it. And I know of quite a few people here in the U.S. who are enlisting.
"2) Iran actually DO have nuclear nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your governments collective ass off with it, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
Iran has no nuclear weapons, they are developing them, but they don't have usable ones yet. And also, Iran is a theocracy that hates our guts and sponsors terrorists.
I think if we decide to attack them, they've got it coming.
"3)Uh, does the word DEFICIT mean anyone to anybody? War is really freakin' expensive."
So is running a nation.In case you didn't notice, the U.S. debt was about 3 trillion dollars before the war.That was not from the war, you can't blame it on Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sorry, but I find all the Michael Moore stuff is a bunch of bullshit.I'm afraid I don't hang on every word he says and accept it as if it were the Gospel truth.(Which I don't accept either, I'm not a Bible Thumper as Bloodflower likes to call us Conservatives.)
Your views are welcome, but you need to think your accusations out a little better, maybe do some actual reseach.
Oh and Bloodflower, my family votes Republican.We voted Bush.My father is a college graduate, and a highly skilled computer technician and programmer.
My mother has a Master's degree in teaching.
Undereducated my ass.
2/13/2005 c1 2Aducknamedjoe
Erm, Iran IS the leading state sponsor of global terrorism, and actually, they DON'T have nuclear weapons as yet, but they are developing a nuclear power plant for "peaceful" reasons. If we want to eliminate world terror, we will have to topple Iran sometime. Maybe not too soon, but sometime.
2AducknamedjoeErm, Iran IS the leading state sponsor of global terrorism, and actually, they DON'T have nuclear weapons as yet, but they are developing a nuclear power plant for "peaceful" reasons. If we want to eliminate world terror, we will have to topple Iran sometime. Maybe not too soon, but sometime.
2/13/2005 c1 2Bloodflower
OK, I'm totally with you on the anti-Bush stance. (Actually it's a source of great amusement to me that the MAJORITY of Republican voters this election were either uneducated or Bible Belt conservatives, two groups of people that I pity immensely for their lack of Freedom.)
If what these other reviewers are saying is on the mark and you're eating out of Mike Moore's hand: I'll hand it to ya he's bloody funny, but come on, who doesn't take Moore with a whole entire bucket of salt? I really liked Bowling for Columbine but he messed up a bit. He's too anti-.
"Brooklyn in New York. Flint, Michigan. These places need your war money more."
I agree with you completely. Can't go attacking other countries when your own foundations are too shaky for words.
"Look what happened to Germany." One war, two fronts, both times. Only because Hitler didn't read his History textbooks aright. Not quite the example you want here. Bush is setting a precedent IF he tries to run two wars at once.
2BloodflowerOK, I'm totally with you on the anti-Bush stance. (Actually it's a source of great amusement to me that the MAJORITY of Republican voters this election were either uneducated or Bible Belt conservatives, two groups of people that I pity immensely for their lack of Freedom.)
If what these other reviewers are saying is on the mark and you're eating out of Mike Moore's hand: I'll hand it to ya he's bloody funny, but come on, who doesn't take Moore with a whole entire bucket of salt? I really liked Bowling for Columbine but he messed up a bit. He's too anti-.
"Brooklyn in New York. Flint, Michigan. These places need your war money more."
I agree with you completely. Can't go attacking other countries when your own foundations are too shaky for words.
"Look what happened to Germany." One war, two fronts, both times. Only because Hitler didn't read his History textbooks aright. Not quite the example you want here. Bush is setting a precedent IF he tries to run two wars at once.
2/8/2005 c1 2Another Rogue
I don't think Bush will attack Iran, certainly not before he is totally done with Iraq. But I think the main reason for this is he is short of both national and international political credit, not because he shouldn't want to relieve the Ayatollahs from power.
In your essay, you sum up some reasons Bush shouldn't attack Iran. I agree he shouldn't, but not for the reasosn you name. Two of your points are false, and about the otehr two Bush just doesn't care.
"2) Iran actually DO have nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your government's collective ass off with them, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
Maybe Bush should hire you instead of the CIA, because you seem to know something others don't. As far as I know the Bush administration only suspect Iran of trying to develop nukes.
"1) You have a troop shortage already and I don't know anyone that's rushing to join up now.
3) Uh, does the word DEFICIT mean anyone to anybody? War is really freakin' expensive. As I believe we have already discovered with this government. TWICE."
These two arguments only mean something to a realist. Bush has shown he is not a realist, but an idealist. And idealists often tend to overlook certain pragmatic points, but look only at their ideals. In Bush' case a "free and democratic world".
"4) Far as I remember, Bush didn't mention any of this Iran crap during his re-election campaign. That was rather sneaky now, wasn't it? Don't you usually mention big things like that during elections?"
He isn't exactly sending the US military over yet, is he? And he already showed his dislike of Iran by naming it as one of the members of the "Axis of Evil".
"Look what happened to Germany."
That was ONE war, just two battlefields.
2Another RogueI don't think Bush will attack Iran, certainly not before he is totally done with Iraq. But I think the main reason for this is he is short of both national and international political credit, not because he shouldn't want to relieve the Ayatollahs from power.
In your essay, you sum up some reasons Bush shouldn't attack Iran. I agree he shouldn't, but not for the reasosn you name. Two of your points are false, and about the otehr two Bush just doesn't care.
"2) Iran actually DO have nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your government's collective ass off with them, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
Maybe Bush should hire you instead of the CIA, because you seem to know something others don't. As far as I know the Bush administration only suspect Iran of trying to develop nukes.
"1) You have a troop shortage already and I don't know anyone that's rushing to join up now.
3) Uh, does the word DEFICIT mean anyone to anybody? War is really freakin' expensive. As I believe we have already discovered with this government. TWICE."
These two arguments only mean something to a realist. Bush has shown he is not a realist, but an idealist. And idealists often tend to overlook certain pragmatic points, but look only at their ideals. In Bush' case a "free and democratic world".
"4) Far as I remember, Bush didn't mention any of this Iran crap during his re-election campaign. That was rather sneaky now, wasn't it? Don't you usually mention big things like that during elections?"
He isn't exactly sending the US military over yet, is he? And he already showed his dislike of Iran by naming it as one of the members of the "Axis of Evil".
"Look what happened to Germany."
That was ONE war, just two battlefields.
2/7/2005 c1 4John Stein PhD
I'll respond to your review, then get on with your essay.
"Defending Ann Coulter but attacking Mike Moore?"
Neither you nor Cthulu could see below the surface. It's an allegory. Jesus and Anne Coulter do not represent the actual Jesus and Coulter.
"it's just Mike's right."
It's clear from this essay that you'll take in whatever he says.
"You made some points about couch enviromentalists (ie protesting oil when they live on it). That doesn't mean they have to like that fact."
They don't have to like the fact? Here's the thing; if you're going to protest oil when your lifestyle depends on it, give up either the protesting or the lifestyle. If you keep both, you're a hypocritical jackass.
"you say that calling other people intolerant is being intolerant yourself"
The point is that everyone and their uncle is "closed-minded". There's nothing wrong with it, unless you demonize intolerance and and are intolerant yourself. Just like the oil protestors. Hypocrites.
If you hate oil, don't use it. If you dislike intolerance, don't be intolerant. If you disbelieve in Christianity, don't celebrate Christmas. Simple enough, yet all things the left seems not to be doing.
"But at least you've backed off on persecuting homosexuals."
I don't recall ever taking the law into my hands and punishing homosexuals.
Onto your essay:
Stop sounding like you're yelling, for one.
"The problem is that not even the US is big enough to take on a whole point of the compass."
If a "whole point of the compass" opresses its people the way Saddam did, then it's our duty to "take them on". The US has to help these people because you won't find France or the rest of Europe doing it any time soon.
"on these tangents about "freedom", " and "God"."
I know you're trying to attract controversy, but for Christ's sake - despite what you're implying with the quotes, the God Bush speaks of IS a diety, making your quotes childish.
"We know the US is never going to go after their mates the Saudis, of whom one was behind all of this."
Like Bin Laden before you, you're arguments against Bush are parroted from the mouth of the Moore.
"Flint, Michigan."
Yup. Definitely taking arguments from the beached whale.
4John Stein PhDI'll respond to your review, then get on with your essay.
"Defending Ann Coulter but attacking Mike Moore?"
Neither you nor Cthulu could see below the surface. It's an allegory. Jesus and Anne Coulter do not represent the actual Jesus and Coulter.
"it's just Mike's right."
It's clear from this essay that you'll take in whatever he says.
"You made some points about couch enviromentalists (ie protesting oil when they live on it). That doesn't mean they have to like that fact."
They don't have to like the fact? Here's the thing; if you're going to protest oil when your lifestyle depends on it, give up either the protesting or the lifestyle. If you keep both, you're a hypocritical jackass.
"you say that calling other people intolerant is being intolerant yourself"
The point is that everyone and their uncle is "closed-minded". There's nothing wrong with it, unless you demonize intolerance and and are intolerant yourself. Just like the oil protestors. Hypocrites.
If you hate oil, don't use it. If you dislike intolerance, don't be intolerant. If you disbelieve in Christianity, don't celebrate Christmas. Simple enough, yet all things the left seems not to be doing.
"But at least you've backed off on persecuting homosexuals."
I don't recall ever taking the law into my hands and punishing homosexuals.
Onto your essay:
Stop sounding like you're yelling, for one.
"The problem is that not even the US is big enough to take on a whole point of the compass."
If a "whole point of the compass" opresses its people the way Saddam did, then it's our duty to "take them on". The US has to help these people because you won't find France or the rest of Europe doing it any time soon.
"on these tangents about "freedom", " and "God"."
I know you're trying to attract controversy, but for Christ's sake - despite what you're implying with the quotes, the God Bush speaks of IS a diety, making your quotes childish.
"We know the US is never going to go after their mates the Saudis, of whom one was behind all of this."
Like Bin Laden before you, you're arguments against Bush are parroted from the mouth of the Moore.
"Flint, Michigan."
Yup. Definitely taking arguments from the beached whale.
2/7/2005 c1 44Killian I
I agree. It's sad really, because all the people who are for war (and bush may I add) are like deficit? What's that? I don't understand how they can applaud everything Bush is doing yet not even know that the american dollar is decreasing in worth. And they say they KNOW what they're talking about...
44Killian II agree. It's sad really, because all the people who are for war (and bush may I add) are like deficit? What's that? I don't understand how they can applaud everything Bush is doing yet not even know that the american dollar is decreasing in worth. And they say they KNOW what they're talking about...
2/6/2005 c1 30g21lto
This is a really disturbing development. However, it is good that Bush is talking about different threats requiring "different strategies." Perhaps the grim scenario of an Iran attack is not on the horizon."1)"Unless we reinstate the draft! Yee-haw!"2)"A definite problem. I hope he has the presence of mind to realize this, or at least his advisors do. Then again, they pretty much f*cked up the predictions on post-war Iraq, so it's still a disturbing thought."3)"Yep."4)"Not that this excuses it, but any politician would have done the same. Nobody would be happy about a war in Iran, except perhaps die-hard neocons. Any politician planning such an event (if Bush is indeed planning it) would neglect to mention it in an election campaign.
"It's not that I don't believe that people should have to live in dictatorships. The problem is that not even the US is big enough to take on a whole point of the compass."
Thank you! Thank you! I have been waiting for a liberal to make this exact point, given how conservatives try to use this against us so often! Again, thank you!
"but it's inevitable if he keeps going off on these tangents about "freedom", " and "God"."
The "god" shot was perhaps a bit much - not exactly on topic. Even though I agree with you. What was that separation of church and state thingy again? Hello, Mr. Bush?
"would have been to go after Saudi Arabia back in 2001 when this all started."
No, we have no indication that the Saudi government had anything to do with 9/11. The Saudis have inordinate influence in Washington, but they're not responsible for our terrorist woes. Going after Saudi Arabia then would have been worse than going after Iran now.
"If you're going to play gung-ho, CEO Bush (of America), please target the right people occasionally ... Oh, and what most countries do is run one war at a time. They usually succeed that way. Look what happened to Germany."
I love it. I think I wrote a response essay to last year's State of the Union, but it wasn't nearly as good as this.
30g21ltoThis is a really disturbing development. However, it is good that Bush is talking about different threats requiring "different strategies." Perhaps the grim scenario of an Iran attack is not on the horizon."1)"Unless we reinstate the draft! Yee-haw!"2)"A definite problem. I hope he has the presence of mind to realize this, or at least his advisors do. Then again, they pretty much f*cked up the predictions on post-war Iraq, so it's still a disturbing thought."3)"Yep."4)"Not that this excuses it, but any politician would have done the same. Nobody would be happy about a war in Iran, except perhaps die-hard neocons. Any politician planning such an event (if Bush is indeed planning it) would neglect to mention it in an election campaign.
"It's not that I don't believe that people should have to live in dictatorships. The problem is that not even the US is big enough to take on a whole point of the compass."
Thank you! Thank you! I have been waiting for a liberal to make this exact point, given how conservatives try to use this against us so often! Again, thank you!
"but it's inevitable if he keeps going off on these tangents about "freedom", " and "God"."
The "god" shot was perhaps a bit much - not exactly on topic. Even though I agree with you. What was that separation of church and state thingy again? Hello, Mr. Bush?
"would have been to go after Saudi Arabia back in 2001 when this all started."
No, we have no indication that the Saudi government had anything to do with 9/11. The Saudis have inordinate influence in Washington, but they're not responsible for our terrorist woes. Going after Saudi Arabia then would have been worse than going after Iran now.
"If you're going to play gung-ho, CEO Bush (of America), please target the right people occasionally ... Oh, and what most countries do is run one war at a time. They usually succeed that way. Look what happened to Germany."
I love it. I think I wrote a response essay to last year's State of the Union, but it wasn't nearly as good as this.
2/6/2005 c1 Alexandra the Mediocre
I totally agree, but I did see it coming... in the same way when you pick up a sappy children's novel, you know the dog will die... that inevitable...
Okay. Yes. I agree. I will stay focused. I liked it. And, not to be overly pessimistic, but here's my prediction for the next two hundred years:
America is finally overrun and is drastically reduced in size. After a few decades of turmoil, our newly elected leaders will start being a BIT more sensible. But nothing will really change.
I totally agree, but I did see it coming... in the same way when you pick up a sappy children's novel, you know the dog will die... that inevitable...
Okay. Yes. I agree. I will stay focused. I liked it. And, not to be overly pessimistic, but here's my prediction for the next two hundred years:
America is finally overrun and is drastically reduced in size. After a few decades of turmoil, our newly elected leaders will start being a BIT more sensible. But nothing will really change.
2/6/2005 c1 8S. T. Lawrence
::Yawn::
"1) You have a troop shortage already and I don't know anyone that's rushing to join up now"
As Calvin pointed out-its not a matter of "shortage" as it is spread thin. We have troops in places we don't need them. Like Germany, where we have troops stationed so that the Nazis or Soviets don't try to make a move. Oh wait, that's over now...
"2) Iran actually DO have nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your government's collective ass off with them, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
They do NOT have nukes. Nor do they have the means to launch them on anyone by nearby countries, at the most.
"4) Far as I remember, Bush didn't mention any of this Iran crap during his re-election campaign. That was rather sneaky now, wasn't it? Don't you usually mention big things like that during elections"
He mentioned over and over in his first four years.
"The problem is that not even the US is big enough to take on a whole point of the compass."
Huh?
"The moment is gone. We know the US is never going to go after their mates the Saudis, of whom one was behind all of this. Mr Osama Bin Laden is most likely having a lot of fun living it up in a hotel in Riyadh, rather than still hiding in the Afghan hills. It took US troops 6 weeks to just get to the area he was originally thought to be in, so no doubt they would have not seen a plane heading over the border."
Sounds like Michael Moore...
"Flint, Michigan. These places need your war money more."
Ahh, and there it is. You're a Moore-on. No way you'd be able to know where Flint is or even if it existed without being a Moore-on. So thanks once again for repeating his drivel. The day the Left "gets it" will be glorious. But it wont happen for a long time.
8S. T. Lawrence::Yawn::
"1) You have a troop shortage already and I don't know anyone that's rushing to join up now"
As Calvin pointed out-its not a matter of "shortage" as it is spread thin. We have troops in places we don't need them. Like Germany, where we have troops stationed so that the Nazis or Soviets don't try to make a move. Oh wait, that's over now...
"2) Iran actually DO have nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your government's collective ass off with them, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
They do NOT have nukes. Nor do they have the means to launch them on anyone by nearby countries, at the most.
"4) Far as I remember, Bush didn't mention any of this Iran crap during his re-election campaign. That was rather sneaky now, wasn't it? Don't you usually mention big things like that during elections"
He mentioned over and over in his first four years.
"The problem is that not even the US is big enough to take on a whole point of the compass."
Huh?
"The moment is gone. We know the US is never going to go after their mates the Saudis, of whom one was behind all of this. Mr Osama Bin Laden is most likely having a lot of fun living it up in a hotel in Riyadh, rather than still hiding in the Afghan hills. It took US troops 6 weeks to just get to the area he was originally thought to be in, so no doubt they would have not seen a plane heading over the border."
Sounds like Michael Moore...
"Flint, Michigan. These places need your war money more."
Ahh, and there it is. You're a Moore-on. No way you'd be able to know where Flint is or even if it existed without being a Moore-on. So thanks once again for repeating his drivel. The day the Left "gets it" will be glorious. But it wont happen for a long time.
2/6/2005 c1 73aims80
I am not American but I did hear something about this on the news and my boyfriend was commenting on how the words Bush was using in reference to Iran were almost identical to the ones he used about Iraq before the war began over there. So that alone is enough to worry me. BUT also there was a question asked of Condoliza Rice (not sure how to spell that) abour Iran and her response: "We have no plans with regards to Iran AT THE MOMENT." Blah! If Bush goes and declares war on Iran what will be next? Is he planning on taking over the world? *sigh*
73aims80I am not American but I did hear something about this on the news and my boyfriend was commenting on how the words Bush was using in reference to Iran were almost identical to the ones he used about Iraq before the war began over there. So that alone is enough to worry me. BUT also there was a question asked of Condoliza Rice (not sure how to spell that) abour Iran and her response: "We have no plans with regards to Iran AT THE MOMENT." Blah! If Bush goes and declares war on Iran what will be next? Is he planning on taking over the world? *sigh*
2/6/2005 c1 giygas666
Makes perfect sense to me. bush is a madman. There is simply no other way to say it. be grateful you live in the UK...oh wait, tony blair...oops, my bad. I wanted to comment o some of the points you made:
"You have a troop shortage already and I don't know anyone that's rushing to join up now."
Ever heard of conscription? I have half a mind to volunteer for my local draft board so that I can possibly exempt everybody from service on technicalities. Of course I'll probably be kidnapped by the state, stuffed in a uniform, and shipped off to the slaughterhouse before THAT ever happens...
"Iran actually DO have nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your government's collective ass off with them, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
As far as the neocons are concerned, that'll just bring us one step closer to Armageddon and the Rapture. Speaking of which, I think I just saw one of the Four Horsemen ride by...
"Uh, does the word DEFICIT mean anyone to anybody? War is really freakin' expensive. As I believe we have already discovered with this government. TWICE."
Based on experience, do you really think they care?
"Far as I remember, Bush didn't mention any of this Iran crap during his re-election campaign. That was rather sneaky now, wasn't it? Don't you usually mention big things like that during elections?"
He didn't mention anything about invading Iraq during his first presidential campaign if I remember correctly. In fact, he expressed that he was against the immoral, and unconstitutional practice of imperialist "nation building," otherwise known as "liberation" or "humanitarian intervention." As if there's anything about wasting Americans lives and money to murder foreigners for political benefit.
"Mr Osama Bin Laden is most likely having a lot of fun living it up in a hotel in Riyadh, rather than still hiding in the Afghan hills."
That's quite possible. But they're not trying too hard to find him anyway. Too much political baggage.
And Calvin, as we've seen before, the fact that Iran supposedly lacks nuclear weapons will not in any way deter the imperialists from fabricating evidence to justify yet another campaign of mass murder.
"All welfare states have deficits. It is the cost of socialization."
You mean socialism. "Socialization" refers to the process by which people are inducted into the norms and expectations of society.
"Each step is a step in the right direction, no matter how small."
Mass murder is not a step in the right direction, unless your view of "the right direction" involves dead children whose siblings will commit more terrorist attacks in America.
~Zell
Makes perfect sense to me. bush is a madman. There is simply no other way to say it. be grateful you live in the UK...oh wait, tony blair...oops, my bad. I wanted to comment o some of the points you made:
"You have a troop shortage already and I don't know anyone that's rushing to join up now."
Ever heard of conscription? I have half a mind to volunteer for my local draft board so that I can possibly exempt everybody from service on technicalities. Of course I'll probably be kidnapped by the state, stuffed in a uniform, and shipped off to the slaughterhouse before THAT ever happens...
"Iran actually DO have nuclear weapons, and will not hesitate to blow your government's collective ass off with them, probably taking a few million citizens of the US with them."
As far as the neocons are concerned, that'll just bring us one step closer to Armageddon and the Rapture. Speaking of which, I think I just saw one of the Four Horsemen ride by...
"Uh, does the word DEFICIT mean anyone to anybody? War is really freakin' expensive. As I believe we have already discovered with this government. TWICE."
Based on experience, do you really think they care?
"Far as I remember, Bush didn't mention any of this Iran crap during his re-election campaign. That was rather sneaky now, wasn't it? Don't you usually mention big things like that during elections?"
He didn't mention anything about invading Iraq during his first presidential campaign if I remember correctly. In fact, he expressed that he was against the immoral, and unconstitutional practice of imperialist "nation building," otherwise known as "liberation" or "humanitarian intervention." As if there's anything about wasting Americans lives and money to murder foreigners for political benefit.
"Mr Osama Bin Laden is most likely having a lot of fun living it up in a hotel in Riyadh, rather than still hiding in the Afghan hills."
That's quite possible. But they're not trying too hard to find him anyway. Too much political baggage.
And Calvin, as we've seen before, the fact that Iran supposedly lacks nuclear weapons will not in any way deter the imperialists from fabricating evidence to justify yet another campaign of mass murder.
"All welfare states have deficits. It is the cost of socialization."
You mean socialism. "Socialization" refers to the process by which people are inducted into the norms and expectations of society.
"Each step is a step in the right direction, no matter how small."
Mass murder is not a step in the right direction, unless your view of "the right direction" involves dead children whose siblings will commit more terrorist attacks in America.
~Zell
2/5/2005 c1 132holocaustpulp
I agree with your general philosophy (don't attack Iran), but your essay was a bit too much of a rant, and your facts were confused here and there. The biggest one is definitely that you claim Iran has WMDs (specifically nuclear weapons), when in fact they just a controversial uranium enrich program they claim to be for power plants. Though skeptical, I believe Iran, and I also believe America should take a hint from Europe and the EU in negotiating with and not attacking Iran. My other problem with this, which may jsut be a personal confusion, was your call to attack Saudi Arabia (though oppressive, the Saudis are in an alliance with Bush and pose a smaller threat than Iran).
Also, to Calvin: Iran is seemingly on the Bush agenda, as Rumsfeld's squads have been camping out in the country. Besides, Bush needs to spread his good ole' freedom.
The number of US troops are lacking - America's reserves are part of the 150,0 (soon to be the former 135,0 however) men who compose the bulk of the petty coalition (the remainder of the coaltion has 20,0 troops - willing indeed). We've sucked our reserves nearly dry man.
"All welfare states have deficits. It is the cost of socialization."
I had more respect for you before. If you think the deficit is due "socialization", you really have your head up your ass. The unprecedented deficit can be attricuted to: the Aghanistan and Iraq wars (estimated to eventually cost $1 trillion), a formerly declining economy, tax cuts, and a possible $2 trillion in a bogus social security reform.
The US should not attack Iran unless there is outstanding evidence or unless such an act is by means of retaliation.
132holocaustpulpI agree with your general philosophy (don't attack Iran), but your essay was a bit too much of a rant, and your facts were confused here and there. The biggest one is definitely that you claim Iran has WMDs (specifically nuclear weapons), when in fact they just a controversial uranium enrich program they claim to be for power plants. Though skeptical, I believe Iran, and I also believe America should take a hint from Europe and the EU in negotiating with and not attacking Iran. My other problem with this, which may jsut be a personal confusion, was your call to attack Saudi Arabia (though oppressive, the Saudis are in an alliance with Bush and pose a smaller threat than Iran).
Also, to Calvin: Iran is seemingly on the Bush agenda, as Rumsfeld's squads have been camping out in the country. Besides, Bush needs to spread his good ole' freedom.
The number of US troops are lacking - America's reserves are part of the 150,0 (soon to be the former 135,0 however) men who compose the bulk of the petty coalition (the remainder of the coaltion has 20,0 troops - willing indeed). We've sucked our reserves nearly dry man.
"All welfare states have deficits. It is the cost of socialization."
I had more respect for you before. If you think the deficit is due "socialization", you really have your head up your ass. The unprecedented deficit can be attricuted to: the Aghanistan and Iraq wars (estimated to eventually cost $1 trillion), a formerly declining economy, tax cuts, and a possible $2 trillion in a bogus social security reform.
The US should not attack Iran unless there is outstanding evidence or unless such an act is by means of retaliation.