If that's so important we sure have a lot of places to invade.... 1. Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan) 2. Kim Jong II (North Korea) 3. Than Shwe (Burma / Myanmar) 4. Hu Jintao (China) 5. Crown Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia) 6. Muammar al-Qaddafi (Libya) 7. Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan) 8. Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan) 9. Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe) 10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equitorial Guinea) 11. King Mswati III (Swaziland) 12. Aleksandr Lukashenko (Belarus) 13. Fidel Castro (Cuba) 14. Bashar al-Assad (Syria) 15. Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan) 16. Joseph Kabila (Democratic Republic of Congo) 17. Isaias Afwerki (Eritrea) 18. Seyed Ali Khamane'i (Iran) 19. Tran Duc Luong (Vietnam) 20. Khamtai Siphandon (Laos) 21. Abdulkassim Salat Hassan (Somalia) 22. Paul Kagame (Rwanda)
Since all of them would probably disappoint you as well, which would be the most disappointing for you?
I see you avoiding the point. The point is there are much much worse dictators and regimes doing much worse things than Saddam. Don't use "he was a bad guy" as an excuse for invading Iraq. It's bull shit and we both know it. If we cared about Human rights and brutal dictators we'd be in Sudan right now. Lets see: 1. Killing political opponents. 2. No religious freedom. 3. Rape and torture of women and children. 4. Rampant prostitution. 5. Ethnic/Racial minoritie descrimination. 6. Child labor. 7. SLAVERY. 8. Forced Labor The list gos on and on.... far worse then condition in Iraq... but who's liberating Sudan? I guess they didnt have enough oil....
Your reading comprehension skills are pathetic. Please go back and re-read the thread until you see definite improvement in your comprehension.
I didn't use any such excuse. I asked a question and you avoided it. And most likely you'd be whining about our presence there. But you avoided the question. Which one would disappoint you most?
So now you think the US' mission is to take on everything? I guess if the United Nations wasn't so busy taking oil bribes from saddam along with our allies, they might get off their tails and actually do something. Probably not
Actually I wouldn't even mind our presence in Iraq if it was actually to help the people. What dissapoints me the most is our incompetent government telling lies to the American people and making us look like jack asses to the rest of the world. If we were actually helping feed starving people instead of blowing them up Bush might have better than 26% approval ratings.
No, I think it's the government's responsibility to take care of the United States best interests. They obviously aren't doing that..
I see a few of our friends and allies on that list though? Including a few that already have nukes, did I miss something?
Are you giving zarqawi's credit to us again? We are there to help. What makes you think we are not? What lies is our government telling? Pick some out that you find on indy media and let's hash them out. Liberals are always worried how they look in the eyes of others. I guess you just skipped right over the article I posted about Bush increasing funding to Africa (in addition to humanitarian supplies). We do that already on a grand scale around the world. If it were about helping people, you'd have taken note of it. Bush's current ratings took a huge hit with Katrina. And rightfully so, the way the media and liberals (resorting to eating people, et al) attempted to portray it: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Some people are never content with taking care of our interests: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100600455_pf.html
You missed the small print that says anyone a) supplying us with lots of oil (or has none) and b) can put up a decent fight - has a free pass to be brutal, nourish and harbor terrorism, and violate human rights.
Does a lot of good to send Aid workers and food into a country where the leader arrests and jails them http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/sudan/usdos99_sudan.htm http://hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=sudan You think if Bush says they stopped 10 terrorst plots on the same week his approval ratings dropped to an all time low and starts babbling on about terrorism (scare tatctics) that's in my best interest? How about my best interest in the national deficit, the economy, unemployment or social security?
You mean like the oil here: http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/af/su/p0005.htm BTW, I'm not opposed in the least bit for going into the Sudan. I've briefly touched the topic here at DP before.
I'm afraid to tell you it has alot more to do with it than that, right wingers are attacking Bush, watched many of them on Television last night alone and it had nothing to do with Katrina. Many appear to have finally snapped with his latest supreme court nominee, not only attacking him on that point but also almost admitting they only 'sided' with him because he was a republican and thought he was on their side on their most important issues. Now this appears not to be the case and he's losing his base. At least that's what I'm getting from some of the latest interviews I've watched of people who never spoke a bad word about Bush and now let insults flow out of their mouths more freely than beer gets dranken in Wisconsin on a Saturday night. -edit it might be short lived, but I almost shit my pants seeing right wingers attacking Bush, never thought I'd see the day.
Blame it on Bush. It's his fault Have we stopped them, or not? So you are disappointed if we do, disappointed if we don't? That makes sense, as usual. Scare tactics? And if NYC (not Bush) hadn't made a warning, hadn't made arrests, then you'd fault them for not doing that. It's a no-win situation. You don't seem to care one way or another, except to complain and whine about it. That's not an effective way to show you pretend to care. Unemployment is doing well, despite the clinton recession, 9/11 and corporate scandals. But I've already covered that. Economy is doing well, though Katrina I'm sure will contribute to some short-term losses. Social Security? You got a beef with that too? SS is Bush's fault. Even before he was born, he was taking credit for where it will end up. Deficit, can't take an exception there. Other than to point out Mia's previous post on the topic about how it was lowered under Clinton. Your best interest? That's part of being a liberal. It's always about "me, me, me, me." Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Long gone are the days when Democrats energized our nation with sentences like those. These days, it's all about "where's mine?"
Were any of the arrests made in New York, I thought they were made in Iraq? New York also went off of into that was provided by them from the feds, of course New York if given info about a possible attack even if told it wasn't very credible is going to do something. Don't see how the blame could be shifted onto New York at all, especially since they don't handle international intel. I'll admit though I've only partially followed this as I've been gone and or busy the past few days, did read a bid on it though, guess I'll have to do some more reading.