Bush the Idiot at work again on global destabilization!

[Epinephrine]

The UN failed, every single resolution was ignored. Inspectors were not allowed to do their jobs. That was no solution, it was a failure. And if it did suceed? UN was going to send in 'peace-keepers'?

The The Iraq Study Group report? Did you read the qualifications that were made?
Qualifications like the withdrawal of combat troops "not needed for force protection," though they will be needed, if only because US trainers embedded in Iraqi units will be at risk in a country where 60% approve of attacks on US soldiers.
The Report recommends reorganizing "the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise," but does not elaborate on what this implies, presumably to deflect obvious questions about the goals of the invasion.

No, sorry. The report is not a solution when it contains qualifications like these. The report was political in nature.

I respectfully disagree with your statement about leadership. The PEOPLE elect the leadership, the buck stops with us all. The US people 'sent a message' in the elections a few weeks ago. The message was 'we want change' yet the Democrats have NO plan. The public is not willing to spend the time it takes to become educated. This is the same public that spends more time clipping coupons each year than they spend doing long-term financial planning.

But the inspectors and sanctions and resolutions WERE doing their jobs. Bush said they weren't, but they were. How do I know they were working? Well... IRAQ HAD NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM. That's why. The UN didn't need to send in peacekeepers because there was absolutely NO REASON to do so. For all intents and purposes the UN was given free reign over Iraq. Just because they couldn't find something that didn't exist, doesn't mean that they failed.

Iraq also wasn't supporting al queda. Iraq is also nowhere near a stable democracy right now in the way that was sold to everyone before the war. On absolutely every point, the war was absolutely POINTLESS, and in fact as we are seeing now, may be causing more harm than good.

As for the Democrats, the President dictates how the war is run as he is the commander in chief. While congress may pass a bill to stop funding the war to force the president's hand, the president can still veto that. The democrats do not control enough of a majority to override the veto. Besides do you seriously think anyone is going to stop "funding the troops" and actually win another election?

And yes, the people elect the leadership... the people really dropped the ball on this one!

Just because you choose to ignore all recommendations and solutions presented, doesn't mean that there are none. You say that we should just trust the leadership because absolutely everyone else is just whining with no real solutions. I point out things which were given as solutions, you reject them. It's okay that you reject them, but the fact that solutions WERE given and not used shows that your very point that everyone is just whining is absolutely and completely false.

The solution is simple, pull out of Iraq. Bush doesn't want to do that. But I guess everyone who says 'let's pull out of Iraq' are just whiners with no real idea about anything right?

[T3l Ca7]

Yes, Bush senior was president then, but he's made official statements saying he doesn't agree with the way this military operation is being run. The exact opposite of what you claim. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Wow, there! Like father like son, guess what Bush Jr would be saying in 10 years time? Of course War on Iraq was not George W. Bush's idea. Ever wondered why 'history' is spelt 'his(S)tory'?

The original source for the beginning of this post may have been Cuban reporter, but who is to say that it's not correct when we have our own media censoring our news on TV and the Net. I posted previously about how NBC & CBS avoided a story on the sales of Nuclear Technology that violated the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, yet we ignored that and sold the info to India. We never saw this on our news because the owners of the media outlets are also the same companies that will supply the nuclear technology and info to India, not to leave out tha they are making monies off of it!

So is a Cuban news report bad because it's from a Cuban or are the media outlets in the U.S. that censor information such as weapons & nuclear deals to countries with ties to Iran more reputable?

You decide!

Hey 404, have you heard about the news that India originally approached Australian government for uranium, but Australian government declined their request and would not sell them any uranium because they have not signed the Nuclear Treaty, namely they can not utilise the uranium they bought for military use.
That is when you idiotic president Bush rushed in and asked India whether they would be interested to buy uranium from the United States of America, despite the fact he knew for a fact India had not signed the Nuclear treaty!

Bush really is a stupid, selfish being with low moral!!!

Point is that it is unconfirmed. 'Confirming' something USE to be the primary purpose of news agencies, now with the competition of 24 hours news, internet, etc the media has changed.

Competition from who? Ever heard of monopoly? Competition from the internet ... but oh the internet news are 'unreliable' according to you.

[Zeebu]

Competition from who? Ever heard of monopoly? Competition from the internet ... but oh the internet news are 'unreliable' according to you.

fox news vs cnn




BYAAAAHHHH!

[Vatican Assassin]

And yes, the people elect the leadership... the people really dropped the ball on this one!

In 2000 when this guy got "elected" it was actually the supreme courth which had the final say on who won, a supreme court composed of judges whom were each nominated by former presidents. So, in effect, we got the elective branch electing the judiciary branch which in turn elected the president. And don't get me started on Electronic Voting Fraud! It may be that the people are too far removed from the actual presidential election process. In conclusion: Schwarzenegger '08!

http://www.arnoldexposed.com/

[T3l Ca7]

Ok, monopoly was an inappropriate use of a word. Since there are so few players in the media field, there is definitely collusion going on. Competition only happens when there are enough players in the field. More importantly, no big business owner would be dumb enough to upset regulators.