Bush has won for the second term!!!

For all that I just said, it is humans thinking in terms of Yes, and No.
That means Bush is aware of the problems in the world.

Here is how I realistically look at problems in the world. They are a combination of mistakes made by a number of people. To make this problem go away, we all have to change ourselves and correct our mistakes. People who want to keep choosing to take life and pledge a war on the US economy wish to take on the philosophy you are either the solution or the problem.

Osama claims (he does over and over again) to be the source of the US attacks, he also takes claim to being the #1 problem in the world, and everyone that takes his position will be dealt with like he is a bad influence on society.

Tell me, is it realistic to solve all the problems like Bill Clinton believed he could? He couldn't solve all world problems and hunger in 8 years. Get realistic.

My problem with Bill Clinton is that if you say it is ok when it isn't, you are only fooling yourself and the truth is not in you. He basically lived a lie in my eyes. (yes, Living a lie TimmmMMmaH) But I'm a republican tainted with a belief in how you need to live to ensure the existance of society.

So if Osama is the world's #1 problem (which you seem to agree with) why did Bush take the detour to Iraq?

yes, republican gooooood

democrat baaaaaad

bill clinton is responsible for everything wrong during his term.

bush is at fault for nothing that went wrong in his term.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So if Osama is the world's #1 problem (which you seem to agree with) why did Bush take the detour to Iraq?

just give up.
he will not face the most blatent reality, as is the case with many other
bush supporters. the truth shall be selectively ignored and when proven wrong, they will quickly change the subject and eventually loop back to the
beginning, which is where we are now.

bush declared that osama was "on the run" and that was stripped of his power and no longer a realistic threat. he stated openly that he wasnt concerned about him and was bold enough to REPEAT it.

the circle is now complete

PVS dude, I'm a republican, I'm not saying he's evil, I'm saying he's wrong. I'm saying if everyone acted like Bill Clinton it would be a bad thing. I'm sure you say the same about Bush, so touche. We got party lines.

Bush took the Detour to Iraq because of a statement on his position on the war on terror was "If you harbor terrorists, or do not reject terrorism" you will be dealt with as a terrorist. Saddam has used terror on his troops running them to fight and ordering them killed if they should retreat in 1991 Desert Storm. Not only was Saddam a bad person, but it was likely he had not gotten rid of the weapons that he promised, so he had to look into Iraq. People asked from Iraq for help from the US before, and there was a chance terrorists could get a great advantage to use it against the US if Saddam held it. When Saddam acted as he did to the US for his reasons, it was interpreted as noncooperation and war was declared 5 months after UN inspections were held on march 19th, 2003.

Saddam failed to reason with a republican. You either pass, or fail.

Then why didn't he invade Iran which was a more immediate threat?

Iran is next if they don't reason with a republican in a yes or no fashion. Read my previous post, I feel I'm typing the same logic over and over.

Realistically. Iraq was easier because of the history between the US and Iraq looking at recent conflicts on the time line. In Bush's thinking, taking Iraq would make Iran see the same point, and why not take out Saddam in the process. It isn't far from the truth.

Even if Iraq had the technology to assemble nuclear weapons (which they don't) it would have been over 25 years till they were capabke of it.
Iraq also did not support or volutarily house any Al Queda terrorists, they just "got off" on what they were doing.

Iraq on the other hand is weel on it's way to nuclear capability, plus it is a state with already established ties, and sympathy to, terrorist causes.

So what you are saying is that you attacked Iraq because it was easier?

Read the part of my post where it said

Saddam was asked a question. He either would Pass, or fail.
Either you do, or you don't cooperate with inspectors.
If you cooperate, it shouldn't take 5 months.
It took 5 months and longer, Bush decided that as non-cooperation, makes the war on Iraq on March 19th, 2003 and makes Iraq an example of what can happen when you "fail" a republican exam of answering and complying to the question "are you with terrorists? or against them?" Are you a good witch? Or a bad witch? Are you saying Saddam was not a witch at all? 😂

I'm saying Iraq was chosen because the people of the US would vote to support war there more easily than Iran. Iran wouldn't have gone nicely. We'll let the Iranian government decide if they want a taste.

I'm not a commander in chief... I don't know the technical reasons the president was given.

So if Bush doesn't get an answer that fits his schedule, it's ok to kill 40,000 people and accomplish nothing while actual threats remain untouched. I fail to see the reasoning that makes you think that this is all acceptable.

Iran knows not to mess with Texas. When Bush said "Make no Mistake" he is telling people, don't play the gray area, either you are going to stop terrorists or you shouldn't be allowed to have power over people.

He is seriously trying to stop terrorism at a speed that is realistic. He can't take on the whole world at once, so he is having to make his point in the middle east because that is where alot of the stress is centered in the world. To relieve that stress, is probably risky, but to allow it to continue is just as risky.

Iran will not listen to Bush. You fail to realize that the people in the middle east do not tremble in fear of the military power of the west.

They continue their nuclear advancement in the face of global unrest and their prepartation with a conflict with the US is hastening their efforts.

Iran wants to play then, I suppose.

Keep in mind, all Iran has to do to keep nuclear power is to reject terrorists, and show that they reject terrorism actively, and they won't get touched.

Originally posted by kingcoot
PVS dude, I'm a republican, I'm not saying he's evil, I'm saying he's wrong. I'm saying if everyone acted like Bill Clinton it would be a bad thing. I'm sure you say the same about Bush, so touche. We got party lines.

Bush took the Detour to Iraq because of a statement on his position on the war on terror was "If you harbor terrorists, or do not reject terrorism" you will be dealt with as a terrorist. Saddam has used terror on his troops running them to fight and ordering them killed if they should retreat in 1991 Desert Storm. Not only was Saddam a bad person, but it was likely he had not gotten rid of the weapons that he promised, so he had to look into Iraq. People asked from Iraq for help from the US before, and there was a chance terrorists could get a great advantage to use it against the US if Saddam held it. When Saddam acted as he did to the US for his reasons, it was interpreted as noncooperation and war was declared 5 months after UN inspections were held on march 19th, 2003.

Saddam failed to reason with a republican. You either pass, or fail.

Let's get one thing straight before this conversation goes any further. The "War on Terror" isn't really a war on terror at all. It's a war on Islamic fundamentalists, and there WERE NONE of them in Iraq.

There are now though, funny thing was that Iraq was a secular nation, and in a few years there's a ggod chance that it could become an Fundamentalist Islamic nation.

You don't get it, They are there now. Trying to touch us, because they are in the neighborhood. So there is strategy, misunderstood by democrats and others, to focus on the central area of the terrorists.

Do you not understand Bush is fully aware that it would happen and he is keeping forces there to hold Iraq elections? Don't take Bush to be some simpleton, he put together an elite team of thinkers. He judges character better than most, I'd trust him a bit more than the freakin terrorists or some other government bodies.

I've already stated how War started in Iraq. It happened just as I explained it in 5 posts and 5 posts a few weeks back.

For everything I've said, just take this. Republicans think farther in advance than you would believe. I wouldn't underestimate some republican who was good in a chess match. Scarey. Maybe it is good Bush is president. Terrorists can underestimate the US for once.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
There are now though, funny thing was that Iraq was a secular nation, and in a few years there's a ggod chance that it could become an Fundamentalist Islamic nation.

Well, why not? It's the Evangelicals that kept Dubya in office, wasn't it? We all know that a country isn't worth its salt unless it's being ran by a fanatical religious leader, right?

Speaking of that diabolical Rovian ploy to harvest the Evangelical vote for Bush, I just want to say that we don't live in a theocracy, and I didn't go to the polls to vote for a religious leader. And anyone who did is far from being the "patriot" they claim to be.

cornponious

(yes, I'm registered as a Republican, but I'm all grown up now, and I don't let my parents decide what my political opinions are any more.)

I'm sorry you think Bush loves only religious believers. If it is any comfort, I find the right to believe anything should be repected. If you think Bush thinks something, just ask him what he believes if you really want to know what he thinks. That is the most efficient way of reasoning. Talk to the person if it is at all possible.

Saddam and Bush possible? No... not with their family history back in 1991.

Originally posted by kingcoot
You don't get it, They are there now. Trying to touch us, because they are in the neighborhood. So there is strategy, misunderstood by democrats and others, to focus on the central area of the terrorists.

Ah, but I DO get it, my brother. I know they are there now, and they weren't there before. It would have been much better to have just assassinated Hussein, and let the Iraqis sort things out, than to bomb the hell out of them, engaging in the mass murder (yes, murder) of over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and CHILDREN. Odds are, there would be a lot less "terrorists" there in that situation.

Originally posted by kingcoot Don't take Bush to be some simpleton, he put together an elite team of thinkers.[/b]

Oh, I'll take him to be a simpleton any day of the week, and no, Karl Rove put together an elite team of thinkers.

Originally posted by kingcoot He judges character better than most, I'd trust him a bit more than the freakin terrorists or some other government bodies.[/b]

So, you would trust a president who, while New York was burning, hung around an elementary school in Florida for over 20 minutes taking pictures with kids? Or, when he saw the first plane crash into the WTC on a TV upon arrival at a school, said "Boy, that's some bad pilot"?

Originally posted by kingcoot I've already stated how War started in Iraq. It happened just as I explained it in 5 posts and 5 posts a few weeks back. [/B]

Things are not as simple as that. Try to pry yourself away from Faux News and do some research on your own.

cornponious