China tells U.S. to shut up....

[Yahoshua]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060818/ap_on_re_as/britain_china_us

[August]

"It's better for the U.S. to shut up," Sha said. "Keep quiet. It's much, much better."

Better for who exactly?

[gabeeg]

Unless there is a diplomatic or cultural miracle, our children (if not ourselves) are going to have a real problem on thier hands. I do not trust the Chinese government, my only hope is that the Chinese people will not allow any government behavior that is bad for business.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Better for everyone, probably.

I positively wince whenever I hear about the US whining about another nation's militarization. It is utterly hypocritical.

"Oh no, they are arming themselves so one day they might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will!"

[Sea Demon]

"Oh no, they are arming themselves so one day they might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will!"
Or perhaps China's building a military to subvert a people (Taiwan) against their will under the mainland (China). China still hasn't explained why they need 700 SRBM's pointed across the Taiwan Strait at civilians. Not exactly a defensive posture.

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'. :yep:

[STEED]

WW3, America Vs China on 20-- AD :hmm:

China is coming up fast as a new super power on the scene.

[Skybird]

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'. :yep:
With such an extremely bad record of politics in the ME, I would be careful to be the the one saying so. This and a record of stupid wars, fought for wrong reasons and often in wrong ways, in principle is the reason for which I criticise Bush in special and the ME policy of America since a longer while in general: to have destroyed the moral ground from which the US could rightfully pontificate other nations about why they should remain to be militarily "weak" and vulnerable to the US. Not that China is the latter anymore.

[Sea Demon]

WW3, America Vs China on 20-- AD :hmm:

China is coming up fast as a new super power on the scene.

Not that fast. The things that will eventually slow China down is the fact that they have huge pollution problems, huge population problems, poor disease control, and a massive piracy problem. Plus their technology modernization for their military is largely based on copying and reverse engineering methods. Hard to truly master technologies like that. Certainly can't build a technological infrastructure based on that. And they've been largely dependant on Russia to get a step ahead. Take a look at most of the programs in China's military modernization. They're mostly based on designs from the 70's and 80's. And these are new things like J-10 (based loosely on Israeli Lavi from 80's). And China still has not produced a viable nuclear submarine of credible design.

I have no doubt they're making gains. But they show no signs of actually catching up anytime soon. Though alot of potential exists for improvement, there is alot of potential for impediments to slow progress. I believe these things will catch up with China within 10 years or so.

[Sea Demon]

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'. :yep:
With such an extremely bad record of politics in the ME, I would be careful to be the the one saying so. This and a record of stupid wars, fought for wrong reasons and often in wrong ways, in principle is the reason for which I criticise Bush in special and the ME policy of America since a longer while in general: to have destroyed the moral ground from which the US could rightfully pontificate other nations about why they should remain to be militarily "weak" and vulnerable to the US. Not that China is the latter anymore.

I guess you forgot that Saddam violated every UN resolution, kicked out weapons inspectors, and was paying the families of Palestinian terrorists $10,000 USD for every suicide attack in Israel.

A free and prosperous Taiwan is not a good comparison to Saddam's dictatorship.

[Captain Nemo]

WW3, America Vs China on 20-- AD :hmm:

China is coming up fast as a new super power on the scene.

Not that fast. The things that will eventually slow China down is the fact that they have huge pollution problems, huge population problems, poor disease control, and a massive piracy problem. Plus their technology modernization for their military is largely based on copying and reverse engineering methods. Hard to truly master technologies like that. Certainly can't build a technological infrastructure based on that. And they've been largely dependant on Russia to get a step ahead. Take a look at most of the programs in China's military modernization. They're mostly based on designs from the 70's and 80's. And these are new things like J-10 (based loosely on Israeli Lavi from 80's). And China still has not produced a viable nuclear submarine of credible design.

I have no doubt they're making gains. But they show no signs of actually catching up anytime soon. Though alot of potential exists for improvement, there is alot of potential for impediments to slow progress. I believe these things will catch up with China within 10 years or so.

I don't think you should underestimate the Chinese. They might not match the USA militarily but economically they are coming up fast. It wouldn't surprise me if within the next 5-10 years they become a member of the top industrialised nations making the G8 the G9.

With regard to pollution, I think the USA does badly on this front by contributing 33% of the worlds CO2 emissions and the US Federal government seems to be dragging it's feet on combating the problem.

Nemo

[Sea Demon]

I don't think you should underestimate the Chinese. They might not match the USA militarily but economically they are coming up fast. It wouldn't surprise me if within the next 5-10 years they become a member of the top industrialised nations making the G8 the G9.

With regard to pollution, I think the USA does badly on this front by contributing 33% of the worlds CO2 emissions and the US Federal government seems to be dragging it's feet on combating the problem.

Nemo

Economically they are making gains. No doubt about it. But when looking objectively about China, you can't help but see that there are alot of things that can or will impede it's growth. Such as it's current banking situation. All I can say is I remember the good old days of the 80's when everybody said the same stuff about Japan and the economic powerhouse they were to become. They were supposed to have eclipsed everybody including the US by now.

I'm not going to get into a "global warming" debate. It usually does nothing but run in circles. But I think you should look at pictures of the sky in Chengdu, Dalian, Xian, Beijing, and Shanghai (commercial district) sometime. Take a look at some of the rivers and how brown they are running through these cities. These cities put Los Angeles to shame pollution wise. It's probably true that the U.S. puts out alot of CO2 emissions, but there are alot of reports that China floats alot of raw sewage and industrial waste into rivers, and out in the ocean, and produces tons of other nasty pollutants that the U.S. doesn't even produce anymore. Where's your outrage at the Chinese?

[Skybird]

I guess you forgot that Saddam violated every UN resolution, kicked out weapons inspectors, and was paying the families of Palestinian terrorists $10,000 USD for every suicide attack in Israel.

Well, that really was not kind, wasn't it? It compares to today's problems with Iraq and future blowbacks caused by the Iraq desaster like a small flie compares to a raging bull. you have solved the problem of saddam - by replacing it with a problem innumerably more threatening, potent, and complex. Not clever.

No one knows if there will ever be a war about Taiwan. We had tens of thousands of weapons aiming at the enemy during the cold war - but no war. Intimidating and bluffing and threatening is part of the game.

BTW, Hezbullah will violate the new resolution, too. Israel has ignored resolutions as well. Neither the Us nor the UN nor the EU nor NATO will enforce the resolution this time. What now? Doing like in Iraq 2003?

[Sea Demon]

Well, that really was not kind, wasn't it? It compares to today's problems with Iraq and future blowbacks caused by the Iraq desaster like a small flie compares to a raging bull. you have solved the problem of saddam - by replacing it with a problem innumerably more threatening, potent, and complex. Not clever.

No one knows if there will ever be a war about Taiwan. We had tens of thousands of weapons aiming at the enemy during the cold war - but no war. Intimidating and bluffing and threatening is part of the game.

While you sit in your cozy little digs in Germany, there are people on the ground in Iraq that disagree with you. We'll see how the whole thing turns out. I'm not saying it will surely become a glorious success. But unlike you, I hope for success. All I got to say is you have an opinion. And that's OK. But just because you think something cynical, or hope for U.S. disaster, it doesn't make it so. ;)

I don't believe China will ever invade Taiwan. But pointing hundreds of SRBM's at Taiwan doesn't help. The point is, China intends to subvert a government who threatens no one, does not torture it's own people, and does not aid international terrorists financially. The same cannot be said for Saddam and the Baathist in Iraq pre-invasion.

[Skybird]

In past weeks I have linked to at least one long interview with troops in Iraq that disagree WITH YOU, as a matter of fact. and troops call the situation openly civil war, right now, right there. You do not like what it has turned into, thus you ignore it and call this "hope for a better future", and accusing me of hoping for the worst. Different to you, I simply see it without rosy glasses, and realistic. Everyone can see the mess it has turned into, and that it is a completely lost case - if only he wants to see the truth. Clever ones even saw it in advance, three years ago, can one imagine it...

I leave it to that.

[Sea Demon]

BTW, Hezbullah will violate the new resolution, too. Israel has ignored resolutions as well. Neither the Us nor the UN nor the EU nor NATO will enforce the resolution this time. What now? Doing like in Iraq 2003?

Eventually we're going to say screw world opinion and just finish the job IMHO. The reason we aren't getting the job done fast enough is because we currently worry about world opinion. And that prevents us from putting forth the resources necessary to adequately do it.

It would also help if American Democrats would either get on board, or just shut up and let us get the job done. Thank God these people were not around when the U.S. was embroiled in WW2. They would have had us retreating after suffering the large amount of casualties at Midway, and the Coral Sea. I'm convinced that the Third Reich would have prevailed in the Atlantic if this type of thinking prevented the Allies from doing what was necessary to win.

Oh yeah, and get rid of the UN and their worthless resolutions.

[Sea Demon]

Everyone can see the mess it has turned into, and that it is a completely lost case - if only he wants to see the truth. Clever ones even saw it in advance, three years ago, can one imagine it...

I leave it to that.

Yeah yeah. Sure. The truth is what Skybird defines it as. :roll: The real truth is that the book has not been completed yet. Sure there's differing opinions. Even among the Flag officers. But for every voice you show me that says it's alost cause, I can show you some that say there's gains being made. So since Skybird is not Nostradamus, he'll have to wait and see like the rest of us. But I know you're hoping for failure. Unfortunately that would not be in Germany's interests, whether you like it or not.

We have a saying in America..."Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!"

[Captain Nemo]

In past weeks I have linked to at least one long interview with troops in Iraq that disagree WITH YOU, as a matter of fact. and troops call the situation openly civil war, right now, right there. You do not like what it has turned into, thus you ignore it and call this "hope for a better future", and accusing me of hoping for the worst. Different to you, I simply see it without rosy glasses, and realistic. Everyone can see the mess it has turned into, and that it is a completely lost case - if only he wants to see the truth. Clever ones even saw it in advance, three years ago, can one imagine it...

I leave it to that.

I fully agree Skybird. The Iraq situation is a mess and if Bush and Blair had had a crystal ball and known in advance the outcome of their actions they would never have invaded Iraq. I still am of the opinion that it was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11.

Nemo

[Skybird]

We have a saying, too: "Ein markiger Spruch ist immer was wert und erschreckt die Fliegen".

[Skybird]

In past weeks I have linked to at least one long interview with troops in Iraq that disagree WITH YOU, as a matter of fact. and troops call the situation openly civil war, right now, right there. You do not like what it has turned into, thus you ignore it and call this "hope for a better future", and accusing me of hoping for the worst. Different to you, I simply see it without rosy glasses, and realistic. Everyone can see the mess it has turned into, and that it is a completely lost case - if only he wants to see the truth. Clever ones even saw it in advance, three years ago, can one imagine it...

I leave it to that.

I fully agree Skybird. The Iraq situation is a mess and if Bush and Blair had had a crystal ball and known in advance the outcome of their actions they would never have invaded Iraq. I still am of the opinion that it was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11.

Nemo
Afghanistan was. Iraq not. Iraq had been planned and wriotten down years before 9/11. 9/11 just became sort of a cover-up, for support for anything done in the name of 9/11 was granted in advance.

Now to the dentist, some major jawborne surgery for me. Remembering how bad it was the last two times, I have all reason to be a little bit nervous :-?

[August]

Better for everyone, probably.

I positively wince whenever I hear about the US whining about another nation's militarization. It is utterly hypocritical.

"Oh no, they are arming themselves so one day they might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will!"

You don't really believe that do you? Washington isn't the only ones worried about it.

[Fish]

In past weeks I have linked to at least one long interview with troops in Iraq that disagree WITH YOU, as a matter of fact. and troops call the situation openly civil war, right now, right there. You do not like what it has turned into, thus you ignore it and call this "hope for a better future", and accusing me of hoping for the worst. Different to you, I simply see it without rosy glasses, and realistic. Everyone can see the mess it has turned into, and that it is a completely lost case - if only he wants to see the truth. Clever ones even saw it in advance, three years ago, can one imagine it...

I leave it to that.

I fully agree Skybird. The Iraq situation is a mess and if Bush and Blair had had a crystal ball and known in advance the outcome of their actions they would never have invaded Iraq. I still am of the opinion that it was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11.

Nemo
Afghanistan was. Iraq not. Iraq had been planned and wriotten down years before 9/11. 9/11 just became sort of a cover-up, for support for anything done in the name of 9/11 was granted in advance.

Now to the dentist, some major jawborne surgery for me. Remembering how bad it was the last two times, I have all reason to be a little bit nervous :-?

I cross my fingers. :-?

[Kapitan]

Il say this one sentance and no more unless people want me to defend it.

its about bleeding time someone should tell the U.S.A to shut thier face

(note this is to the bush regieme not being prejudice against american citizens on the whole im not against the american people just bush for his pointless i know best we do it my way then it goes tits up, yes im one of these people fed up of following bush because he is "hard")

[August]

Il say this one sentance and no more unless people want me to defend it.

its about bleeding time someone should tell the U.S.A to shut thier face


Hey why don't you go vandalize someones car.

[Kapitan]

Because im not a vandle thief or what ever i do that if some one pisses me off threatens me or does something against me otherwise im as sane as the next man isnt that right fred yup he sure is !

[Skybird]

I cross my fingers. :-?

Thanks. He used a different, special drug this time, and almost four times as much as normally, that way it finally did the job it was meant for, at the price of sedating almost all of my head. :lol: He said he could not give any more, else it would become dangerous :lol: For some reason the first two anesthetic attempts in the last twenty days did not succeed too well. We both wonder why. It seems my nerves in that part of the body are made of depth-tested submarine-steel, invulnerable to any drugs. That made the surgery seriously painful back then.

The downside of today's drug in excessive quantities: I feel lull and like drunk, and made of rubber. Awakening after a full anesthetization couldn't feel much different :lol:

[SkvyWvr]

Eventually we're going to say screw world opinion and just finish the job IMHO. The reason we aren't getting the job done fast enough is because we currently worry about world opinion. And that prevents us from putting forth the resources necessary to adequately do it.

It would also help if American Democrats would either get on board, or just shut up and let us get the job done. Thank God these people were not around when the U.S. was embroiled in WW2. They would have had us retreating after suffering the large amount of casualties at Midway, and the Coral Sea. I'm convinced that the Third Reich would have prevailed in the Atlantic if this type of thinking prevented the Allies from doing what was necessary to win.

Oh yeah, and get rid of the UN and their worthless resolutions.

I agree with you about the Dems and the UN. The Dems have, for the last 5 years done nothing but obstruct everything the administration has put forward without providing alternate solutions.:damn: As for the UN, they are corrupt and useless. Send them packing and use the building as office space to recoupe some of what was lost on 9-11.

[SkvyWvr]

Better for everyone, probably.

I positively wince whenever I hear about the US whining about another nation's militarization. It is utterly hypocritical.

"Oh no, they are arming themselves so one day they might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will!"

The first step to an expansionist policy is a military build up:shifty:

[Kapitan]

Il say this one sentance and no more unless people want me to defend it.

its about bleeding time someone should tell the U.S.A to shut thier face


Hey why don't you go vandalize someones car.

I have already done this meaningless task this morning (not directly), i was doing my route on the dustcarts (trash lorrys) when we tried to get round a tight corner, some woman had parked a 4x4 in the acctual drive way, we tried knocking her up by honking the horn several dozen times and even knocking on her door.

The viachle had no tax on it which means we can hit it and get away with it, so what do we do reverse the hopper into the rear and push it down the road a tad.

I dont think the woman in question will be very happy when she acctualy sees the back door and bumper, but it cant come back on us she had no tax therefore not insured and was on the road so not our fault. :smug:

[Takeda Shingen]

I don't think you should underestimate the Chinese. They might not match the USA militarily but economically they are coming up fast. It wouldn't surprise me if within the next 5-10 years they become a member of the top industrialised nations making the G8 the G9.

China should already be in the G8. Politics alone placed Russia in it's slot.

With regard to pollution, I think the USA does badly on this front by contributing 33% of the worlds CO2 emissions and the US Federal government seems to be dragging it's feet on combating the problem.

Yep. Same old, same old from Washington. It doesn't seem to matter who is in charge either.

[Takeda Shingen]

Eventually we're going to say screw world opinion and just finish the job IMHO. The reason we aren't getting the job done fast enough is because we currently worry about world opinion. And that prevents us from putting forth the resources necessary to adequately do it.

It would also help if American Democrats would either get on board, or just shut up and let us get the job done. Thank God these people were not around when the U.S. was embroiled in WW2. They would have had us retreating after suffering the large amount of casualties at Midway, and the Coral Sea. I'm convinced that the Third Reich would have prevailed in the Atlantic if this type of thinking prevented the Allies from doing what was necessary to win.

Oh yeah, and get rid of the UN and their worthless resolutions.

I agree with you about the Dems and the UN. The Dems have, for the last 5 years done nothing but obstruct everything the administration has put forward without providing alternate solutions.:damn: As for the UN, they are corrupt and useless. Send them packing and use the building as office space to recoupe some of what was lost on 9-11.

The Democrats? Lest we forget, the Republican Party has had control of the Legislature for nearly six years now, four of which were by an overwhelming majority. It is the Republican split over the Bush Administration's policies that forces the inactivity of Capitol Hill.

Thus, the administration has problems with the opposing party. The administration has problems with it's own party. The administration has a problem with 60% of the American people. You know what they say: If you have a problem with everyone, then the problem is certainly not with everyone. And frankly, before we all run to the banner of the Right, I don't know what Bush's politics are, but they are in no way conservative.

[Yahoshua]

"Don't like the Judicial Nominees and don't have a majority in Congress? SO Who're you gonna call? FILIBUSTERS!!"

-Paid for by the Democratic Advertising Campain.

[Takeda Shingen]

"Don't like the Judicial Nominees and don't have a majority in Congress? SO Who're you gonna call? FILIBUSTERS!!"

-Paid for by the Democratic Advertising Campain.

No, it didn't happen.

[Skybird]

I don't know what Bush's politics are, but they are in no way conservative.

Ah, good to see I am not alone in that perception! :up:

[bradclark1]

What was that party that tried to impeach a president because he got a blowjob and didn't own up to it?

[Sea Demon]

What was that party that tried to impeach a president because he got a blowjob and didn't own up to it?
That's not why he was impeached. :roll: It's called obstruction of justice and perjury to a grand jury.

[Sea Demon]

I don't know what Bush's politics are, but they are in no way conservative.
Ah, good to see I am not alone in that perception! :up:
Bush is conservative in some ways, liberal in others. It ain't that simple. I just wish that he would tune out liberal/socialist thinkers and get the work done that the people elected him to do. He's always gone wrong when listening to the left. Or acting like the left in terms of border security and spending.

Getting back to the topic, I sure hope the U.S. government keeps up the pressure on China.

[scandium]

And frankly, before we all run to the banner of the Right, I don't know what Bush's politics are, but they are in no way conservative.

He's a neo-conservative, as was his running mate and as are many of the big guns (in their convinction, ideology, and influence) that he appointed to his cabinet. The real conservatives, that is the traditional conservatives one associates with the word "conservative", left during or following his first term (think Colin Powell, for example).

This is perhaps the first neo-conservative American government and the republicans in congress or the senate, whatever their stripe, have largely (with some muted bickering/dissent here and there along the way) followed the lead of the (unitary) executive branch, resulting in neo-conservative policies.

There is nothing "liberal" about Bush. While "big government" is associated with liberals, and Bush's is perhaps the biggest federal government and biggest spending federal government in American history, the money has not been spent on anything remotely "liberal" policy wise; instead it is being spent on things like the disfunctional homeland security department, subsidies to gas and oil companies and other forms of corporate welfare, and the imperial adventure in Iraq.

And before anyone points out the obvious, no, I really don't like Bush. Many of his disasterous policies have had far and long reaching effects that go far beyond Americas borders. I might disagree with a true conservative on many things, but I can understand and respect them; for neo-cons like Bush and his cabal I have nothing but contempt. And before anyone calls me "anti-American", I will point out that in his speeches and in his policies he has shown nothing but contempt for the rest of the world, so why I would I feel anything other than the same for him and his cabinet?

[bradclark1]

That's not why he was impeached. :roll: It's called obstruction of justice and perjury to a grand jury.

And what area of national security did the president put in danger by lying about a blowjob? Oh I get it! A politician can lie every day unless he's in front of a grand jury on matters that would only piss off his spouse.
You need to put it in perspective. :nope:
Lie about a blowjob and you face impeachment.
Invade a country on lies and made up intelligence, manipulates the law as he see's fit, drop us in a bucket of $#!t and get a few thousand troops killed and he's a hero.:hmm:

Go figure:roll:

[Sea Demon]

That's not why he was impeached. :roll: It's called obstruction of justice and perjury to a grand jury.
And what area of national security did the president put in danger by lying about a blowjob? Oh I get it! A politician can lie every day unless he's in front of a grand jury on matters that would only piss off his spouse.
You need to put it in perspective. :nope:
Lie about a blowjob and you face impeachment.
Invade a country on lies and made up intelligence, manipulates the law as he see's fit, drop us in a bucket of $#!t and get a few thousand troops killed and he's a hero.:hmm:

Go figure:roll:
Clinton committed a crime. Obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. That's an impeachable offense. It doesn't matter if he lied to a grand jury about whether he prefers Coke or Pepsi. You can't lie to grand juries. Bush has not done this. In addition, I don't want such a person in control of U.S. nuclear weapons and other matters of national security. If you want my opinion, Mr. Clinton should be in a jail cell right now for his willingness to manipulate Commerce Department rules, putting dual use space technology right in the hands of China. All for political donations. Disgusting. How you people support this skunk is beyond me.

And other than Michael Moore fantasies, we have yet to be shown how Bush lied us into war for personal gain. None of you have proven these assertions. I'm talking undeniable proof here. Don't tell me to go rent Farenheit 9-11. Just because the New Yorker magazine, the New York Times, and the rats at A.N.S.W.E.R say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Bush is no great hero, but he's a Godsend compared to Clinton.

[Skybird]

we have yet to be shown how Bush lied us into war for personal gain. None of you have proven these assertions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink,
send a boy to college, but you just can't make him think."
(S. Austin)

[Sea Demon]

we have yet to be shown how Bush lied us into war for personal gain. None of you have proven these assertions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink,
send a boy to college, but you just can't make him think."
(S. Austin)

OK. So then prove it. Prove that Bush lied to get us into a war for his own personal gain. Let's see what ya' got. :)

[PeriscopeDepth]

Il say this one sentance and no more unless people want me to defend it.

its about bleeding time someone should tell the U.S.A to shut thier face

Hey why don't you go vandalize someones car.
I have already done this meaningless task this morning (not directly), i was doing my route on the dustcarts (trash lorrys) when we tried to get round a tight corner, some woman had parked a 4x4 in the acctual drive way, we tried knocking her up by honking the horn several dozen times and even knocking on her door.

The viachle had no tax on it which means we can hit it and get away with it, so what do we do reverse the hopper into the rear and push it down the road a tad.

I dont think the woman in question will be very happy when she acctualy sees the back door and bumper, but it cant come back on us she had no tax therefore not insured and was on the road so not our fault. :smug:

I take it you don't believe in karma.

PD

[Sea Demon]

we have yet to be shown how Bush lied us into war for personal gain. None of you have proven these assertions.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink,
send a boy to college, but you just can't make him think."
(S. Austin)

OK. So then prove it. Prove that Bush lied to get us into a war for his own personal gain. Let's see what ya' got. :)

I'm waiting Skybird. *tick tock, tick tock* ;)

You're being called out.

[Skybird]

You already have given it a dozen or hundred of times, even by people more competent than I am - all that while you were sleeping, and still do. ;) I am not repeating myself for the 1001st time again.

[Sea Demon]

You already have given it a dozen or hundred of times, even by people more competent than I am - all that while you were sleeping, and still do. ;) I am not repeating myself for the 1001st time again.

Of course not. Because you have no reply. You're being challenged, and you can't respond. Fact is, you can't prove that Bush lied about Saddam, and you look foolish right now. :lol:

[Sea Demon]

You already have given it a dozen or hundred of times, even by people more competent than I am - all that while you were sleeping, and still do. ;) I am not repeating myself for the 1001st time again.

Of course not. Because you have no reply. You're being challenged, and you can't respond. Fact is, you can't prove that Bush lied about Saddam, and you look foolish right now. :lol:

Come on Mr. Smarty Pants. You have serious egg on your face right now.

[Skybird]

We have been there a million of times. And it is impossible to argue with someone who seriously believes an impeachmeent becasue of a lie about a sexually delictae thing is as serious and even more serious than war, the death of tens of thousands, and the destruction of a complete country. Such a person's scales and values are too insane, and too much messed up.

[Sea Demon]

1. It looks like your nation is full of liars, Skybird.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/germany/02/24/iraq.weapons/

Saddam Hussein may be able to fire nuclear weapons at Iraq's neighbors within 3 years, German intelligence service has said

Information gathered by the BND has led the service to report in the Welt and Frankfurter Allgemaine that work has been observed at the Al Qaim site, believed to be the center of Baghdad's nuclear programme

And much much more.

2. It look like the UK has a bit of an integrity problem too.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archiv e\200308\FOR20030826d.html

3. Hans Blix is a dirty liar too.



Addressing UN Security Council, January 27, 2003

"There are strong indications that Iraq produced more Anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date."

Here's another interesting page from a bunch of left-wing liars:

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

You lose.

[Sea Demon]

We have been there a million of times. And it is impossible to argue with someone who seriously believes an impeachmeent becasue of a lie about a sexually delictae thing is as serious and even more serious than war, the death of tens of thousands, and the destruction of a complete country. Such a person's scales and values are too insane, and too much messed up.

Never said it was. But still, no one can prove that Bush lied to get us into a war. And if you use your wierd rationale, you also come from a nation of liars. And the UK is a bunch of liars. And the American Democrats are a bunch of liars. And Russian intelligence is a bunch of liars. And Hans Blix is a rotten liar. You seriously look like the fool, Skybird.

[Skybird]

Bye-bye, SD.

[Sea Demon]

Bye-bye, SD.

So long.

It looks like you're the target for your own original quote about "horses to water".

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Or perhaps China's building a military to subvert a people (Taiwan) against their will under the mainland (China).

1) The US already has a military it uses to subvert and attack any other nation, anywhere in the world, it doesn't like.

China still hasn't explained why they need 700 SRBM's pointed across the Taiwan Strait at civilians. Not exactly a defensive posture.

2) Boo-hoo. In the greater system of things, unless those 700 SRBMs are armed with NBC warheads, 700 SRBMs is nothing. America's military can put together a comparable battery of warheads versus almost any target in the world in a very short time. As one of the countless tactics they could use, since a B-52 can carry about 20 cruise missiles, a mere 35 of them (3 squadrons worth) could carry the same 700 500kg warhead attack capability. Counting planning time, I still don't see them needing more than a day or so to do so. Wow ... offensive!
3) The Chinese hardly makes it a secret they want Taiwan back. Hell, if those 700 missiles force the Taiwanese to capitulate without a shot being fired, that would be the highest victory, no?

I don't know about you, but lighting East Asia on fire to conquer a defacto free and independant people ain't a happy thought. I hope the USA (Rumsfeld) keeps on em'. :yep:

America constantly flexing its military muscles ain't a greatly reassuring thought for me either.

Regarding that tangential debate that's dominating the thread now, I'd just point out briefly that it is impossible to prove motive, short of using brain scans which we don't have the tech for and which will be a major invasion of privacy. Even if you directly bribed me in plain sight of the world, there is no way anyone can really prove your bribe is what motivated me to do something that just benefits to benefit you. All you can do is show that there is a motive, and that's generally considered adequate and in fact has to be due to limitations in our ability to acquire such knowledge.

[Takeda Shingen]

He's a neo-conservative, as was his running mate and as are many of the big guns (in their convinction, ideology, and influence) that he appointed to his cabinet. The real conservatives, that is the traditional conservatives one associates with the word "conservative", left during or following his first term (think Colin Powell, for example).

This is perhaps the first neo-conservative American government and the republicans in congress or the senate, whatever their stripe, have largely (with some muted bickering/dissent here and there along the way) followed the lead of the (unitary) executive branch, resulting in neo-conservative policies.

Very consise, but unfortunatly incorrect. Bush is no 'Neo-Con'. He sits with Neo-Cons, his administration is made up of Neo-Cons (most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld), but he has strayed from the path of the new conservatives.

Examples:

His domestic proceedings have stood in direct opposition to civil liberties. This is outside of the Neo-Conservative doctrine.

He is firmly grounded in the Evangelical Right, as seen with his stance on stem-cell research. Again, contra to Neo-Conservatism.

He has no stance on civil rights, a conerstone of Neo-Conservatism.

He continues to overtly aid Israel, also counter to Neo-Con thought.

Finally, he has no 'Big Stick' policy that is the hallmark of Neo-Conservatism. In fact, he is outright inconsistant. His administration was hostile to the Hussein regime. Outside of a few words of rhetoric, seemingly indifferent to the threats of Iran and North Korea, and downright friendly with Saudi Arabia. Teddy must be spinning in his grave.

EDIT: Scandium feels well enough to discuss politics. It is a good sign that he is on the mend. I am glad to see it.

[bradclark1]

Mr. Clinton should be in a jail cell right now for his willingness to manipulate Commerce Department rules, putting dual use space technology right in the hands of China.
You won't get any argument from me there. I'm fully in agreement.

Disgusting. How you people support this skunk is beyond me.
Here we go again. "If you aren't with me you are against me."
I'm not a Clintonite. I said put it in perspective. He lied about a blowjob! You also forgot to mention he gave pardons to criminals for money when he was leaving office. Go back through history on political lies and presidential mistresses.
Also to me a lie is a lie. A countries leadership (Executive, Congressional and Senate) should be honest 100% of the time. Having to raise your your right hand should not have anything to do with it. It's disgusting to me that people think it's okay for our leadership to lie unless they raise there right hand. Show's where our values have gone.

On Bush and Iraq, to steal from TS:
His administration was hostile to the Hussein regime. Outside of a few words of rhetoric, seemingly indifferent to the threats of Iran and North Korea, and downright friendly with Saudi Arabia.

[The Noob]

Nice Move from China!:up:

But seriously, i can imagine why he said it. Imagine yourself ye are the Chinese President (or however its Called there) and america Says in your face:

"Could you please stop Arming your Nation and stop your Nuclear Weapons Programm to avoid you one day might actually be able to defend against us or defy our will! :stare:"

I'm sure some of you would response:

"STFU America!" :p:arrgh!::smug:

I would. :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Enough said:

-S

PS. It didn't transfer perfectly, so use the link for the weapon statistics.


http://www.globalfirepower.com/chinese_report.asp

CHINA'S SHOW OF FORCE FOR TAIWAN

Excerpts from the Annual Report to Congress. Notable points in RED.
Trends in China's Strategy in the Asia-Pacific and Other Regions of the World
In 2004, China became more active in the global arena, deploying its growing political and economic weight to increase its influence not only regionally but globally. China's decision to deploy peacekeepers to Haiti and its growing engagement in Latin America are emblematic of this effort. In the Asia-Pacific region, some of its diplomacy was geared to regional institutions that would exclude the United States. Globally, competition with Taiwan and constraining Taiwan's international profile are important elements of China's foreign and diplomatic strategy, particularly among developing countries.

<LI class=smalltext>China introduced "peaceful rise," a new term to describe China's emergence.
Although China's leaders themselves spoke of "peaceful rise" when it first appeared,
they quickly withdrew the term - apparently reflecting unresolved internal debate
over whether or not the term itself was too unsettling to the region or, for some, too
soft. Elements of that debate continue to appear in the Chinese press and professional
journals. Nevertheless, China's leaders continue to highlight peaceful themes to
describe its rise. <LI class=smalltext>China became the world's second largest consumer and third largest importer of oil in
2003. As China's energy and resource needs grow, Beijing has concluded that access
to these resources requires special economic or foreign policy relationships in the
Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, bringing China closer to problem countries
such as Iran, Sudan, and Venezuela. Resource concerns, among others, played a role
in increased Sino-Japanese tensions over the disputed East China Sea. <LI class=smalltext>Beijing continued to play its role as the chief organizer of the Six-Party Talks aimed
at resolving the North Korea nuclear issue. China continues to call publicly for a
"nuclear-free Korean Peninsula." China has unique potential, due to its historic ties
and geography, to convince North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. <LI class=smalltext>China expanded upon the successful conclusion in 2003 of the China-ASEAN Joint
Declaration of a Strategic Partnership for Peace and Prosperity - the first such
agreement China has ever concluded with a regional organization - and China's 2003
accession to the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation - the first non-ASEAN
country to do so - by signing in 2004 a memorandum of understanding with ASEAN
on Cooperation in the Field of Non-Traditional Security Issues and endorsing the
ASEAN Code of Conduct for the South China Sea. Meanwhile, China maintains
active diplomacy, including military relations, with most ASEAN member states to
promote positive views of China's rise, gain access to resources, and isolate Taiwan. <LI class=smalltext>China continued to make progress on resolving its border dispute with India. In
Beijing, improved ties with New Delhi serve as a way to stabilize its periphery and
balance perceived improvements in U.S.-India relations. At the same time, Beijing is
encouraging New Delhi and Islamabad to reduce tensions while preserving China's
historical strategic partnership with Pakistan.
The PLA conducted joint maritime search and rescue drills for the first time with
British, Indian, and French naval forces in 2004. China and Russia announced plans
to hold a combined exercise in China sometime in 2005.The Security Situation in the Taiwan Strait

<LI class=text>The 2004 Defense White Paper characterized the cross-Strait situation as "grim," and elevated Taiwan and sovereignty concerns to top priority for China's armed forces - an intensification of rhetoric from the previous Defense White Paper (2002). <LI class=text>China's National People's Congress passed an "anti-secession law" in March 2005 as
a means to pressure the Taiwan leadership, build a legal foundation to justify a use of
force, and form a rhetorical counter to the U.S. Taiwan Relations Act. <LI class=text>China held two large-scale amphibious exercises in 2004 (division to group-army
level in size), one of which explicitly dealt with a Taiwan scenario, bringing the total
number of amphibious exercises to ten over the past five years.
Chinese Strategy Regarding Taiwan <LI class=text>China used diplomatic pressures and verbal warnings to try (unsuccessfully) to derail
Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian's re-election in March 2004. Beijing sought to
preempt Chen's May 20 inaugural address by issuing a statement on May 17 warning
of the consequences of Taiwan's "pursuit of a separatist agenda." <LI class=text>China continued to adhere to its policy of peaceful unification under the "one country,
two systems" framework that offers Taiwan limited autonomy in exchange for
Taiwan's integration with the mainland. <LI class=text>Kuomintang Chairman Lien Chan and the People's First Party Chairman James
Soong visited the mainland in the Spring of 2005. China did not change its policy of
no direct negotiations with the leadership of Taiwan's democratically-elected
government.
Beijing continues to see the threat and possible use of force as integral to its policy of
dissuading Taiwan from pursuing independence and moving Taiwan ultimately to
unite with the mainland.The Size, Location, and Capabilities of Chinese Forces facing Taiwan
China continued to deploy its most advanced systems to the military regions directly opposite Taiwan. These new weapon systems represent significant improvements from the older, less capable hardware that remains the bulk of China's inventory. To realize the potential in the technologically advanced equipment, China's armed forces are attempting to integrate the systems into the force structure, develop modern doctrine and tactics, and improve training and exercises.

<LI class=text>Ballistic Missiles.China has deployed some 650-730 mobile CSS-6 and CSS-7
short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) to garrisons opposite Taiwan. Deployment of
these systems is increasing at a rate of about 100 missiles per year. Newer versions
of these missiles feature improved range and accuracy. <LI class=text>China is exploring the use of ballistic missiles for anti-access/sea-denial missions. <LI class=text>China is modernizing its longer-range ballistic missile force by replacing older
systems with newer, more survivable missiles. Over the next several years China will
begin to bring into service a new road-mobile, solid-propellant, intercontinental-range
ballistic missile (ICBM), the DF-31, an extended range DF-31A, and a new
submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2. <LI class=text>Air Power. China has more than 700 aircraft within un-refueled operational range of
Taiwan. Many of these are obsolescent or upgrades of older-generation aircraft.
However, China's air forces continue to acquire advanced fighter aircraft from
Russia, including the Su-30MKK multirole and Su-30MK2 maritime strike aircraft.
New acquisitions augment previous deliveries of Su-27 fighter aircraft. China is also
producing its own version of the Su-27SK, the F-11, under a licensed co-production
agreement with Moscow. Last year, Beijing sought to renegotiate its agreement and
produce the multirole Su-27SMK for the remainder of the production run. These later
generations of aircraft make up a growing percentage of the PLA Air Force inventory. <LI class=text>China's indigenous 4th generation fighter, the F-10, completed development in 2004
and will begin fielding this year. Improvements to the FB-7 fighter program will
enable this older aircraft to perform nighttime maritime strike operations. China has
several programs underway to deploy new standoff escort jammers on bombers,
transports, tactical aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicle platforms. <LI class=text>China is acquiring from abroad or developing advanced precision strike munitions,
including cruise missiles and air-to-air, air-to-surface, and anti-radiation munitions. <LI class=text>The PLA appears interested in converting retired fighter aircraft into unmanned
combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). China has hundreds of older fighters in its
inventory that could be converted for this purpose. <LI class=text>Naval Power. China's naval forces include 64 major surface combatants, some 55
attack submarines, more than 40 medium and heavy amphibious lift vessels, and
approximately 50 coastal missile patrol craft. Two-thirds of these assets are located
in the East and South Sea fleets. <LI class=text>China deployed its first two Russian-made SOVREMENNYY-class guided missile
destroyers (DDG) to the East Sea Fleet. An additional two SOVREMENNYY DDGs
are under contract for delivery. The SOVREMENNYY DDGs are fitted with
advanced anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) and ship-borne air defense systems. <LI class=text>China's SONG-class diesel electric submarine has entered serial production. The
SONG is designed to carry the YJ-82, an encapsulated ASCM capable of submerged
launch. Last year, China launched a new diesel submarine, the YUAN-class,
improving the capabilities of its submarine force. China's next generation nuclear
attack submarine, the Type 093, is expected to enter service in 2005. <LI class=text>China is acquiring eight additional KILO-class diesel electric submarines from Russia
to augment the four previously purchased units. The new KILOs will include the
advanced SS-N-27 ASCM, and wire-guided and wake-homing torpedoes. <LI class=text>Air Defense. In August 2004, China received the final shipment from Russia of four
S-300PMU-1/SA-20 surface-to-air missile (SAM) battalions. China has also agreed
to purchase follow-on S-300PMU-2, the first battalion of which is expected to arrive
in 2006. With an advertised intercept range of 200 km, the S-300PMU-2 provides
increased lethality against tactical ballistic missiles and more effective electronic
counter-counter measures. <LI class=text>The PLA fielded a new self-propelled tactical SAM to its air defense brigades, the
FM-90 (CSA-7). The CSA-7 is an improved copy of the French Crotale system.
With a 15km range, the CSA-7 more than doubles the range of the man-portable air
defense SAMs the PLA previously relied upon. <LI class=text>Ground Forces. China has 375,000 ground forces personnel deployed to the three
military regions opposite Taiwan. China has been upgrading these units with
amphibious armor and other vehicles, such as tanks and armored personnel carriers. <LI class=text>The PLA is expected to complete another round of downsizing, by some 200,000, by
the end of 2005, bringing the size of the PLA to about 2.3 million, according to
official statistics. The inclusion of paramilitary People's Armed Police and reserves
increases that figure to over 3.2 million. The 2004 Defense White Paper claims that
China can also draw upon more than 10 million organized militia members.
China acquired more Mi-17/171 medium-lift helicopters from Russia in 2004 and is
developing its own attack helicopter, the Z-10, which may enter service in 2014.Assessment of Challenges to Taiwan's Deterrent Forces

<LI class=smalltext>The cross-Strait military balance appears to be shifting toward Beijing as a result of
China's sustained economic growth, growing diplomatic leverage, and improvements in the PLA's military capabilities. <LI class=smalltext>Taiwan defense spending has steadily declined in real terms over the past decade,
even as Chinese air, naval, and missile force modernization has increased the need for countermeasures that would enable Taiwan to avoid being quickly overwhelmed.
A $15.3 billion Special Budget for the purchase of Patriot PAC-III air defense
systems, P-3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft, and diesel attack submarines, approved by the United States for sale to Taiwan in 2001, is now before the Taiwan Legislative Yuan.Space and Counterspace
Beijing has focused on building the infrastructure to develop advanced space-based C4ISR and targeting capabilities. Building a modern ISR architecture is likely one of the primary drivers behind Beijing's space endeavors and a critical component of its overall C4ISR modernization efforts. Beijing's ongoing space-based programs with potential military applications include:

China launched its first manned spacecraft into Earth orbit on October 15, 2003.
Chinese press reports indicate that it will send up a two-person crew on a five-day
mission in September 2005.
China has two remote-sensing satellite programs known as Ziyuan-1 (ZY-1), also
known as the China-Brazil Earth Resources Satellite, and ZY-2. China launched the
ZY-1B in October 2003. A third ZY-2 satellite was launched in October 2004. ZY-2
payloads probably are digital imagery reconnaissance satellites and have worldwide
coverage. Beijing also tested new film-based imagery satellites and small digital
imagery satellites in 2003 and 2004.
China is interested in electronic intelligence (ELINT) or signals intelligence
(SIGINT) reconnaissance satellites. Although these digital data systems probably
will be able to transmit directly to ground sites, China may be developing a system of
data relay satellites to support global coverage. Furthermore, Beijing has acquired
mobile data reception equipment that could support more rapid data transmission to
deployed military forces and units.
China is studying and seeking foreign assistance on small satellites. It has launched a
number of them, including an oceanographic research satellite, Haiyang (HY)-1, in
2002 with at least two more satellites in this series, HY-2 and -3, expected. Beijing
launched four small satellites during 2004; two of these probably have imagery
missions and the other two possibly are conducting space environmental research.
Other missions for satellites of this class include Earth observation, communications,
and navigation.
China is developing microsatellites - weighing less than 100 kilograms - for remote
sensing and networks of electro-optical and radar satellites. In April 2004 Beijing
launched a microsatellite with a probable imagery mission.
A joint venture between China's Tsinghua University and the UK's University of
Surrey is building a constellation of seven minisatellites - a class of satellites
weighing between 101 and 500 kilograms - with 50-meter-resolution remote-sensing
payloads. Later satellites in the series probably will have improved resolution.Anti-Satellite Weapons (ASATs)
China is working on, and plans to field, ASAT systems. Beijing has and will continue to enhance its satellite tracking and identification network - the first step in establishing a credible ASAT capability. China can currently destroy or disable satellites only by launching a ballistic missile or space-launch vehicle armed with a nuclear weapon. However, there are many risks associated with this method, and consequences from use of nuclear weapons. China is also conducting research to develop ground-based laser ASAT weapons. Based on the level of Chinese interest in this field, the Defense Intelligence Agency believes Beijing eventually could develop a laser weapon capable of damaging or destroying satellites. At lower power thresholds, Chinese researchers may believe that low-energy lasers can "blind" sensors on low-Earth-orbiting satellites; whether Beijing has tested such a capability is unclear.

Anti-Secession Law

On March 14, 2005, China's legislature, the National People's Congress, passed the "antisecession law." The law's passage followed months of speculation by outside observers over its contents and a simultaneous lobbying effort on the part of Chinese officials to cast the law in benign terms, while closely guarding the draft of the text. The law itself is broken into ten articles that codify, or render as legal instruments, policies and statements applied by the Chinese government to the Taiwan question. Key elements are described below.
Article One establishes that the law was formulated for the purpose of "opposing and checking Taiwan's secession from China."Article Two restates Beijing's "One China" definition - Taiwan is part of China - and that China "shall never allow" Taiwan to secede from China "under any name or by any means."Article Three asserts that the Taiwan matter is part of China's internal affairs and is subject to "no interference by outside forces."Article Four states that China's reunification is the "sacred duty" of "all Chinese people," including "Taiwan compatriots."Article Five reiterates China's position that acceptance of "One China" is a necessary precondition for peaceful resolution. It does not refer to the "one country, two systems" model, but claims Taiwan would "practice systems different from those on the mainland."Article Six enumerates the steps Beijing is willing to take to realize peaceful unification, such as expanding cross-Strait exchanges, including cultural, economic, educational, science and technology, health, and sports exchanges. It also refers to "other activities" conducive to peace and stability, but does not offer details.Article Seven specifies the range of issues that would be subject to negotiation during cross-Strait consultations. The article states such negotiations would be on an "equal footing."Article Eight states the State Council and CMC "shall decide on and execute" non-peaceful means to "protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity" if "secessionist forces . . .cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China," if "major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession" occur, or if "possibilities for peaceful reunification" are exhausted.Article Nine provides that during conflict, China will "exert its utmost" to protect lives, property, and rights of Taiwan civilians and foreign nationals on Taiwan, and the rights of Taiwan citizens in other parts of China.Article Ten specifies that the law comes into force on the day of its proclamation.China continues to declare a policy of peaceful resolution under the "one country, two systems" framework that offers Taiwan limited autonomy in exchange for Taiwan's integration with the mainland. China sees the potential use of force as an integral part of its policy of dissuading Taiwan from pursuing independence and encouraging it to unite ultimately with the mainland. Beijing has not renounced the use of force against Taiwan.

The threat of force against Taiwan is now codified in the "anti-secession law," enacted by the National People's Congress in March 2005.
The circumstances in which Beijing has historically claimed it would use force against the island include: a formal declaration of independence by Taipei, foreign intervention in Taiwan's internal affairs, indefinite delays in the resumption of cross-Strait dialogue, Taiwan's acquisition of nuclear weapons, and internal unrest on Taiwan.
These circumstances are not fixed and have evolved over the last decade in response to Taiwan actions and changes in China's own military capabilities. They are, moreover, deliberately general, allowing Beijing to determine the timing and form of its response.
Beijing's Courses of Action against Taiwan Although the costs of the use of force against Taiwan would be high, Beijing leaders might use force if they believed they had no other way to prevent Taiwan independence or, as implied in its "anti-secession law," to guarantee reunification over the long term.
The Chinese Communist Party came to power on its credentials as a defender of Chinese sovereignty; its leaders appear to see progress - or perhaps, the absence of failure - on the Taiwan issue as affecting the legitimacy of their rule.
Beijing is developing military capabilities that will enable it to pursue several courses of action against Taiwan, allowing Chinese leaders more flexibility to apply pressure against the island and minimize the risks of a military confrontation with the United States. The PLA is simultaneously developing the capability to deter and/or slow a potential U.S., or U.S.-led, response to defend Taiwan.
Persuasion and Coercion.
China's current approach to preventing Taiwan independence combines diplomatic, economic, legal, psychological, and military instruments to convince Taipei that the price of declaring independence is too high. This strategy combines the credible threat to use military force with the economic and cultural tools that China has at its disposal. China uses its growing economic links with Taiwan to influence political behavior on the island. Beijing seeks to attract more Taiwan investment in China, while emphasizing that peace in the Strait will bring prosperity.
Beijing is increasing its pressure on Taiwan businessmen operating in China to refrain from supporting "pro-independence" parties or individuals on Taiwan. Beijing emphasizes historic, ethnic, and cultural links between Taiwan and the mainland, and unofficial diplomacy with "Taiwan compatriots" to generate domestic propaganda in Taiwan in favor of reunification.
Beijing has also intensified its competition with Taiwan in the developing world for
diplomatic recognition. This effort has focused on eroding Taiwan's diplomatic support among the 26 remaining countries that recognize Taipei. Simultaneously, using diplomatic and commercial levers, China has increased pressure on other states to limit their relationships with and to restrain Taiwan.
Portraying a military threat to Taiwan backstops the overall campaign to isolate Taiwan diplomatically and pressure Taiwan leaders. Exercises, deployments, and press operations all contribute to Beijing's policy of pressure.
Limited Force Options. Beijing could use limited strikes, employing information
operations, special operations forces on Taiwan, and SRBM or air strikes at key military or political sites, to try to break the will of Taiwan's leadership and population. Although Beijing might view these as a complement to non-military coercion and as less than a full use of force, others may view such actions differently. Such a Chinese miscalculation could lead to a full-fledged conflict.
Nuclear Weapon/High-Altitude EMP Option.
Some PLA theorists are aware of the electromagnetic effects of using a high-altitude nuclear burst to generate high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP), and might consider using HEMP as an unconventional attack, believing the United States and other nations would not interpret it as a use of force and as crossing the nuclear threshold. This capability would most likely be used as part of a larger campaign to intimidate, if not decapitate, the Taiwan leadership. HEMP causes a substantial change in the ionization of the upper atmosphere, including the ionosphere and magnetosphere. These effects likely would result in the degradation of important war fighting capabilities, such as key communication links, radar transmissions, and the full spectrum of electro-optic sensors. Additional effects could include severe disruptions to civil electric/power and transportation. These effects cannot easily be localized to Taiwan and would likely affect the mainland, Japan, the Philippines, and commercial shipping and air routes in the region.
Such a campaign could include computer network attacks against Taiwan's political,
military, and economic infrastructure to undermine the Taiwan population's confidence in its leadership. Simultaneously, PLA special operations forces infiltrated into Taiwan could conduct acts of economic, political, and military sabotage.
The PLA could also use limited, coordinated SRBM, special operations forces, and air strikes against air fields, radars, and communications facilities on Taiwan. Beijing could use the shock of rapid, accurate, and coordinated strikes and their effects on Taiwan's key C4ISR nodes to try to push the Taiwan leadership towards accommodation. At the same time, an information operations campaign on multiple levels could be launched to gain legitimacy for Beijing's claims on Taiwan and to reinforce the theme that military operations were limited to key military infrastructure, not the Taiwan people.
Air and Missile Campaign. Surprise SRBM attacks and precision air strikes could
support a campaign designed to degrade Taiwan defenses, decapitate its military and political leadership, and break its will to fight rapidly before the United States and other nations could intervene. To attempt these effects, China could employ SRBMs to saturate Taiwan's air defense system, including air bases, radar sites, missiles, and communications facilities.
Third-Party Intervention
Beijing sees Washington and, increasingly, Tokyo as the principal hurdles to any attempt to use military force to coerce or capture Taiwan. Beijing might coerce or target other critical countries to deny or delay their willingness to provide support, basing, overflight rights, or transit authority to U.S. forces operating in the theater. Deterring, defeating, or delaying foreign intervention ahead of Taiwan's capitulation is integral to Beijing's strategy. To that end, Beijing will pursue political and diplomatic efforts to keep the United States and Japan from taking action to support Taiwan. The U.S. Intelligence Community also believes China will consider a sea-denial strategy to attempt to hold at risk U.S. naval forces, including aircraft carriers and logistic forces, approaching the Taiwan Strait.
Blockade
Beijing could threaten or deploy a naval blockade either as a "non-war"
pressure tactic in the pre-hostility phase or as a transition to active conflict. On one end of the spectrum, Beijing could declare that ships en route to Taiwan ports must stop in mainland ports for inspections prior to transiting on to Taiwan. Alternatively, China could attempt the equivalent of a blockade of Taiwan ports by declaring exercise or missile closure areas in approaches and roadsteads to ports to divert merchant traffic.
Chinese doctrine also includes activities such as an air blockade, missile attacks, and mining or otherwise obstructing harbors and approaches.
More traditional methods of blockade would increase the impact on Taiwan, but also would tax PLA Navy capabilities and raise the potential for direct military confrontation, particularly with U.S. naval assets. Although sea lanes closer to China (i.e., the South and East China Seas) could be interdicted, any attempt at a close-in blockade or operations on the east side of Taiwan would strain the PLA Navy, which lacks significant replenishment and open ocean surveillance capabilities. More restrictive blockades increase the likelihood of international intervention. Although any blockade would have an immediate economic impact, it would take time to realize decisive political results. It would also increase the opportunity for countervailing U.S. and international pressure and could lead to the protracted campaign Beijing seeks to avoid.
Amphibious Invasion
An invasion of Taiwan would be a complex and difficult operation relying upon timing and pre-conditions set by many subordinate campaigns.
Publicly available Chinese writings on amphibious campaigns offer different strategies for an amphibious invasion of Taiwan. The most prominent of these is the Joint Island Landing Campaign. The objective of this campaign is to break through or circumvent the shore defense, establish and build a beachhead, and then launch an attack to split, seize and occupy the entire island or important targets on the island. To achieve the final objective of the Joint Island Landing Campaign, a series of sub-campaigns, such as electronic warfare, naval, and air campaigns, must be executed, including the underlying logistics support.
Amphibious operations are logistics-intensive and rely for success upon the rapid buildup of supplies and sustainment ashore and an uninterrupted flow of support thereafter.
This particular amphibious operation would tax the lift capacities of China's armed forces needed to provide sustainment for this campaign. Add to these strains the combat attrition of China's forces, and an amphibious invasion of Taiwan would be a significant political and military risk for China's civilian and military leaders.
The PLA's prospects in an invasion of Taiwan would hinge on: availability of



amphibious and air lift, attrition rates, interoperability of PLA forces, the ability of
China's logistic system to support the necessarily high tempo of operations, Taiwan's will to resist, and the speed and scale of third-party intervention.



Factors of Deterrence
China is deterred from taking military action against Taiwan on two levels. It does not yet possess the military capability to accomplish with confidence its political objectives on the island, particularly when confronted with outside intervention. Beijing is also deterred by the potential repercussions of any use of force against Taiwan. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, China's leaders recognize that a war could severely retard economic development. Taiwan is China's single largest source of foreign direct investment. An extended campaign would wreck Taiwan's economic infrastructure, leading to high reconstruction costs. International sanctions against Beijing, either by individual states or by groups of states, could severely damage Beijing's economic development.
Conflict with Taiwan could also lead to instability on the mainland.
Maintaining internal security in wartime appears to be an important consideration in PLA planning - reflecting leadership concerns about political stability. Failure would almost certainly result in severe repercussions for those in the leadership who had advocated such a course of action. A conflict also would severely hurt the image China has sought to project regionally and globally in recent years. If Beijing chose to use force against Taiwan prior to the 2008 Olympics, China would almost certainly face a boycott or loss of the games. Finally, Beijing must calculate the probability of U.S. intervention in any conflict in the Taiwan Strait. It views the United States as having advantages over China in many scenarios involving the use of military force. China's leaders also calculate a conflict over Taiwan involving the United States would give rise to a long-term hostile relationship between the two nations - a result that would not be in China's interests.
Taiwan Strait Military Balance, Air Forces
ChinaTaiwanAircraft Total Within range of TaiwanFighters1,500425420Bombers7802800Transport50 05040
Note: The PLAAF and PLANAF have a total of around 2,600 combat aircraft: air defense and multi-role fighters, ground attack aircraft, fighter-bombers, and bombers. An additional 470 older fighters and bombers are assigned to PLA flight academies or R&D.
The two air arms have over 90 surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft with photographic, surface search, and airborne early warning sensors. The PLAAF and PLANAF have 500 transports. The majority of PLAAF and PLANAF aircraft are based in the eastern part of the country. Currently, more than 700 aircraft could conduct combat operations against Taiwan without refueling. Taiwan has some 400 fighters of various types.
Taiwan Strait Military Balance, Ground Forces
ChinaTaiwanTaiwan Strait Area TotalPersonnel (Active)1.6 million 375,000200,000Group Armies189 Infantry Divisions/Brigades
(including airborne)20/209/110/25Armor Divisions/Brigades10/104/40/5Mech Infantry
Divisions/Brigades5/53/10/3Artillery
Divisions/Brigades5/153/50/0Marine Divisions/Brigades 0/20/20/3Tanks6,5002,5001,900Artillery Pieces11,0005,5004,400
Note: The PLA active ground forces are organized into Group Armies. Infantry, armor, and artillery units are organized into a combination of divisions and brigades deployed throughout the PLA's seven Military Regions (MRs). A significant portion of these assets are deployed in the Taiwan Strait area, specifically the Nanjing, Guangzhou, and Jinan military regions. In a major Taiwan conflict, personnel, units, and equipment from other military regions would augment existing combat power in the Taiwan Strait area. In 2004, Taiwan began transforming motorized rifle and armored infantry brigades to mechanized infantry.


Taiwan Strait Military Balance, Naval Forces
ChinaTaiwanEast & South Sea Fleets Personnel 290,000140,00060,000Destroyers21136Frigates433421T ank Landing Ships202012Medium Landing Ships23154Diesel Submarines51294Nuclear Submarines600Coastal Patrol (Missile)513450
Note: The PLA Navy has a large fleet that includes 64 major surface combatants,
approximately 55 attack submarines, more than 40 medium and heavy amphibious lift ships, and some 50 coastal missile patrol craft. Two-thirds of those assets are located in the East and South Sea Fleets. In the event of a major Taiwan conflict, both fleets would be expected to participate in direct action against the Taiwan Navy. The North Sea Fleet would be responsible primarily for protecting Beijing and the northern coasts, but could provide mission critical assets to support the other fleets.

China's Missile Forces
China's Missile Inventory
TotalLaunchers/MissilesEstimated RangeCSS-4 ICBM20/208,460+ kmCSS-3 ICBM10-14/20-245,470+ kmCSS-2 IRBM6-10/14-182,790+ kmCSS-5 MRBMMod 1/2 34-38/19-231,770+ kmJL-1 SLBM10-14/10-141,770+ kmCSS-6 SRBM70-80/230-270600 kmCSS-7 SRBM100-120/420-460300 kmDF-31 ICBMDEVELOPMENTAL7,250+ kmDF-31A ICBMDEVELOPMENTAL11,270+ km
Note: China's SRBM force has grown significantly in the past few years. China's
Second Artillery now has at least five operational SRBM brigades; another brigade is deployed with the PLA ground forces. All of these units are deployed to locations near Taiwan.

[Sea Demon]

1) The US already has a military it uses to subvert and attack any other nation, anywhere in the world, it doesn't like.

The USA does not go around threatening and attacking nations of the world for no reason. Many entities around the world (Not just Bush) considered Saddam a threat, and openly discussed removing him from power. Iran at some point may require military operations against it. The USA uses deterrence against China, but does not overtly attack or try to subvert it as a whole. And not the way China does to Taiwan civilians. You are grossly misrepresenting U.S. actions and responses.


2) Boo-hoo. In the greater system of things, unless those 700 SRBMs are armed with NBC warheads, 700 SRBMs is nothing. America's military can put together a comparable battery of warheads versus almost any target in the world in a very short time. As one of the countless tactics they could use, since a B-52 can carry about 20 cruise missiles, a mere 35 of them (3 squadrons worth) could carry the same 700 500kg warhead attack capability. Counting planning time, I still don't see them needing more than a day or so to do so. Wow ... offensive!
3) The Chinese hardly makes it a secret they want Taiwan back. Hell, if those 700 missiles force the Taiwanese to capitulate without a shot being fired, that would be the highest victory, no?

All these U.S. systems are for deterrence. Give me one example where they are used as a tool for holding nations hostage....just for the heck of it. When it comes to conventional capabilities, we have used that to remove Saddam from power. True. Saddam was a dictator that tortured his own people, ran a terrorist training camp out of Salman Pak, paid terrorist families money to kill civilians in Israel, trashed multiple UN resolutions he agreed to to stop GW1, and was believed to be building a WMD capability (Believed by British intel, Russia, Germany, American Democrats, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, al Gore, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, etc.). But of course, it's just easier (and apparently alot of fun) to focus the blame on Bush rather than see it for what it is.

The Taiwanese aren't going to capitulate because 700 SRBM's are pointed at it. I really wonder if you "I hate Bush"..."I hate America" types would just stand there and passively watch China launch these missiles at Taiwanese civilians. I'm convinced, the "I hate Bush" "I hate America" types would be silent.

All you can do is show that there is a motive, and that's generally considered adequate and in fact has to be due to limitations in our ability to acquire such knowledge.

OK. But then Bill Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kennedy, Hilary Clinton, Hans Blix, German intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, all had the same motive as Bush. If Bush is a liar, they are too.

Also to me a lie is a lie

Hey, Brad. Me too. But you haven't proven that Bush lied about anything. Nor has the New York Times. Nor has the New Republic. Nor has the peanut gallery at the DNC. Just saying "Bush lied" doesn't suffice. Leveling a charege like that is serious, and the burden of proof is always on the accuser.

Mr. Subman - If you look at China's military, you definitely get a feel for their objectives. They want to subvert Taiwan, and find a way to keep the USA from coming to the rescue. If China was a peaceful country, they would just leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is free, independant, a threat to nobody, has a world class economy, and is happy to govern itself. The so called human rights lovers of course are silent to China's coming aggression.

[bradclark1]

Some of this is looney sites but the information they put out is common knowledge.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,699348,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02192003.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002265205_intel06.html

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html Odd site but it's list is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58YpcWD1wHA&mode=related&search= :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192069,00.html

[Sea Demon]

Some of this is looney sites but the information they put out is common knowledge.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,699348,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02192003.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002265205_intel06.html

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html Odd site but it's list is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58YpcWD1wHA&mode=related&search= :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192069,00.html
Yeah, the downing street memo that doesn't tell you what U.S. policy was even before Bush took office. And most of this stuff is just people's opinion's of the situation. And one partisan Democrat's view. None of this stuff proves that Bush lied to get us into a war.

But let me ask you Brad. Do you think Clinton's a liar for sounding just like Bush regarding Saddam pre-invasion? How about his wife? How about Ted Kennedy? John Kerry even? What about all those intelligence services around the world which told the Bush Administration of Saddam's programs? You know, Germany, Russia, Israel, Japan, and the UK? Liars all? If so, why the obsessive focus on Bush?

[The Noob]

Sea Demon, i am very sorry to offend so much, but i just NEED (*Crazed expression on my face*) to post this!

The SADDAM HUSSEIN song.

We should kill him
would be thrillin'
just to kill him

Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
Let's beat the crap out of Saddam
Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
and bomb Iraq into the ground
Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
Let's beat the crap out of Saddam
Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
and bomb Iraq into the ground

Don't screw with the USA
Don't screw with the USA

Now if he does attack
We're gonna drop a stack
All miscles on Iraq
And get him off my back
And if he won't let us up for al the surfgas,
the US army is gonna kick him in the ass

We should destroy, should destroy, that Iraqi boy

Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
Let's beat the crap out of Saddam
Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
and bomb Iraq into the ground
Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
Let's beat the crap out of Saddam
Let's hunt him down
and shoot him in the head
and bomb Iraq into the ground

http://www.sumfun4u.com/musicwav/wavs/weirdalyankavic-saddamhussein.wav

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Should be Americas new National Anthem.:up::rotfl:

[scandium]

But let me ask you Brad. Do you think Clinton's a liar for sounding just like Bush regarding Saddam pre-invasion? How about his wife? How about Ted Kennedy? John Kerry even? What about all those intelligence services around the world which told the Bush Administration of Saddam's programs? You know, Germany, Russia, Israel, Japan, and the UK? Liars all? If so, why the obsessive focus on Bush?

I know I'm not Brad, but what does it matter what any of those people thought when none of them were the C-in-C with who the decision to invade or not to invade ultimately lay? Was it Harry Truman who used to keep a sign on his desk that read 'the buck stops here'?

It seems with Bush, and the inner circle (Cheney, Condi, Rumsferatu), that the buck is something to pass to somebody else, and usually the democrats who, with minority status in all arms of government, don't even have any real power.

I thought these were the adults in charge, adults who are supposedly really big on 'personal responsibility'.... so where is it? Or is that just something for the peons like Charles Graner?

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon, i am very sorry to offend so much, but i just NEED (*Crazed expression on my face*) to post this!

The SADDAM HUSSEIN song.

.......


No offense taken. ;)

[scandium]

He's a neo-conservative, as was his running mate and as are many of the big guns (in their convinction, ideology, and influence) that he appointed to his cabinet. The real conservatives, that is the traditional conservatives one associates with the word "conservative", left during or following his first term (think Colin Powell, for example).

This is perhaps the first neo-conservative American government and the republicans in congress or the senate, whatever their stripe, have largely (with some muted bickering/dissent here and there along the way) followed the lead of the (unitary) executive branch, resulting in neo-conservative policies.
Very consise, but unfortunatly incorrect. Bush is no 'Neo-Con'. He sits with Neo-Cons, his administration is made up of Neo-Cons (most notably Cheney and Rumsfeld), but he has strayed from the path of the new conservatives.

Examples:

His domestic proceedings have stood in direct opposition to civil liberties. This is outside of the Neo-Conservative doctrine.

He is firmly grounded in the Evangelical Right, as seen with his stance on stem-cell research. Again, contra to Neo-Conservatism.

He has no stance on civil rights, a conerstone of Neo-Conservatism.

He continues to overtly aid Israel, also counter to Neo-Con thought.

Finally, he has no 'Big Stick' policy that is the hallmark of Neo-Conservatism. In fact, he is outright inconsistant. His administration was hostile to the Hussein regime. Outside of a few words of rhetoric, seemingly indifferent to the threats of Iran and North Korea, and downright friendly with Saudi Arabia. Teddy must be spinning in his grave.

EDIT: Scandium feels well enough to discuss politics. It is a good sign that he is on the mend. I am glad to see it.

Thanks Tak, the recuperation continues and I'm once again willing to wade into the political debate - if nothing else its mental exercise while I wait for the body to catch up for some kind of physical exercise. :)

[Sea Demon]

I know I'm not Brad, but what does it matter what any of those people thought when none of them were the C-in-C with who the decision to invade or not to invade ultimately lay? Was it Harry Truman who used to keep a sign on his desk that read 'the buck stops here'?

It seems with Bush, and the inner circle (Cheney, Condi, Rumsferatu), that the buck is something to pass to somebody else, and usually the democrats who, with minority status in all arms of government, don't even have any real power.

I thought these were the adults in charge, adults who are supposedly really big on 'personal responsibility'.... so where is it? Or is that just something for the peons like Charles Graner?

The Democrats aren't being challenged to do anything other than prove their assertions of "Bush lied". Somehting they've thrown out there but never been able to back up. The left continually throw out alot of bombs that prove to be bogus. And they said some of the same stuff as Bush (Using the same intel also) pre-invasion. The left has been intellectually dishonest and are basically being called to task for their own BS. It's about time the Bush administration does it. The only thing that's being passed is burden of proof.

I have plenty of my own criticism for the Bush Administration, but he's alot better than what the Democrats have been able to conjure up. They criticise and offer no alternatives. And they get caught with their pants down making claims that are just plain BS, and no way to prove them. I hope they lose big time in November. *crossing fingers*

BTW, Charles Graner was convicted. I guess you don't keep up. Prove that Bush ordered Graner to conduct himself the way he did.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The USA does not go around threatening and attacking nations of the world for no reason.
Oh? Technically this statement is correct, but that's mostly because the world is so interlinked that very few things can happen that don't affect your country at all, thus you almost always can find some small reason.

Many entities around the world (Not just Bush) considered Saddam a threat, and openly discussed removing him from power.
Many, but apparently not enough to get the resolution passed. Compare that to Gulf War I and you can see the huge difference. Not many people like Saddam Hussein, but apparently not that many people figure to invade either.

Iran at some point may require military operations against it.
Here we go again. America plans to attack yet another nation it does not like.

The USA uses deterrence against China, but does not overtly attack or try to subvert it as a whole. And not the way China does to Taiwan civilians. You are grossly misrepresenting U.S. actions and responses.
You see, the whole problem with the US military is the definition of "deterrence". Most nations tend to use "deterrence" to mean "deterring against an attack on my national integrity."

The US uses "deterrence" to mean "deterring anything that bothers me."

All these U.S. systems are for deterrence. Give me one example where they are used as a tool for holding nations hostage....just for the heck of it.
Amazing, so America's beefs are genuine, but anybody elses isn't.

Take the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that crisis, the US used its military power to enforce a blockade to subvert two other nations from establishing a deterrent to America, who freely bases missiles in IIRC Turkey. You might whine that national security is involved, but it is hypocritical to say your enemy is not allowed to deploy SRBMs in nations close to you when you can.

When it comes to conventional capabilities, we have used that to remove Saddam from power. True. Saddam was a dictator that tortured his own people, ran a terrorist training camp out of Salman Pak, paid terrorist families money to kill civilians in Israel, trashed multiple UN resolutions he agreed to to stop GW1, and was believed to be building a WMD capability (Believed by British intel, Russia, Germany, American Democrats, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, al Gore, Hans Blix, Madeline Albright, etc.). But of course, it's just easier (and apparently alot of fun) to focus the blame on Bush rather than see it for what it is.
Unlike Bush and America, however, not that many of them (except for Brits) feel that the evidence warrants an attack. Many people certainly thought there was a possibility, and that's certainly OK. The job of intelligence services, after all, is to look for possibilities. If there is a shred of a chance that Iraq can build a nuclear weapon, they are obliged to report the possibility. The national leadership is a bit different.

Not that many of them are being accused of making things up (http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/white-house-knew-there-were-no-wmd-cia/2006/04/22/1145344306427.html) either. There is a difference between citing "coulds" and "mays" and "concluding Iraq had an active nuclear program and a huge stockpile of unconventional weapons.."

There is also a difference between saying Iraq has not accepted the disarmament (Blix), which is perfectly reasonable - no nation likes to be disarmed. Furthermore, motives can only be inferred and guessed at. Blix of course also points out he can't really find anything. He can certainly point out discrepancies, and he's not lying to do so, yet in the end he can't find anything.

Ultimately, it would seem only the United States and Britain decides to turn this possibility into a certainty so they can use it for casus belli, thus embarassing themselves as they leap in and find nothing.

When you bust into someone's house to do a search, you'd better be able to find something.

The Taiwanese aren't going to capitulate because 700 SRBM's are pointed at it. I really wonder if you "I hate Bush"..."I hate America" types would just stand there and passively watch China launch these missiles at Taiwanese civilians. I'm convinced, the "I hate Bush" "I hate America" types would be silent.
I don't hate America, though I am more than aware of the footprint their military makes on the world. I'd admit that my evaluation from the evidence so far is that Bush should at least have been investigated Clinton-style, very deeply.

Mr. Subman - If you look at China's military, you definitely get a feel for their objectives. They want to subvert Taiwan,
No doubt - since they think Taiwan belongs to them. America actually kinds of admits this, but somehow feels a need to support them.

and find a way to keep the USA from coming to the rescue.
That goes hand in hand with Part 1. Delete "rescue", insert "intervention".

If China was a peaceful country, they would just leave Taiwan alone. Taiwan is free, independant, a threat to nobody, has a world class economy, and is happy to govern itself. The so called human rights lovers of course are silent to China's coming aggression.
You mean, their efforts to recover their own. By that standard, when the US had the Confederate succession, maybe they should have stood there.

[SubSerpent]

Some of this is looney sites but the information they put out is common knowledge.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,699348,00.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold02192003.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002265205_intel06.html

http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/iraqlies.html Odd site but it's list is right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58YpcWD1wHA&mode=related&search= :)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192069,00.html
Yeah, the downing street memo that doesn't tell you what U.S. policy was even before Bush took office. And most of this stuff is just people's opinion's of the situation. And one partisan Democrat's view. None of this stuff proves that Bush lied to get us into a war.

But let me ask you Brad. Do you think Clinton's a liar for sounding just like Bush regarding Saddam pre-invasion? How about his wife? How about Ted Kennedy? John Kerry even? What about all those intelligence services around the world which told the Bush Administration of Saddam's programs? You know, Germany, Russia, Israel, Japan, and the UK? Liars all? If so, why the obsessive focus on Bush?


Sea Demon, how do you know Bush ISN'T lying? Obviously there never was any WMD in Iraq after the first Gulf war and during the years thereafter during the US sanctions against Iraq. This was all used as a ploy to get the American people scared into a fighting stance against Iraq. Therefore, Bush and his regime LIED!!!

You seem to be an Army of one here btw since a whopping majority of the post in this thread and on these forums state Bush is a liar and has lied. Majority wins in most debates and obviously elections. Bush did win the election back when people were still uncertain about the events happening in the world, but ever since then an astouding amount of Bush supporters have turned their backs to him and his poll numbers are dropping faster than Monica Lewinsky down on her knees for old Bill.

Obviously the American people have felt lied to and betrayed. Why was the war in Iraq so important to Bush jr.? Why did it take so little time for Bush to declare war on Iraq for the second time when Kim Jong-Il over in North Korea poses the REAL threat to America? Why has America not invaded North Korea yet since they too are harboring terrorist, and developing WMD and had been for years longer than Iraq?

The answer my friend is simple: OIL OIL OIL! Bush and his buddies are profitting BIG time personally from this war. Are you? Am I? NO! We get the bill - the US taxpayer! And now we get unstable and dramatically inflated, overly priced, gas on top of that. There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.

[Sea Demon]

Sea Dameon, how do you know Bush ISN'T lying? Obviously there never was any WMD in Iraq after the first Gulf war and during the years thereafter during the US sanctions against Iraq. This was all used as a ploy to get the American people scared into a fighting stance against Iraq.

....................

The answer my friend is simple: OIL OIL OIL! Bush and his buddies are profitting BIG time personally from this war. Are you? Am I? NO! We get the bill - the US taxpayer! And now we get unstable and dramatically inflated, overly priced, gas on top of that. There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.

It's not for me to prove he isn't lying. I'm not making the charge. The charge is "Bush lied". I ask for proof, and no one can give me any. I show how American Democrats, Hans Blix, and intelligence services worldwide all agreed with the major assessments pre-war. I'm just saying if you call Bush a liar, so are all these people. The obsessive compulsive reaction to just trash Bush doesn't seem very rational.

Oh, and you can't prove that Oil was the reason for invasion either. :D

[bradclark1]

Which stuff is public opinion? I can't remember the Whitehouse disclaim any of it. What, you will only accept it if it comes from a republican? All that stuff is public information.
Yeah, the downing street memo that doesn't tell you what U.S. policy was even before Bush took office.
You can't be serious? A memo couldn't be classed as a memo if it had a whole policy attached to it. I gave you your proof and you just discount it.
You know, Germany, Russia, Israel, Japan, and the UK? Liars all? If so, why the obsessive focus on Bush?
Because Bush is the one that started the whole thing didn't he? The buck stops at his desk. He twisted whatever intelligence was truthful to fit his needs.
Time article:
That report was produced after Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pressured the CIA to come up with stronger evidence for invading Iraq. The current assessment is more credible. It comes from a cautious, chastened CIA.
It was probably George Tenet's last act as CIA director.

And then:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.
This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration's desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

[Sea Demon]

...........................................
You're free to hold your own opinions. ;)

[Sea Demon]

Which stuff is public opinion? I can't remember the Whitehouse disclaim any of it. What, you will only accept it if it comes from a republican? All that stuff is public information.
Martin Frost is a partisan Democrat. The article is one man's opinion. And a Daily show skit? :roll:

You can't be serious? A memo couldn't be classed as a memo if it had a whole policy attached to it. I gave you your proof and you just discount it.
No, I don't dismiss it. But it doesn't prove that Bush lied to go to war. And there was a policy in place before Bush even came to office, supported by much of the Democrat establishment. ;)

Because Bush is the one that started the whole thing didn't he? The buck stops at his desk. He twisted whatever intelligence was truthful to fit his needs.

Still, they said the same stuff as Bush. :doh: If Bush is a liar, so are they.

Time article:
That report was produced after Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld pressured the CIA to come up with stronger evidence for invading Iraq. The current assessment is more credible. It comes from a cautious, chastened CIA.
It was probably George Tenet's last act as CIA director.
And then:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.
This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration's desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush's future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:
..........................

All this should show you that the decision to move was actually a difficult one. Based on the fact that many were on the same page, it's hard to just link George Bush to some sort of conspiracy theory. Well, unless you have PROOF. Which you don't. ;)

[Sea Demon]

There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.
Should we attack North Korea? If Bush invaded North Korea this November, would you support him? :hmm:

[SubSerpent]

There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.
Should we attack North Korea? If Bush invaded North Korea this November, would you support him? :hmm:

Not him. I can't trust a guy that lied.

[Sea Demon]

There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.
Should we attack North Korea? If Bush invaded North Korea this November, would you support him? :hmm:
Not him. I can't trust a guy that lied.
Gotcha. So you make it look like we should attack North Korea in your first statement.....quickly, but then say you don't want Bush to do it. Do you think Kim Jong-Il deserves more trust than Bush?

Oh yeah, do you trust Bill Clinton. How about the UN. How about Germany, France, UK, Russia, Israel, Madeline Albright? They must all be liars regarding Iraq also, seeing as how they're on record saying the same stuff about getting rid of Saddam. ;)

[scandium]

I have plenty of my own criticism for the Bush Administration, but he's alot better than what the Democrats have been able to conjure up.

This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large, and Bush has initiated two nation-building style wars to what end? What have they accomplished for the 2,500+ lives lost and $1 trillion+ price tag?

And in such a climate, where national security is the issue, what makes Bush the best qualified to be the man in charge? The (R) attached to his name, or the last name "Bush"? Seriously, look at the man's bio and point out what about it makes him more qualified than anyone else:

- he was a legacy student (ie: affirmative action for the rich) at Yale and graduated with a 'C' average before going on to Harvard and getting an M.B.A.

- he did a brief stint in the TANG during the Vietnam war where he never saw combat and never advanced beyond the rank of 2nd Lt;

- he ran for Congress and lost;

- he started an oil company that never found any oil;

- he served briefly with the Carlyle Group, likely a position handed to him through his daddy's influence (who was a member of its board of directors);

- he bought into the Texas Rangers and traded Sammy Sosa;

- he served as Governor of Texas. His only political office and the net of his public service career before becoming President.

What among that bio screams out at you that he is the best man for the job of running and protecting the country?

BTW, Charles Graner was convicted. I guess you don't keep up. Prove that Bush ordered Graner to conduct himself the way he did.

That was why I mentioned him: because it seems only the peons at the bottom like Graner are ever held accountable for their misconduct.

[fredbass]

Should we attack North Korea? If Bush invaded North Korea this November, would you support him? :hmm:

If the governments intelligence is correct and N. Korea plans to use the missiles against the U.S. or other allies then the correct decision probably won't be to invade but to bomb and take out certain facilities. The same goes for Iran.

We can only hope the right decision is made.

[Sea Demon]

This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large, and Bush has initiated two nation-building style wars to what end? What have they accomplished for the 2,500+ lives lost and $1 trillion+ price tag?
The seeds for 9/11 come from the Clinton Administration. We had 5 terror attacks under Bill Clinton including the first WTC attack, and Bill Clinton's response was to sit on his hands. No thanks. Under Mr. Bush, we have changed two regimes that supported international terrorists. Many on the left and right recommended many times we do it. Yes it has cost lives and treasure and it's a shame. But unless we confront this stuff, it will only grow and the costs won't ever stop in blood and treasure.

And in such a climate, where national security is the issue, what makes Bush the best qualified to be the man in charge? The (R) attached to his name, or the last name "Bush"? Seriously, look at the man's bio and point out what about it makes him more qualified than anyone else:

- he was a legacy student (ie: affirmative action for the rich) at Yale and graduated with a 'C' average before going on to Harvard and getting an M.B.A.

- he did a brief stint in the TANG during the Vietnam war where he never saw combat and never advanced beyond the rank of 2nd Lt;

- he ran for Congress and lost;

- he started an oil company that never found any oil;

- he served briefly with the Carlyle Group, likely a position handed to him through his daddy's influence (who was a member of its board of directors);

- he bought into the Texas Rangers and traded Sammy Sosa;

- he served as Governor of Texas. His only political office and the net of his public service career before becoming President.

What among that bio screams out at you that he is the best man for the job of running and protecting the country?
I don't think he is the best qualified to run the country. Not even close. But he was duly elected by the people. And he was the best option we had IMHO (and the American People's opinion for that matter) when compared to Gore (China sell-out) and Kerry (Indecisive, aloof, and you never knew where he stood on anything). Both of these two absolutely have no business being President of the USA. Your response to attack Bush's stats show the weakness of your premises. Personal attacks usually come from a lost argument.


That was why I mentioned him: because it seems only the peons at the bottom like Graner are ever held accountable for their misconduct.
The Bush administration did not order the misconduct. The Bush administration pushed for convictions of those who did these actions. What the heck do you expect?

[SUBMAN1]

Bush didn't lie. Something worse - he was duped. How can he stand up there and tell you that he was duped by a freindly nation (France in this case) since that freindly nation wanted to discredit Bush? France fabricated the Yellow Cake incident - I posted this back about a year ago in this very forum. Why? Simple, to discredit Bush in the international community so that he wouldn't invade Iraq. Problem is, exactly the opposite happened.

Why would France do this? It had a lucritive arms trade going on with Iraq, bought with oil for food money (nice). The very weapons US troops are getting killed with are French design and manufactured after 2000. Nice. Anyway, you guys can bicker back and forth on this issue, but France is your real liar.

-S

PS. If you want to find out more, search yellow cake in the General forum. A very long timeline exists on how exactly the envents took place.

[scandium]

Your response to attack Bush's stats show the weakness of your premises. Personal attacks usually come from a lost argument.
Your statement that:

I have plenty of my own criticism for the Bush Administration, but he's alot better than what the Democrats have been able to conjure up

made his credentials fair game, and worthy of bringing out to contrast against the job he is tasked with and the rarely challenged assertion that he is uniquely qualified to do it (you didn't quite go that far, but that mantra is still implied and repeated so often everywhere you look). I had not intended to attack him personally; if that were my intention I would have instead said what I think of the man, which is that he is an inept drug addled sock puppet who if he were born with any other last name he would be pumping gas at a 7/11 and washing windshields. And I doubt he'd even be able to manage that level of responsibility for very long.

That's a personal attack, and one I would not make on anyone else except Bush is unique in the extraordinary amount of power he wields, the unearned good will he has squandered, and the far reaching consequences his 8 years in office will have for all of us.

[Yahoshua]

If the situation in the Taiwanese straight is as bad as it sounds then Taiwan should vote to declare independence NOW. And risk war while Beijing doesn't fully have the upper hand.

The U.S. must pick a side. Will she allow Beijing to hold her hostage with her debts, or will she hold to the principles she was founded on and rush to the aid and defense of Taiwan?

Likewise, will the world stand silent if Taiwan is invaded, or will they rally to save a fellow democracy from the communists?

[Sea Demon]

made his credentials fair game, and worthy of bringing out to contrast against the job he is tasked with and the rarely challenged assertion that he is uniquely qualified to do it (you didn't quite go that far, but that mantra is still implied and repeated so often everywhere you look). I had not intended to attack him personally; if that were my intention I would have instead said what I think of the man, which is that he is an inept drug addled sock puppet who if he were born with any other last name he would be pumping gas at a 7/11 and washing windshields. And I doubt he'd even be able to manage that level of responsibility for very long.

That's a personal attack, and one I would not make on anyone else except Bush is unique in the extraordinary amount of power he wields, the unearned good will he has squandered, and the far reaching consequences his 8 years in office will have for all of us.
:huh: Your response is typical of the American left, which is why we may see a Republican executive in 2008.

[bradclark1]

All this should show you that the decision to move was actually a difficult one. Based on the fact that many were on the same page, it's hard to just link George Bush to some sort of conspiracy theory. Well, unless you have PROOF. Which you don't.
Err, do you think they could possibly be on his staff?
1998. How many years was that before 9/11? He was govenor of Texas then wasn't he?
The stuff is looking you in the face but you refuse it. I think my part in this conversation is over.

[Sea Demon]

If the situation in the Taiwanese straight is as bad as it sounds then Taiwan should vote to declare independence NOW. And risk war while Beijing doesn't fully have the upper hand.

The U.S. must pick a side. Will she allow Beijing to hold her hostage with her debts, or will she hold to the principles she was founded on and rush to the aid and defense of Taiwan?

Likewise, will the world stand silent if Taiwan is invaded, or will they rally to save a fellow democracy from the communists?
I agree. And yes, the world will stand silent. They have shown they don't care about Jewish civilians killed at the hands of Hezbollah. They don't care about slaughtered Kurds, and Shia under Saddam. Likewise, they won't do anything to help Taiwanese civilians. They criticisize attacks on terrorist because terrorists hide behind civilians. Funny how they don't show any anger at terrorists for doing so. This is why world opinion should not matter to the USA. Do what's right, and ignore those who advocate self-destruction. European/Canadian/American leftists do not believe in opposing tyranny of any kind. If you're attacked, you're supposed to just sit and die....... lest you create more hatred against you.

[Sea Demon]

All this should show you that the decision to move was actually a difficult one. Based on the fact that many were on the same page, it's hard to just link George Bush to some sort of conspiracy theory. Well, unless you have PROOF. Which you don't. Err, do you think they could possibly be on his staff?
1998. How many years was that before 9/11? He was govenor of Texas then wasn't he?
The stuff is looking you in the face but you refuse it. I think my part in this conversation is over.
You have shown nothing. You're trying to link Bush to something crazy, and assert he lied. Which you have not proven. No, they weren't on Clinton's staff. What has that got to do with anything? But the policy was there before Bush, during the Clinton administration. And even when Clinton was gone, these same people (Democrats) were asserting that Saddam had weapons programs and presented a danger. Something you have yet to refute.

[SubSerpent]

There is no oil or any interest in North Korea, so that is why we haven't attacked or ever will attack North Korea until it's too late.
Should we attack North Korea? If Bush invaded North Korea this November, would you support him? :hmm:
Not him. I can't trust a guy that lied.
Gotcha. So you make it look like we should attack North Korea in your first statement.....quickly, but then say you don't want Bush to do it. Do you think Kim Jong-Il deserves more trust than Bush?

Oh yeah, do you trust Bill Clinton. How about the UN. How about Germany, France, UK, Russia, Israel, Madeline Albright? They must all be liars regarding Iraq also, seeing as how they're on record saying the same stuff about getting rid of Saddam. ;)

Gotcha? What kind of crap is that? I made my point with you Sea Demon and that remains the same. Bush is a liar and is profiteering off this whole damn war in Iraq. It is a pointless, nothingless, meaningless, war. It shouldn't even be classified as a war. It's more like genocide against a muslim nation. Good Sadaam is out of power, so what? He was a brutal person and I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but he hadn't been a brutal person since the 1st gulf war that his daddy got us in and never finished. I find it too coincidental that here we are again - at war with Iraq - and exactly 8 years after pappy Bush left and little snob Bush Jr. is back to finish what daddy didn't. He was even quoted stating "We'll after all, this is the man that that tried to kill my daddy" - Bush talking to reporters about Sadaam.

I don't know, but that statement seems a bit personal to me.

I think at this point the US would be better run by a group of chimpanzees...

Wait a minute, oh no, it IS run by a group of chimpanzees and Bush is the star of the show... http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics.html :nope:

[Sea Demon]

Gotcha? What kind of crap is that? I made my point with you Sea Demon and that remains the same. Bush is a liar and is profiteering off this whole damn war in Iraq.
Prove that he lied. :88) This is too much fun.

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Does Kim Jong-Il deserve more trust than Bush? It's really a simple question. ;)

Also speaking of liars, did you (do you) trust Bill Clinton. He lied to a grand jury ya' know. Something Bush has not done.

[SubSerpent]

Gotcha? What kind of crap is that? I made my point with you Sea Demon and that remains the same. Bush is a liar and is profiteering off this whole damn war in Iraq.
Prove that he lied. :88) This is too much fun.

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Does Kim Jong-Il deserve more trust than Bush? It's really a simple question. ;)

They both deserve each other. Both of them are ruthless dictators!

[Yahoshua]

War is personal.

A Snipers' war is even more so.

And this war, is personal for Bush. Big deal.

Saddam was a crook that should've been taken down the first time around, NOT the second time.

This war is NOT genocidal. Saddam's war against the Kurds WAS genocidal.

We do not have arbeitschlagers in Iraq. And I'm becoming increasingly irritated with this accusation against the U.S. in this term when it is blatantly FALSE and untrue. I have relatives who barely escaped the grasp of the Nazis with the skin on their back, and your comments are incredibly insensitive and naive.

So until you can show me photos of the U.S. massacreing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians in Iraq, STFU. (Don't even start with Abu Ghraib, I condmened it because it was discovered, not because it happened. Terrorists have NO rights, and are not covered by the Geneva convention and so forfeit all benefits of the Geneva Convention thereof.).

Rant over.

[Sea Demon]

Gotcha? What kind of crap is that? I made my point with you Sea Demon and that remains the same. Bush is a liar and is profiteering off this whole damn war in Iraq.
Prove that he lied. :88) This is too much fun.

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Does Kim Jong-Il deserve more trust than Bush? It's really a simple question. ;)
They both deserve each other. Both of them are ruthless dictators!
Your response shows why a Republican President is likely to be elected in 2008. Crazy comments like this are linked to Democrat party activists, and leaders among the DNC itself. :)

The middle of the road voters won't vote Democrat when push comes to shove IMO. Especially during these times.

[SubSerpent]

Gotcha? What kind of crap is that? I made my point with you Sea Demon and that remains the same. Bush is a liar and is profiteering off this whole damn war in Iraq.
Prove that he lied. :88) This is too much fun.

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Does Kim Jong-Il deserve more trust than Bush? It's really a simple question. ;)

Also speaking of liars, did you (do you) trust Bill Clinton. He lied to a grand jury ya' know. Something Bush has not done.

Many of us already have proven that he lied. Are you sure you are reading this stuff! WMD he lied about, Sadaam he lied about, terrorism he lied about... HE JUST WANTS OIL!!!

[SubSerpent]

Gotcha? What kind of crap is that? I made my point with you Sea Demon and that remains the same. Bush is a liar and is profiteering off this whole damn war in Iraq.
Prove that he lied. :88) This is too much fun.

Oh yeah, and answer my question. Does Kim Jong-Il deserve more trust than Bush? It's really a simple question. ;)
They both deserve each other. Both of them are ruthless dictators!

Your response shows why a Republican President is likely to be elected in 2008. Crazy comments like this are linked to Democrat party activists, and leaders among the DNC itself. :)

I highly doubt that a republican will be in office for quite some time after all this. Most likely I'd say you will be wrong on this issue. Then again, Bush in his followers will try to lead the world to believe that little blue men from Pluto, armed with WMD, are going to attack if we don't do something about it first. OMG!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

[Sea Demon]

Many of us already have proven that he lied. Are you sure you are reading this stuff! WMD he lied about, Sadaam he lied about, terrorism he lied about... HE JUST WANTS OIL!!!

I haven't seen any proof of Bush lying to get us into war. Nor have I seen any proof showing we're there for oil.

Do me a favor, on your response to this post, show the proof. If it was posted you could easily do that, right? Good.

And BTW, comparing Kim-Jong-Il and George W. Bush as equals shows you have no grasp of reality. I think many here can see that assertion is blatantly ridiculous...even if you don't like Mr. Bush.

[Sea Demon]

I highly doubt that a republican will be in office for quite some time after all this. Most likely I'd say you will be wrong on this issue. Then again, Bush in his followers will try to lead the world to believe that little blue men from Pluto, armed with WMD, are going to attack if we don't do something about it first. OMG!!! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!

The American left said the same regarding Election 2004. And look how it turned out.

A good indicator will be November for sure. I'm not too sure you're going to be very happy though. Maybe.....maybe not. ;)

[SubSerpent]

Many of us already have proven that he lied. Are you sure you are reading this stuff! WMD he lied about, Sadaam he lied about, terrorism he lied about... HE JUST WANTS OIL!!!

I haven't seen any proof of Bush lying to get us into war. Nor have I seen any proof showing we're there for oil.

Do me a favor, on your response to this post, show the proof. If it was posted you could easily do that, right? Good.

And BTW, comparing Kim-Jong-Il and George W. Bush as equals shows you have no grasp of reality. I think many here can see that assertion is blatantly ridiculous...even if you don't like Mr. Bush.

Well your right. I shouldn't compare the two of them. That was unfair of me. Kim Jong Il is probably the better man since he hasn't actually attacked another nation like Mr. Bush has.

Here is a fact table that shows what he has lied about...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

therefore, by posting a source of proof this matter is resolved.

[Sea Demon]

Well your right. I shouldn't compare the two of them. That was unfair of me. Kim Jong Il is probably the better man since he hasn't actually attacked another nation like Mr. Bush has.

Here is a fact table that shows what he has lied about...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

therefore, by posting a source of proof this matter is resolved.

That's OK. But what about these people.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Liars? Looks like they agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Bush.

And Kim Jong-Il is the better man? Well.....you can always move to North Korea if the USA is that bad. Nobodies stopping you. There are no walls keeping you here. I'm sure Mr. Kim would love to have you. ;)

[SubSerpent]

Well your right. I shouldn't compare the two of them. That was unfair of me. Kim Jong Il is probably the better man since he hasn't actually attacked another nation like Mr. Bush has.

Here is a fact table that shows what he has lied about...

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

therefore, by posting a source of proof this matter is resolved.

That's OK. But what about these people.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

Liars? Looks like they agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Bush.

And Kim Jong-Il is the better man? Well.....you can always move to North Korea if the USA is that bad. Nobodies stopping you. There are no walls keeping you here. I'm sure Mr. Kim would love to have you. ;)

Well unfortunately someone has to take the wrap and it might as well be the leader of the country. As the president he has and holds the "responsibility" of his actions more so than any other man for he is our "leader". If Bush didn't create the exact lie about WMD he should still carry the wrath of it since all of this happened on his watch. If you are a skipper on a submarine and you are in your bunk asleep when your conn officer runs you into the mud, you will still have to take the FULL responsibilty for his mistake. Bush has NO integrity as I believe most politicians, lawyers, etc don't. They are a bunch of liars and swindlers that lead people from one idea to the next using real war, real death, real blood, to do their talking.

I have no plans to move to North Korea. My home is here. I can only hope that the people of this country have learned a valuable lesson from all this and never vote republican again.

I am not a democrat either. I am an independant free spirit and mind.

[scandium]

:huh: Your response is typical of the American left, which is why we may see a Republican executive in 2008.
*shrug* and the American right is any better? Here are some gems of Wisdom from leading commentators from this political sphere:

Ann Coulter:

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient" ---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99

Bill O'Reilly:

"You want to have two guys making out in front of your 4-year-old? It's OK with them. A guy smoking a joint, blowing the smoke into your little kid's face? OK with them. And I'm not exaggerating here. This is exactly what the secular movement stands for."

"Will African-Americans break away from the pack thinking and reject immorality - because that's the reason the family's breaking apart--alcohol, drugs, infidelity. You have to reject that, and it doesn't seem - and I'm broadly speaking here, but a lot of African-Americans won't reject it."

Rush Limbaugh:

"The poorest people in America are better off than the mainstream families of Europe."

"It has not been proven that nicotine is addictive, the same with cigarettes causing emphysema [and other diseases]."

Sean Hannity:

During Clinton's term in office:

"My question to you is from all reports that I have been able to dig up, 2,000 killed in Kosovo in the last year. We keep hearing the president refer genocide, ethnic cleansing, comparisons to Adolf Hitler. Is the president purposefully using propaganda and hyperbole to garner the American public for support?" -- Hannity, March 26, 1999

"Slobodan Milosevic is a bad guy. He's an evil man. Horrible things are happening. I agree with that. Is Bill O'Reilly then saying we go to Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Sudan? Where does this stop? And when you look at sheer numbers, 2,000 -- and I'm not minimizing death. It's horrible. What this man is doing with ethnic cleansing is abhorrent, but sheer numbers -- 2,000 killed in the last year versus hundreds of thousands, millions in some cases in other parts of the world. Are you saying the United States should go to all those places?" -- - Hannity, on "The O'Reilly Factor," April 5, 1999

During Bush's:

"You're not listening, Susan. You've got to learn something. He had weapons of mass destruction. He promised to disclose them. And he didn't do it. You would have let him go free; we decided to hold him accountable." (4/13/04)

"'I hate America.' This is the extreme left. There is a portion of the left -- not everybody who's left -- that does hate this country and blame this country for the ills of the world..." (1/23/02)

"I never questioned anyone's patriotism." (9/18/03)

[Sea Demon]

Well unfortunately someone has to take the wrap and it might as well be the leader of the country. As the president he has and holds the "responsibility" of his actions more so than any other man for he is our "leader". If Bush didn't create the exact lie about WMD he should still carry the wrath of it since all of this happened on his watch. If you are a skipper on a submarine and you are in your bunk asleep when your conn officer runs you into the mud, you will still have to take the FULL responsibilty for his mistake. Bush has NO integrity as I believe most politicians, lawyers, etc don't. They are a bunch of liars and swindlers that lead people from one idea to the next using real war, real death, real blood, to do their talking.

I have no plans to move to North Korea. My home is here. I can only hope that the people of this country have learned a valuable lesson from all this and never vote republican again.

I don't mind him taking responsibility for his actions. Ain't it great we have a system where we change the government every few years? Hopefully the Iraqi's will have this form of government functional in a few years. But of course you don't want to see that because then Bush will get credit.

Hold Bush accountable for wrongs, that's fine. But don't make crap up to push your politics. It's when charges of lying are asserted...with nothing to back it up that I have a problem. It's when assertions are made that we invaded for the sole purposes of stealing oil, and enriching Bush personally....with nothing to back up the claims that I have a problem.

Why not move to North Korea if Bush is worse than Kim Jong-Il as you claim? It's quite likely Republicans will see electoral success in the future. :)

[Sea Demon]

*shrug* and the American right is any better? Here are some gems of Wisdom from leading commentators from this political sphere:

...............



I don't subscribe to everything these people say. Nor have I used their quotes to make a point. But I don't see anything overwhelmingly toxic like I see coming from the left from the examples you describe. Things like...."Bush is an idiot and a chimp"....."screw the Bush regime and their cabal"......."Bush is hitler"...........and our favorite one from this evening "Bush is worse than Kim Jong-Il" :roll:

[SubSerpent]

*shrug* and the American right is any better? Here are some gems of Wisdom from leading commentators from this political sphere:

...............



I don't subscribe to everything these people say. Nor have I used their quotes to make a point. But I don't see anything overwhelmingly toxic like I see coming from the left from the examples you describe. Things like...."Bush is an idiot and a chimp"....."screw the Bush regime and their cabal"......."Bush is hitler"...........and our favorite one from this evening "Bush is worse than Kim Jong-Il" :roll:

What do you know of Kim Jong Il? Only what Bush followers and supporters will tell you. Have you ever been to North Korea? Have you ever met Kim Jong il?

The way I see it is the way God sees it. One man (Bush) has brought his country to war to kill people and the other (Kim Jong Il) hasn't.

[August]

This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large,

Scandium, still willing to make any comparison regardless of how ridiculous in his one man personal war with our chief executive eh? :roll:

So tell me, how long did the people behind the Pearl Harbor remain at large Scandium? What did it take in lives and money bring them to justice? Do you advocate a similar effort for one single man whose elimination would not end his organization?

[Sea Demon]

What do you know of Kim Jong Il? Only what Bush followers and supporters will tell you. Have you ever been to North Korea? Have you ever met Kim Jong il?

The way I see it is the way God sees it. One man (Bush) has brought his country to war to kill people and the other (Kim Jong Il) hasn't.
Right. :up::doh: Mr. Kim is a wonderful man, and North Korea is a wonderrful, glorious, prosperous, free, and peace-loving nation. Much more moral than America. I mean after all, Bush invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of killing civilians and stealing their oil. :roll: (Sarcasm off)

Actually, I recommend you request to live in North Korea for a year or two. You might actually learn something. ;) Oh, and don't forget to display your picture of the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il. Penalties are stiff if his own population does not display a picture of him in their house, according to those who've actually travelled there.

[SubSerpent]

What do you know of Kim Jong Il? Only what Bush followers and supporters will tell you. Have you ever been to North Korea? Have you ever met Kim Jong il?

The way I see it is the way God sees it. One man (Bush) has brought his country to war to kill people and the other (Kim Jong Il) hasn't.
Right. :up::doh: Mr. Kim is a wonderful man, and North Korea is a wonderrful, glorious, prosperous, free, and peace-loving nation. Much more moral than America. I mean after all, Bush invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of killing civilians and stealing their oil. :roll: (Sarcasm off)


Bush invaded Iraq for personal reasons. This is why he is such a cad and this is why he is no longer popular in the publics eye. He and many others led the world to believe that Iraq and Sadaam was the real problem when Osama really was and still is. Why has he not be found? He's probably to valuable to Bush to have him captured. His presence in this world instills fear into Americans and that is what Bush needs to help his war campaign. He needs the American people to be afraid.

I'll tell you what. How about you and I go out to polls come election time and you vote for you man and I'll vote for mine - therefore cancelling each other out! A waste of our time. It will be left up to the rest of America to decide who the next president is. I will be the one voting for the guy that wants us to pull the hell out! What we have here is another Vietnam in the works that will NEVER end and you'll end up being the hypocrit liar that lives the rest of his life stating you never supported the war in Iraq to make yourself look good. War is a sin, supporting a man who presses a war makes you just as sinful and guilty as him.

[The Noob]

Right. :up::doh: Mr. Kim is a wonderful man, and North Korea is a wonderrful, glorious, prosperous, free, and peace-loving nation. Much more moral than America. I mean after all, Bush invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of killing civilians and stealing their oil. :roll: (Sarcasm off)

[Huge Rant]

They aren't free, nor peace loving. But it's the same with Bush. Don't you see that he's Blitzing you with Propaganda? Seems not. But WTH, if i would have to choose i would take Kim. That Crazy Dictator can't do so much harm than Bush can, did, and Possibly still will do. Have you watched that "News" (More a Roumor) that Kim has the Atomic Bomb? How much he has? One, maybe to old russian ones with are so old that the sure will be duds! And thats a Threat?

And IMHO Bush DID invade Iraq for the sole purpose of stealing oil. I mean, what danger was Saddam for the USA? And, saying he had weapons off mass Destruction (Another Wierd Thing: Why can america have 'em and Any other Nation Not? WTF!) a thousand times (And that was the Official Reason for the Iraq war BTW) does not change the Fact That SADDAM HAD NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!
Saddam just made the Big error to Displease Bush. Now he got his Arse Kicked.

Alright, how about this. I'm a Big fan and Believer of:

CCCCCAAAASSSTROOOO!!!!!

What have you to say on this matter, Sea Demon?

[/Huge Rant]

[Sea Demon]

Bush invaded Iraq for personal reasons. This is why he is such a cad and this is why he is no longer popular in the publics eye. He and many others led the world to believe that Iraq and Sadaam was the real problem when Osama really was and still is. Why has he not be found? He's probably to valuable to Bush to have him captured. His presence in this world instills fear into Americans and that is what Bush needs to help his war campaign. He needs the American people to be afraid.


OK. Now you're just starting to sound like a madman. You're free to hold your opinions, but it would help your cause if you actually prove your assertions. You post nothing but conspiracy theory. I'm sure Mr. Kim Jong-Il would love you.

[azreark1]

well i'm just going to point out something real quick...from the point of 9/11 which is a terrible day in american history, democrats...now i'm not saying all democrats but a lot have been totally against doing anything forceful/military when it came to the attack on our soil, they think that this can be resolved with negotiations/peace talks and the like. now heres a little about me-i am not a republican, i am not a democrat, i am what they call neutral and have honest beliefs of what is moral and what is not so you cant say anything about me just not liking democrats. now it has been proven that iraq, suddam and others that were behind him funded and helped terrorist orginizations. now look at it this way, terrorists blew up world trade centers...NOT a military target, just a bunch or your everyday civilians with normal lives and family's. suddam and his rassim (or however the ******* you spell it) killed tons of innocent people in iraq, so whats the difference between a terrorist orginization and suddam?! when we went to war with iraq we went to take him out of power and work on stopping terrorism. i mean seriously...you think after the thousands of people that lost thier lives on 9/11 that bush would just sit there and do nothing...now granted he probably used the WMD as a mere reason to get into iraq and do what we did but seriously people...it was for the better good of not just us but the whole world that we invaded and smashed quite a good deal of the terrorism nation. and if you think about it its not just us in this...terrorists have also attacked england and because of that england is behind us. now you have to ask yourself, if you had family members (dad, mom, brother, sister, extended family) killed in 9/11 wouldnt you expect the president of the united states to atleast do something to stop future terrorist actions against us and even any other nation?! i know i would. i lost my uncle and 2 cousins that all worked in those buildings and i'll be damned if this country is just going to sit on its ass and do nothing.

how can you think bush is in it for the oil?! you think bush has his own oil refinery that he takes all the oil he wants and puts it in his own reserves and refines his own oil into whatever he wants and then what...uses it? sells it?! hell no, he would have no need at all to go in there and take oil when he will not profit from it one bit. oil companys have trades set up to get oil from there to the united states for processing, the war in iraq granted might make the oil business a lot more risky but bush himself i can guarentee is not tied to any sort of oil laundering of any kind...so if he's in it just for the oil then whats he doing with it and hows he doing it?!

anyways just my kinda $0.02

[August]

What do you know of Kim Jong Il? Only what Bush followers and supporters will tell you. Have you ever been to North Korea? Have you ever met Kim Jong il?

The way I see it is the way God sees it. One man (Bush) has brought his country to war to kill people and the other (Kim Jong Il) hasn't.
Right. :up::doh: Mr. Kim is a wonderful man, and North Korea is a wonderrful, glorious, prosperous, free, and peace-loving nation. Much more moral than America. I mean after all, Bush invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of killing civilians and stealing their oil. :roll: (Sarcasm off)

I'm afraid the sarcasm is lost on them Sea Demon. This willingness to say anything and believe anything regardless of how idiotic is why the Democrats lost control of the Congress and the White House in the first place.

It's a sad thing really. We really could use two strong political parties in the US, but as long as the Democrats can only criticize without offering a realistic plan of their own they will continue to loose elections.

[Sea Demon]

[Huge Rant]
They aren't free, nor peace loving. But it's the same with Bush. Don't you see that he's Blitzing you with Propaganda?

What's the propaganda? Prove it.

Seems not. But WTH, if i would have to choose i would take Kim. That Crazy Dictator can't do so much harm than Bush can, did, and Possibly still will do. Have you watched that "News" (More a Roumor) that Kim has the Atomic Bomb? How much he has? One, maybe to old russian ones with are so old that the sure will be duds! And thats a Threat?

Enjoy. But I don't exactly see you packing. When you get there, log in and tell us how you like it.

And IMHO Bush DID invade Iraq for the sole purpose of stealing oil. I mean, what danger was Saddam for the USA? And, saying he had weapons off mass Destruction .................................................. ..........................................
Saddam just made the Big error to Displease Bush. Now he got his Arse Kicked.

Prove Bush invaded to steal oil. :lol::lol: This is alot of fun. You people believe nothing but propaganda. "Bush lied" is propaganda BS. Most of the whole world's intelligence agencies agreed with Mr. Bush at the time. But if you can prove Bush lied, that would be different. But you, like the others here pushing these nutty theories can't.

Alright, how about this. I'm a Big fan and Believer of:

CCCCCAAAASSSTROOOO!!!!!

What have you to say on this matter, Sea Demon?

[/Huge Rant]

I say you're full of crap unless you're willing to move to Cuba permanently.

[Sea Demon]

I'm afraid the sarcasm is lost on them Sea Demon. This willingness to say anything and believe anything regardless of how idiotic is why the Democrats lost control of the Congress and the White House in the first place.

It's a sad thing really. We really could use two strong political parties in the US, but as long as the Democrats can only criticize without offering a realistic plan of their own they will continue to loose elections.

I'm in agreement. A strong and honest Democrat party would be beneficial to the country. But as long as they are as crazy as they are with these nutty conspiracies dreamed up out of thin air, or dreamed up at International A.N.S.W.E.R. sponsored events, this is what we got. And I hope they get nowhere near the levers of power.

[azreark1]

This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large,

Scandium, still willing to make any comparison regardless of how ridiculous in his one man personal war with our chief executive eh? :roll:

So tell me, how long did the people behind the Pearl Harbor remain at large Scandium? What did it take in lives and money bring them to justice? Do you advocate a similar effort for one single man whose elimination would not end his organization?

speaking of pearl harbor...that attack led us to war with japan...now if that is justified then why is it not justified that when CIVILIANS are attacked...not even military targets (other than the pentagon) but CIVILIANS its not ok to go to war with a country that has been fully ID'd by the world (not just by us but by intelligence agencies around the world) to fund and even engage in terrorist acts.

[SubSerpent]

well i'm just going to point out something real quick...from the point of 9/11 which is a terrible day in american history, democrats...now i'm not saying all democrats but a lot have been totally against doing anything forceful/military when it came to the attack on our soil, they think that this can be resolved with negotiations/peace talks and the like...now it has been proven that iraq, suddam and others that were behind him funded and helped terrorist orginizations. now look at it this way, terrorists blew up world trade centers...NOT a military target, just a bunch or your everyday civilians with normal lives and family's. suddam and his rassim (or however the ******* you spell it) killed tons of innocent people in iraq, so whats the difference between a terrorist orginization and suddam?! when we went to war with iraq we went to take him out of power and work on stopping terrorism. i mean seriously...you think after the thousands of people that lost thier lives on 9/11 that bush would just sit there and do nothing...now granted he probably used the WMD as a mere reason to get into iraq and do what we did but seriously people...it was for the better good of not just us but the whole world that we invaded and smashed quite a good deal of the terrorism nation. and if you think about it its not just us in this...terrorists have also attacked england and because of that england is behind us. now you have to ask yourself, if you had family members (dad, mom, brother, sister, extended family) killed in 9/11 wouldnt you expect the president of the united states to atleast do something to stop future terrorist actions against us and even any other nation?! i know i would. i lost my uncle and 2 cousins that all worked in those buildings and i'll be damned if this country is just going to sit on its ass and do nothing.

how can you think bush is in it for the oil?! you think bush has his own oil refinery that he takes all the oil he wants and puts it in his own reserves and refines his own oil into whatever he wants and then what...uses it? sells it?! hell no, he would have no need at all to go in there and take oil when he will not profit from it one bit. oil companys have trades set up to get oil from there to the united states for processing, the war in iraq granted might make the oil business a lot more risky but bush himself i can guarentee is not tied to any sort of oil laundering of any kind...so if he's in it just for the oil then whats he doing with it and hows he doing it?!

anyways just my kinda $0.02


Bush is an oil tycoon and so is his family and friends. They ALL profit greatly from oil overseas each year. Bush's family even had connections to Bin Ladens family in the 80s before BIn Laden went all crazy in the head and started to plan the destruction of America.

Yes, I do expect the people who lost someone on 9/11 to sit on their rears and try to resolve issues in a peaceful manner. Just because Jo Bob punches you in the nose, does not mean that it's right to punch him back. Two wrongs don't make a right in other words. Besides, the war in Iraq has little to nothing to do with 9/11. That was Bin Laden and Al Qaeda's doing. He was the original bad guy, but Bush decided to go after and tag it to Sadaam because he was an easier target for Bush. Yet a 7ft. muslim man on dialysis in the middle of the desert can 't be found almost a half-decade later?!? WTF?!?!?! I smell fish and it appears to be coming from the Whitehouse.

[scandium]

This often repeated but rarely challenged assertion blows my mind. The largest attack on U.S. soil since Pearle Harbour occured on Bush's watch, the guy behind it remains at large,

Scandium, still willing to make any comparison regardless of how ridiculous in his one man personal war with our chief executive eh? :roll:

So tell me, how long did the people behind the Pearl Harbor remain at large Scandium? What did it take in lives and money bring them to justice? Do you advocate a similar effort for one single man whose elimination would not end his organization?

Wasn't that the whole point of going to war with Afghanistan? In case you've forgetten, some reminders:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

Then later...

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

And people called Kerry a "flip-flopper".

[azreark1]

bin laden and suddam were friends...if we cant find/kill one take out the other and try to help bring him out of hiding (if we didnt already kill him in all those bombing raids which i will admit were too hastily put together).


EDIT:
maybe he moved from trying to find bin laden to trying to crash terrorism all together.
frankly i think we can argue all we want about why he did this or why he's doing that but we are not George...so frankly we have no idea whats going on in his head and what he has planned. so whats the point?!

[SubSerpent]

bin laden and suddam were friends...if we cant find/kill one take out the other and try to help bring him out of hiding (if we didnt already kill him in all those bombing raids which i will admit were too hastily put together).

How were they friends? They have never met one another. Bush's family however, was friends the laden family during the 80s and worked with each other in the oil industry.

[azreark1]

yeah they were, i remember back in the day a release from either the fbi or the cia talking about ties bin laden and suddam had together. ok maybe friends was not the right word but they did know eachother.

and so what if bush and laden were friends back in the day...you think the bush's knew laden was a terrorist and planning to totally screw over america? and on top of that you think after what he planned and executed you think they are still friends?! no. circumstances changed and so did the people. so what the relationship WAS 20 years ago doesnt mean it has anything to do at all with whats going on today.

[August]

Wasn't that the whole point of going to war with Afghanistan? In case you've forgetten, some reminders:

No, the war in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaedas base of operations in that country. Al Qaeda is not one man. Y'know Scandium 9-11 was almost 5 years ago now but there has not been a repeat here since. As much as you hate my government, even you have to give them that.

[azreark1]

Wasn't that the whole point of going to war with Afghanistan? In case you've forgetten, some reminders:

No, the war in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaedas base of operations in that country. Al Qaeda is not one man. Y'know Scandium 9-11 was almost 5 years ago now but there has not been a repeat here since. As much as you hate my government, even you have to give them that.

THANK YOU!

[August]

Bush's family however, was friends the laden family during the 80s and worked with each other in the oil industry.
So now an entire family should be held responsible for the actions of one crazy relative? Your no account cousin knocks over a gas station and you advocate sending his parents, siblings and cousins, including yourself to jail?

Nice sense of justice you have there SubSerpent...

[Onkel Neal]

Time for a break from ME/Political topics.