Iraq evite

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Sep. 24 2002,06:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Alot of people must hate america in germany.The guy was losing until he bash america,then people voted for him.<span id='postcolor'>

Nobody hates the US over here. While we don't agree with everything the US wants/does, that can hardly be considered bashing. Mr. Schroeder (the elections winner) did not verbally attack the US, he just stated the opinion most Germans share (the governement should represent its people, eh?! ), that an attack on Irak would be a folly with most likely very bad consequences for the Middle-East.

The descicion to take part in any war is not yours, when our people are concerned. So I think the descicion not to support you in this attack on a souvereign country (as bad as its governement may be) should be respected, even if you don't like it.

What the (already former) minister of justice said was dumb and a very bad comparison (she compared the methods - not the persons, but thats just as unfitting). She resigned, and not just because of US pressure, but because the national outrage was at least as big.

BTW: the opposition's candidate had announced to forbid the US the use of their bases in Germany as staging area for the war, if the attack would not be sanctioned by the UN... can you say "Rammstein"? So be happy he lost - because promises like that are hard to take back without loosing face (and upcomming elections).

[Mora2 0]

"It's wrong though, the spanish president said a few days ago that Spain supports an attack against Iraq, and the spanish armed forces will take part on it. My president is a bit retarded i guess..."

Don´t call retarded someone that hasn´t the same opinion as you...

[Sadico 1]

If he gives any decent reason to support (supporting the war on terrorism is not a decent reason because i haven't seen any proof on iraq having anything to do with 11-S) the attack i won't call him retarded. Until he does, i'll just assume that he is willing to send spanish young men not very different to me to death (and killing iraqui young too) with the purpose of licking Bush's ass. I plan joining the spanish army next year, and i wouldn't like being sent to Iraq just because Aznar likes the taste of Bush's ass.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Sep. 24 2002,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the swedish guy was caught in afghanistan,that his own fault for being  a dumbass.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, and on what grounds are they keeping him? It has been six months now and they havn't pressed any charges. A very clear violation of the Geneva conventions and of a pile of other international arrangements...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 24 2002,13:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Sep. 24 2002,10:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the swedish guy was caught in afghanistan,that his own fault for being a dumbass.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, and on what grounds are they keeping him? It has been six months now and they havn't pressed any charges. A very clear violation of the Geneva conventions and of a pile of other international arrangements...<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly! On the grounds that they don't know what to charge them with, and they can't find a good loophole in the system. Seems to be a rock solid reason for Bush.

[Placebo 28]

I think the British ones should be sent back here and tried for treason, I believe it's still a hanging offence over here, not that I'm saying they should be hanged, life would do

[Rob 1]

What i worry about is that America is putting too much pressure on the other governments to join in, and then i can just see those same governments fed up with our crap and turning against us.....

[PFC_Mike 2]

What makes no sense to me about Germany is that they attempt to turn away from their Nazi past by calling anyone or anything that is not left wing Nazi.(see the WSJ from a few days ago)

You're in favor of government investigation into Islamic extremist mosques? NAZI! (see the WSJ from a few days ago)

You think welfare benefits that allow people to send 75% of their income back to their families in the middle east are wrong? YOU FASCIST!

Besides, Schroeder has proven his inability to appoint competent people.

Do you all really think that "instability" in the Mid East is a bad thing? What causes you to support the increasingly unpopular autocracies of the region? I swear, the house of Saud makes your western European socialist democracies half decent.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Sep. 25 2002,02:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You're in favor of government investigation into Islamic extremist mosques? NAZI! (see the WSJ from a few days ago)<span id='postcolor'>

If you are targeting a group based on their religion, then yes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You think welfare benefits that allow people to send 75% of their income back to their families in the middle east are wrong? YOU FASCIST!

<span id='postcolor'>

People have the right to do whatever they want with their money. So yes, again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you all really think that "instability" in the Mid East is a bad thing? What causes you to support the increasingly unpopular autocracies of the region? I swear, the house of Saud makes your western European socialist democracies half decent.<span id='postcolor'>

We have a history of supporting regimes where the person who loses the popular vote in the elections gets the power. Like USA for instance

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have a history of supporting regimes where the person who loses the popular vote in the elections gets the power. Like USA for instance

<span id='postcolor'>

Not to change the subject, but why do you all insist on bringing the popular vote up. I understand Gore got the popular vote, but in America, we do not elect our presidents by popular vote. Why is that so hard to understand?

Plus, I would add that after Gore's speech last night in San Francisco, I truly think Bush would win by a landslide if the election were held today. Gore's lost his mind.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

You would think that in a democracy, the popular vote would decide the issue.

It is true however, that Al Gore's political half-life has expired. Although I cant say he ever aroused strong feelings either way from me pre-election ,(I thought he was the political equivalent of oatmeal) he has obviously lost his popularity with moderates over his politicizing the Florida recounts, (even though both sides were at fault there) and of course the odd rush of support for Bush that followed September 11th.

On the other hand, I didn't think his latest speech was an indication of insanity- I think you have just gotten too used to lukewarm opposition to the Bush Administration from the Democratic Party. Everyone has gotten used to all the politicians in the country knuckling under to the administration line wherever the WAR ON TERROR is concerned.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 25 2002,04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus, I would add that after Gore's speech last night in San Francisco,  I truly think Bush would win by a landslide if the election were held today.  Gore's lost his mind.<span id='postcolor'>

No, Bush and his cohorts did. Let me lecture you on some basic military knowledge.

1.How US engages war

1)Air strike. Precision missle guided

2)Air strike. Jet fighters

3)Ground force, Special Units(Delta, and others blah blah) takes out any hazardous object that is obstructing other incursion.

4)Ground forces, General, advance.

2.And the current problem?

1. we used most precision bombs and missiles on War on Terror. we need enough time to resupply those.

2. War on Terror is not over yet. AQ and OBL is still at large. At current situation, our intelligence sources are focused on finding them. Starting another war would divert resources.

3.International coalition. If US wants to go to Iraq, then it has limited allies. US, UK, Kuwait. and what does that spell? logistics problem, limited attack path.

4.urban combat. when US troops enter Mogadishu, we can for sure know that casualty will increase. many Iraqis will not fight, but small number of Saddam's asses will inflict heavy dammage on US troops. Reason? 1) unfamiliarity on US's part, but Royal Guards are much more informed about there geography. hit-and-run tactics will be used, and unless US Napalms the city, US casualty will be high.

5.Aftermath. Who will take care of Iraq after Hussein is captured? We don't have viable candidate.

what those that mean? high costs.

even if we win, cost for gov't would go up, and that translates to higher deficit, which in turn makes federal lending rates increase, which will suck more money out of consumption.

result? more delay in economic recovery.

so as you can see, War on Iraq is nothing but a disaster. and might i note you that Gore actually supported resolution to attck Iraq in 1991?

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 25 2002,05:12 by Tex

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would think that in a democracy, the popular vote would decide the issue.

It is true however, that Al Gore's political half-life has expired. Although I cant say he ever aroused strong feelings either way from me pre-election ,(I thought he was the political equivalent of oatmeal) he has obviously lost his popularity with moderates over his politicizing the Florida recounts, (even though both sides were at fault there) and of course the odd rush of support for Bush that followed September 11th.

On the other hand, I didn't think his latest speech was an indication of insanity- I think you have just gotten too used to lukewarm opposition to the Bush Administration from the Democratic Party. Everyone has gotten used to all the politicians in the country knuckling under to the administration line wherever the WAR ON TERROR is concerned.

<span id='postcolor'>

First Tex, I owe you an apology. (don't even know if you saw it)

Second, I hate to burst your bubble, but we don't have a democracy in the United States, we have a republic. We actually elect people to make our decisions for us, as crazy as that may sound.

It's worked for over 200 years that way.

As far as Gore's speech, he made numerous comments that were a complete flip-flop from 2 years ago. The guys a wingnut.

[ralphwiggum 6]

republic means states are bound more to central(federal gov't). the reasons why US is a republic is because Confederacy failed.

and democratic means that the politics is decided by the masses.

of course, Founding Fathers added a safeguard system called, electoral college.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The guys a wingnut. <span id='postcolor'>

and you can't take it when others think Bush is a dork

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me lecture you on some basic military knowledge.<span id='postcolor'>

No thanks Ralph.

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Posted: Sep. 25 2002,05:37

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

republic means states are bound more to central(federal gov't). the reasons why US is a republic is because Confederacy failed.

and democratic means that the politics is decided by the masses.

of course, Founding Fathers added a safeguard system called, electoral college.

<span id='postcolor'>

I know what democratic means, but you can't argue with the fact that we are a republic. That is undisputable.

Thanks God for the founding fathers.

The constitution was written long before the Confederacy failed.

Plus, Florida had nothing to do with the election. All Gore had to do was win his home state, and he failed. They knew better.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Sep. 25 2002,05:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First Tex, I owe you an apology. (don't even know if you saw it)

Second,  I hate to burst your bubble, but we don't have a democracy in the United States, we have a republic.  We actually elect people to make our decisions for us, as crazy as that may sound.

It's worked for over 200 years that way.

As far as Gore's speech, he made numerous comments that were a complete flip-flop from 2 years ago.  The guys a wingnut.<span id='postcolor'>

I understand that we are not a true democracy, and I can't even say that the electoral college is a bad idea- Im just pointing out that we are indeed a quasi-democracy, even though it is carried out by proxy.

And as for Gore, what can I say? He's a politician, and of course his positions are going to shift with the political winds- as I recall, Strom Thurmond was a member of the Dixiecrats    

His positions on Iraq are measured, reasonable, and intelligent, as opposed to the Administrations hardline warmongering stance.

As for any apologies, don't worry about it. I've got bigger fish to fry than some barbed words on an internet forum  

[SirLoins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I understand that we are not a true democracy, and I can't even say that the electoral college is a bad idea- Im just pointing out that we are indeed a democracy, even though it is carried out by proxy<span id='postcolor'>

I'll give you that one.

[ralphwiggum 6]

maybe my mistake of typo caused confusion, but when Founding Fathers were fighting Britain, we were more of confederacy and realizing that confederacy did not work, they went for stronger form called republic.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus, Florida had nothing to do with the election. All Gore had to do was win his home state, and he failed. They knew better.<span id='postcolor'>

Florida was integral part of the election. Just because Tenessee went for Bush(let's face it, they are conservatives), doesn't dictate about Gore's ability. Consider this. Most states that voted for Bush were mid-western states that is mostly labeled as federal money recievers. I.E. states who were mostly receiving more federal aid then paying taxes. what does that mean?

simple. their political stance was solidified due to the benefits of Clinton era. Thanx to Clinton's nice economic work, those states got more benfits and they did not see macro affect of how they got more money. all they know is that they kept their conservative perspective and got more money. so when election comes, what do they do? they vote whatever they beleievd in.

now that Bush is loitering away national surplus, it's gonna hurt in long run. not to mention cost of additional war putting constraints on federal gov't.

[WhoCares 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 25 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5.Aftermath. Who will take care of Iraq after Hussein is captured? We don't have viable candidate.<span id='postcolor'>

This is the key to the whole US politic today. They show a lot of action and activity, but they offer no solutions.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Sep. 25 2002,09:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 25 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5.Aftermath. Who will take care of Iraq after Hussein is captured? We don't have viable candidate.<span id='postcolor'>

This is the key to the whole US politic today. They show a lot of action and activity, but they offer no solutions.<span id='postcolor'>

London plays host to a massive raft of Army officers an opposition poiliticans who could form a government.

I have been at University by the way and too busy to come online. But I am alive!

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Sep. 25 2002,09:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Sep. 25 2002,05:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5.Aftermath. Who will take care of Iraq after Hussein is captured? We don't have viable candidate.<span id='postcolor'>

This is the key to the whole US politic today. They show a lot of action and activity, but they offer no solutions.<span id='postcolor'>

well now. like paratrooper said, they have tons of folks in london ready to take charge.

however, I think that one of two former Iraqi generals, probably Najib al-Salhi or perhaps Fawzi al-Shamari, will take power after a short war. Both men live in Washington.

Bush has a plan, yet undisclosed. he even agreed to nation-building, a change from his pre-911 stance.

and after 1798 (france) and 1914 (GB), why shouldn't the US try to reshape the area for the better? because those people can do it all by themselves? yeah, right, kuweiti.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Out of curiosity, how would this new government maintain control? I mean, they cant use the military, because any plan to take out Saddam invariably means ripping the heart out of Iraq's military (again). So, if you have a population that has been brainwashed for 20+ years by the government manufactured Saddam personality cult, and nothing to control said population and guide it into pledging allegiance to a secular, pro-West regime, what does that make you if you think it will work?

I will give you a hint. It means the same thing as 'idiot', only it's alot more profane.

[SirLoins 0]

Ralph, Thanks to Clinton's nice ecomomic work??? Please tell me more. But first read this article.

Robert Novak's column last week proved, using the Commerce Department's revised numbers, that the economic books of the country were cooked in 1999 and 2000. Clinton-Gore lied about how much profit the government took in by almost one third so they could help Gore hold the White House. The Washington Times reports that Clinton-Gore claimed the economic growth rate on Election Day 2000 was 4.4%, but revised (read: truthful) numbers show it to have been less than 2.7% - and it fell to an abysmal 1.1% during the fourth quarter – when the Democrats were screaming at Bush for talking about an economic slowdown.

A 1.1% growth rate around Election Day 2000 is key, because in the first three-quarters of 1992 it averaged 3.6%and rose to 5.4% during the fourth quarter that year. You'll remember how the Clinton-Gore team bashed the Bush 41 economic record without us reminding you. The revisions to the supposedly record levels of corporate profits for 2000 are even more shocking. We now know pre-tax profits for non-financial domestic industries peaked in 1997.

Now, there's no paper trail proving that Clinton-Gore guided this deception, but no one at the Commerce Department would do this on their own - and we think we know who might have. While Donna Brazile was in fact Gore's campaign chair of the failed Algore 2000 campaign, the "honorary chairman" was Bill "Bugsy" Daley, Clinton-Gore's Commerce Secretary! There's a reason you put a vote-stealing, win-at-any-cost man without scruples at the head of a cabinet department. So Gore had to know what was going on.

These numbers will keep being revised to subtract Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, Global Crossing, etc., because those companies inflated profits in the last two years of Clinton-Gore. Now, if you tell the IRS you underestimate your income by 30%, and therefore you underpaid your taxes by 30%, you can't get away with saying, "Whoops." We shouldn't let Clinton-Gore off the hook so easily either. They lied and overstated all their economic numbers. There was no Clinton boom, and whether they knew about the inflated numbers then or not, they know now, so it's time to stop perpetuating the lie.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Novak's depiction- he is a CONSERVATIVE. you try to say that this guy is a neutral party? I base my analysis on a better basis-FRB's data.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Election Day 2000 was 4.4%, but revised (read: truthful) numbers show it to have been less than 2.7% - and it fell to an abysmal 1.1%<span id='postcolor'>

you seriously think there will be ppl not going nuts over this? there is significant difference btw ANNUAL increase and QUARTERLY increase.(note. 4*quarterly increase is not Annual increase)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We now know pre-tax profits for non-financial domestic industries peaked in 1997.<span id='postcolor'>

meaning what? economy was great in 1997-Clinton's era, contrary to fellow Republican's claim.

i can't find all the threads where I talked about Clinton era...damn i hate search function