Bush and iraq?

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You need a President that knows how to use an Atlas

You need a President that doesnt make up his own words.

You need a President who can colour inside the lines

*puts on his flameproof suit*<span id='postcolor'>

Take off that flameproof suit. We all agree with you lol. Have you seen a lot of Bush's speaches? He takes more time reading his speach off the podium than he does looking out towards everyone.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Soooo....being a mediocre public speaker make you a bad president? Clinton was a great speaker, but a lousy president, so therefor the inverse of that rule is not true?

[Harnu 0]

I'm just saying it's a lot of little things. And how was Clinton a bad president?

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Soooo....being a mediocre public speaker make you a bad president? Clinton was a great speaker, but a lousy president, so therefor the inverse of that rule is not true?<span id='postcolor'>

LOL.

Clinton was a terrible president according to American republicans And that's about the only group of people that classify him as terrible.

[USSoldier11B 0]

Bill Clinton was a bad president for several reasons. First of all he supported downsizing and cost cutting in the military. I personally saw a dramatic increase in funding and readiness after Bush got elected. He really sucked in the international relations arena. We are feeling the blow back from that now. He was a proponent for wellfare, which I think is a total B.S. socialist program that provides for about 5% that actually need it and 95% which are crack head ghetto scum who are to lazy to get up and work. I don't mind paying taxes, I would just prefer to see the money spent on military, education, public works, and law enforcement. I hate how Democrats operate under the guise of helping the common man and minorities. They have those people completely convinced that they want to help them by sacrificing part of the budget for such purposes. When in all reality they are elitists just like Republicans and only truly care about getting re-elected and raising campaign funds. The truth is, all benefits provided to the constituency by the goverment are residual. It's just a big game. Coming from a fairly wealthy family, and being in the military, naturally my political inclinations tend to be conservative. My parents have made me work for everything that I have, it is possible to succeed in a capitalistic society without leeching off of the government like a lazy coward.

[Longinius 1]

"I dunno if it would be another vietnam. It was pretty easy last time we fought them. Then again we had an entire coalition."

That time he didnt expect the US to get invalved. He had planned to fight Kuwait, not the US and the coalition. Who knows how it will turn out next time.

Duke_of_ray:

"We should let Sudams people take him out. Bomb Iraq until nothingis left is what I say, give the peopel a chance to get out and then if they don't it will be their fault. If the U.S. did invade Iraq our so called "friends" the britis, french and other countries that the Americans saved from defeat in ww1 and ww2 should help us out."

You are so ignorant it hurts.

USSoldier11B:

"He really sucked in the international relations arena."

Well atleast he sucked less than Bush.

"First of all he supported downsizing and cost cutting in the military."

Yeah, wanting to downsize the military sure sucks. If everyone did that, we'd get peace! Please USSoldier11B, inform me as to the large threat against America that requires this huge standing armed force? (Any threat preferably not created by the actions of said armed force)

[ralphwiggum 6]

1)First of all he supported downsizing and cost cutting in the military. I personally saw a dramatic increase in funding and readiness after Bush got elected

so what? military is a good example of part of gov't that produces significantly less with bigger spendings. ofcourse, military technology paves road for more affordable technology adaptation for commercial use, in most of the time, there training costs. of course, we can't put a good price tag on nationa security, but just because of cutting budget, it doesn't make him a bad one. it seems like both you and PitViper have one thing in common. "Give military more money! no reason for it!"

2)He really sucked in the international relations arena

and bush sucks even more. Bush's team doesn't even have a solid idea on world politics. Madeline Albright put it a bit harsh, but Bush administration's international policy is random. During his term, Clinton at least tried to negotiate peace btw Isarael and Palestinians under constant agenda, If a foriegn country needs help, stick US's nose in(and get criticized by other nations).

3)He was a proponent for wellfare, which I think is a total B.S. socialist program that provides for about 5% that actually need it and 95% which are crack head ghetto scum who are to lazy to get up and work. I don't mind paying taxes, I would just prefer to see the money spent on military, education, public works, and law enforcement

you won't be saying it when you are 65 yrs old and recieve medicare and so forth the pure capitalism tends to award those who are able to perform at peak time, ususlaly in 40s. after that, it's down hill. currently, there are a lot of retirees who are going back to work since their 401(k) got slashed thanx to economic downturn. they would be glad to recieve some checks through welfare system. of course there are ppl who get it without deserving it, but that's only small portion.

i find it funnier that republicans criticize dems for this and that, while they can't even keep there own values

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well atleast he sucked less than Bush.

<span id='postcolor'>

Uhhh....not really. Consider Bush's cabinet, and Clinton's cabinet. Bush's is far superior. I don't believe that the president needs to have military experience, but the Secretary of State does.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, wanting to downsize the military sure sucks. If everyone did that, we'd get peace!<span id='postcolor'>

This is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard you say. If we drastically downsized our military the U.S. would just get taken advantage of. People are far to greedy and devious for peace.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please USSoldier11B, inform me as to the large threat against America that requires this huge standing armed force?<span id='postcolor'>

According to even the most modest U.S. military doctrine we are understrength by about 30-40% to meet current military objectives. Do you like getting caught with your pants down? Should we just draft people who don't want to serve when the time comes, or should we maintain a force of 100% volunteers at a high state of readiness? Prudence demands the later.

[Longinius 1]

"Uhhh....not really. Consider Bush's cabinet, and Clinton's cabinet. Bush's is far superior. I don't believe that the president needs to have military experience, but the Secretary of State does."

I disagree. I think Clinton performed much better on the international arena than Bush did.

"This is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard you say. If we drastically downsized our military the U.S. would just get taken advantage of. People are far to greedy and devious for peace."

Bull. The only reason America has such a large warmachine is so they can act outside of Americas borders. You could easily cut down a lot and still have enough and then some to defend your own turf.

"According to even the most modest U.S. military doctrine we are understrength by about 30-40% to meet current military objectives."

So? When I worked for the Swedish military there was a small, unofficial policy. When going out on exercises, you better shoot up all the ammo issued to you because if you don't you might get less ammo next time. Saving wasnt encouraged. I assume it works in a similar fashion even in the US. Your budget is based on what you spend. I am therefor convinced that most armed forces could save a lot of money if they just bothered to check where the expenses were. A cut in budget encourages these checks. A cut doesn't always have to be bad.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should we just draft people who don't want to serve when the time comes, or should we maintain a force of 100% volunteers at a high state of readiness?<span id='postcolor'>

exactly why it was natural for Clinton to downsize military. volunteers at armed forces across the land dropped due to booming economy, and you don't need more money to spend on military as whole, when you can spend more money per soldier, while due to decrease in numbers, total numbers decrease.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,07:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bill Clinton was a bad president for several reasons. First of all he supported downsizing and cost cutting in the military.

I personally saw a dramatic increase in funding and readiness after Bush got elected.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, Clinton realised that the cold war is over and that in the post cold-war world a different type of military is needed. The WTC attack proved him right. What good did your Abrams tanks and Stealth bombers do?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He really sucked in the international relations arena. We are feeling the blow back from that now. <span id='postcolor'>

If you mean sucked in the meaning that he was liked and respected in the world, then yes, he sucked. Come on. I don't know what they tell you there in military, but you have the internet. Look up some foreigin newspapers. Bush is a fucking joke. He is being ridiculed all over the world. He has singelhandedly destroyed Americas reputation in the world.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He was a proponent for wellfare, which I think is a total B.S. socialist program that provides for about 5% that actually need it and 95% which are crack head ghetto scum who are to lazy to get up and workgovernment like a lazy coward.

.....blah blah right wing political rant.

<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah whatever. That is your political stand. I would be ashamed of it, but its a free world and you are entitled to your opinion.

[USSoldier11B 0]

What the hell is the problem with you Swedes? I'm truly beginning to believe that you have some kind of grudge. As far as Bush being ridiculed by the rest of the world.....you mean Europe. European politicians are radically left, so of course the ridicule Bush. Of course, your politcians are silly to us too.

[LauryThorn 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What good did your Abrams tanks and Stealth bombers do?<span id='postcolor'>

Oh man I was just gonna say something like that!

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah whatever. That is your political stand. I would be ashamed of it, but its a free world and you are entitled to your opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

? What is there to be ashamed of? The people in the ghettos are for the most part and, I do mean most, fucked up drugies living off our money who use taxpayer money to buy bagel bites and twinkies and then steal the rest. They are perfectly capable of supporting themselves if they would go get treatment or stop their drug abuse then start small getting crappy jobs and work their way up from being money leeching couch potatoes.

[Longinius 1]

"What the hell is the problem with you Swedes? I'm truly beginning to believe that you have some kind of grudge. As far as Bush being ridiculed by the rest of the world.....you mean Europe. European politicians are radically left, so of course the ridicule Bush. Of course, your politcians are silly to us too."

Our politicians are radically left? Hehe, please. They might be socialists but not anything remotely close to radical.

The problem with us Swedes might be that the actions of America effect us to a very high degree, both on inidividual and national basis.

Did you know for example that there is a Swedish citizen held in Cuba? He was caught in Afghanistan at the same time as Walker. He has been in Cuba now for 200 days. He has not been charged with anything. No proof have been produced regarding the crimes he supposedly commited. Swedish Amnesty reps. have not even been allowed to visit him. This does not really reflect well on the US, let me tell you. The fact that three other citizens had all assets frozen for a long time, without being offered proof as to why (they were only on the oh so famous terrorist list, two of them have been removed now). Were they compensated? No. Did they lose alot because of it? Hell yeah.

Clinton was good for the US in that the rest of the world respected him and respected America. With Bush, all you got is contempt, ridicule, fear and hate. If that is what you want then fine. But it really isnt good foreign relations.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,08:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What the hell is the problem with you Swedes? I'm truly beginning to believe that you have some kind of grudge. As far as Bush being ridiculed by the rest of the world.....you mean Europe. European politicians are radically left, so of course the ridicule Bush. Of course, your politcians are silly to us too.<span id='postcolor'>

Grudge? Because we liked Clinton and don't like Bush?

And, baby, Europe is the only thing that counts since we are your allies. We are the ones you have to deal with in international relations.

But if you wish, it is not just Europe. He is highly disregarded for instance in China and in the Mid East (gee I wonder why ).

Left/right has nothing to do with it. Bush Sr. was respected. Reagan was respected. The only relevant thing is that Bush is a moron, especially when it comes to international relations. If you can't see it, then I'm sorry for you because you are either blinded by some national pride or a second alternative where intelligence is the relative point

[Longinius 1]

"What is there to be ashamed of? The people in the ghettos are for the most part and, I do mean most, fucked up drugies living off our money who use taxpayer money to buy bagel bites and twinkies and then steal the rest. They are perfectly capable of supporting themselves if they would go get treatment or stop their drug abuse then start small getting crappy jobs and work their way up from being money leeching couch potatoes."

Druggies and ghettos are a small part of the over all welfare. I agree that there are leeches that need to be dealt with but they do not make up the bulk of welfare recipients, far from it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MDRZulu @ July 30 2002,08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah whatever. That is your political stand. I would be ashamed of it, but its a free world and you are entitled to your opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

? What is there to be ashamed of? The people in the ghettos are for the most part and, I do mean most, fucked up drugies living off our money who use taxpayer money to buy bagel bites and twinkies and then steal the rest. They are perfectly capable of supporting themselves if they would go get treatment or stop their drug abuse then start small getting crappy jobs and work their way up from being money leeching couch potatoes.<span id='postcolor'>

Because as I see it your world view shows an utter lack of respect for basic human values. If somebody is a fucked up drugie, then he needs help from the society and not being pushed away.

The ghettos are a result of your 'arbeit macht frei' politics where only the strong and the capable can succeed in the system. There is a major flaw in that system and that is the assumption that everybody is born with equal chances and prerequisites in society.

I think that Ralph mentioned this earlier in the thread: I find it very funny how the republicans talk of 'moral' and christian values and yet they have failed to get the basic notion of helping your fellow man, no matter what position he might be in.

[MDRZulu 0]

Drugies can get help from society its right there for them all they have to do is walk down to the police department and sign up for rehab ( for free to them I might add, I dont mind taxes going to rehab ) or quit cold turkey. They dont care though the way they see it is: why go get a job a live a real life when I can sit here and shoot up while the government pays me for it. You are totally wrong the help is there and they just dont get it. As for misfortunate people I think all they need is a set of decent working clothes to get a job and support themselves.

[ralphwiggum 6]

druggies = have some chemical affect their system, thus cannot think logically => can't get themselves to sign up for rehab since they can't think that they are in trouble.

[MDRZulu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">druggies = have some chemical affect their system, thus cannot think logically => can't get themselves to sign up for rehab since they can't think that they are in trouble<span id='postcolor'>

They can think logically enough to use their foodstamps at the store and you wont get in trouble if you ask for rehab.

[Longinius 1]

Not just that, but many people often go into denials. Alcoholics are a good example of this, they deny they have issues. Same with many anorectics. Same with many ill people, they refuse to go to the doctor because they don't want to admit they are sick.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Grudge? Because we liked Clinton and don't like Bush?

And, baby, Europe is the only thing that counts since we are your allies. We are the ones you have to deal with in international relations.

<span id='postcolor'>

With friends like you, who needs enemies? Overcritical much?

[MDRZulu 0]

True but what is a foodstamp gonna do for that? Those people in denial when or if they get caught the police will ask them if they want help, that is if they aren't some large drug dealer.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 30 2002,08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">With friends like you, who needs enemies? Overcritical much?<span id='postcolor'>

That is bi-directional. We are risking the lifes of our soldiers because of your national security fuck-ups. I think that gives us a right to voice our opinion.

Anyway, on the Europeans being very left: I listened to Ralph Nader when he gave a lecture in Stockholm a couple of months ago. His agenda and views are very very similar to the ones of an average European social democratic party. Just as a reference, so that you can compare. That is basically how our moderate left wing is.