Iraqi's came out to vote in droves despite the terrorists best attempts to violence. They danced in the streets thanking America and Mr. Bush! Not bad for a bunch of warmonging republicans who are looking to secure their oil interests...eh?

Iraqi's dancing in the streets.....Go Dubya!!! Yay!!!!

Those are Iraqi Kurds Gdub.They are not representative of the Iraqi people as a whole.

Plus I dont see any American flags or GWB effigies.

Oh and terrerist is spelt t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t dork boy.

or should that be Sir Dork of Dorksville ?

Sorry...I had phoned KPG for the correct spelling and typed it down. I knew I should have went to you instead Reed!!!

GO DUBYA, GO Tony Blair!!!!   Hurrah!!!!!

damn, there isn't a vomit in disgust icon. They're just dancing because they got out of the voting booths alive,with no help from our "president"

The truth hurts....doesn't it guys.... Go on living your opium, euphoric, pro-liberal dreams of past grandeur you Europeans do so well at. Yes , you are still significant in the political playground these days....night, night!!

Europe=Melnibone in its last days.

Reed Lover wrote: Melnibone? That's poorly-written girly Fantasy Fiction aint it?

aha! and the author is  a Brit!!!!

maybe its democracy and freedom they love? but hey i could be wrong.

Hangedman wrote: maybe its democracy and freedom they love? but hey i could be wrong.

Of course they do...and who epitomizes democracy and freedom better than the greatest leader the world has ever known?

DUBYA!!!!!

gdub411 wrote: Hangedman wrote: maybe its democracy and freedom they love? but hey i could be wrong. Of course they do...and who epitomizes democracy and freedom better than the greatest leader the world has ever known? DUBYA!!!!!

Are you serious? Or is this all a big joke?

He's serious alright !

Seriously in need of euthanasia!

gdub411 wrote: Hangedman wrote: maybe its democracy and freedom they love? but hey i could be wrong. Of course they do...and who epitomizes democracy and freedom better than the greatest leader the world has ever known? DUBYA!!!!!

How about the qoute "freedom needs limits"? If hes to be considered one of the best leaders, that makes Hitler the absolute best . No one had control over his own counrty like that man. (Oh and just a heads up, word is the iraquis are still pretty pissed about all the civilian casualties, but hey if theyre not americans theyre not really people right?)

Hangedman wrote: gdub411 wrote: [QUOTE=Hangedman] maybe its democracy and freedom they love? but hey i could be wrong. Of course they do...and who epitomizes democracy and freedom better than the greatest leader the world has ever known? DUBYA!!!!!

How about the qoute "freedom needs limits"? If hes to be considered one of the best leaders, that makes Hitler the absolute best . No one had control over his own counrty like that man. (Oh and just a heads up, word is the iraquis are still pretty pissed about all the civilian casualties, but hey if theyre not americans theyre not really people right?)

War is bloody, no doubt. Casaulties are a consequence to war. No matter a government's best efforts to keep them minimal, it still happens. Remember though...many of the casaulties happened when terrorists were killing their own countrymen. These butchers must be stopped and will as soon as the new Iraqi government is in place and can police their own matters. I believe that 100 years from now Bush will be appraised as a do'er and a visionary and not an appeaser which is what Kerry or Gore would have been had they been elected.

Coming from a long line of sociolists this propaganda is rather disgusting.

Can't wait for that new government to come in, should fix that country nice and straight just like the past governments set up by Americans, like in Liberia. You want prosperity look to Liberia right?

There's a lot to be learned from the past. Perhapps the reason the American education system is so lacking, is because they don't want to teach history, which will reveal the true intentions of the American Government?

LMA()! America is so K()()1 and 1 luv gogre Dubya Bush cuz hes freeing up the wurld and stuff so that we wont get shot by anyone. Theres a wallmart in my town and my mom says that terorists want to blow up wallmarts so we shoudl get them fust!'

when you get old enough u should vote for the empire, i meen the republic so that way we can be safe from the terrerists.

gdub411 wrote: Hangedman wrote: gdub411 wrote: [QUOTE=Hangedman] maybe its democracy and freedom they love? but hey i could be wrong. Of course they do...and who epitomizes democracy and freedom better than the greatest leader the world has ever known? DUBYA!!!!!   How about the qoute "freedom needs limits"? If hes to be considered one of the best leaders, that makes Hitler the absolute best . No one had control over his own counrty like that man. (Oh and just a heads up, word is the iraquis are still pretty pissed about all the civilian casualties, but hey if theyre not americans theyre not really people right?) War is bloody, no doubt. Casaulties are a consequence to war. No matter a government's best efforts to keep them minimal, it still happens. Remember though...many of the casaulties happened when terrorists were killing their own countrymen. These butchers must be stopped and will as soon as the new Iraqi government is in place and can police their own matters. I believe that 100 years from now Bush will be appraised as a do'er and a visionary and not an appeaser which is what Kerry or Gore would have been had they been elected.

i dont like kerry either, gore is intelligent but honestly probably wouldnt have made a better leader than bush. All things aside, bush does stick by his guns (haha, unintentional pun). I just dont like his politics. (And if i did that would be unpatriotic.)

Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?!

So then ROB, you're my dopleganger! We must fight to the death!

Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?!

Hey Canada has a socialist government and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one.

Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one.

Hey without a military you can't invade countries and destroy culturs though! That's terrible. I mean, where would Africa be without colonization!?

Rob The Plant wrote: Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one. Hey without a military you can't invade countries and destroy culturs though! That's terrible. I mean, where would Africa be without colonization!?

Actually I think Africa was more stable when it was under the ruling thumb of Britain, France, Spain and Italy. There is more unrest and bloodshed there now then there was back in the good old days of colonization.

gdub411 wrote: A weak military invites aggression....that can be proven throughout history. Canada isn't invaded, because it doesn't hold alot of strategic importance nor does it have any significant resources that one can't aquire elsewhere. Also, why have a military when the USA wouldn't stand for Canada being invaded. Worry not my larger, but weaker neighbor...the US will protect you!

Or Canada doesn't get invaded because we don't go around pissing off the rest of the world.

Useful_Idiot wrote: gdub411 wrote: A weak military invites aggression....that can be proven throughout history. Canada isn't invaded, because it doesn't hold alot of strategic importance nor does it have any significant resources that one can't aquire elsewhere. Also, why have a military when the USA wouldn't stand for Canada being invaded. Worry not my larger, but weaker neighbor...the US will protect you! Or Canada doesn't get invaded because we don't go around pissing off the rest of the world.

excellent point mate!

gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one. Hey without a military you can't invade countries and destroy culturs though! That's terrible. I mean, where would Africa be without colonization!? Actually I think Africa was more stable when it was under the ruling thumb of Britain, France, Spain and Italy. There is more unrest and bloodshed there now then there was back in the good old days of colonization.

yes, but like North America Africa would have been better if Europeans never colonized at all.
See the pattern?

Useful_Idiot wrote: gdub411 wrote: A weak military invites aggression....that can be proven throughout history. Canada isn't invaded, because it doesn't hold alot of strategic importance nor does it have any significant resources that one can't aquire elsewhere. Also, why have a military when the USA wouldn't stand for Canada being invaded. Worry not my larger, but weaker neighbor...the US will protect you! Or Canada doesn't get invaded because we don't go around pissing off the rest of the world.

Hmm. that didn't work when Japan invaded China back in 37. That didn't work when Germany invaded Belgium, Holland, France, Poland ,etc,etc....back in 1939-1940. Should we go to the Napoleanic era? How about the Huns, the Vikings, The Mongols and such. Did they need any reason other than spoils of war? How about Saddam going into Kuwait? Shall I continue?.....

one doesn't need to instigate or provoke another to head off to war.

I'll say it again...Go back as far as you like and there will be proof that a weak military invites aggression.

you are young and idealistic UI as I was at one time too...perhaps in the future you'll see things in a better light.

gdub411 wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: gdub411 wrote: A weak military invites aggression....that can be proven throughout history. Canada isn't invaded, because it doesn't hold alot of strategic importance nor does it have any significant resources that one can't aquire elsewhere. Also, why have a military when the USA wouldn't stand for Canada being invaded. Worry not my larger, but weaker neighbor...the US will protect you! Or Canada doesn't get invaded because we don't go around pissing off the rest of the world. Hmm. that didn't work when Japan invaded China back in 37. That didn't work when Germany invaded Belgium, Holland, France, Poland ,etc,etc....back in 1939-1940. Should we go to the Napoleanic era? How about the Huns, the Vikings, The Mongols and such. Did they need any reason other than spoils of war? How about Saddam going into Kuwait? Shall I continue?..... one doesn't need to instigate or provoke another to head off to war. I'll say it again...Go back as far as you like and there will be proof that a weak military invites aggression. you are young and idealistic UI as I was at one time too...perhaps in the future you'll see things in a better light.

Belgium was a nice route for the Germans. China was an enemy. Poland, "manifest Destiny "thing. Canada for one doesn't have to worry about that.

Rob The Plant wrote: gdub411 wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: gdub411 wrote: A weak military invites aggression....that can be proven throughout history. Canada isn't invaded, because it doesn't hold alot of strategic importance nor does it have any significant resources that one can't aquire elsewhere. Also, why have a military when the USA wouldn't stand for Canada being invaded. Worry not my larger, but weaker neighbor...the US will protect you! Or Canada doesn't get invaded because we don't go around pissing off the rest of the world. Hmm. that didn't work when Japan invaded China back in 37. That didn't work when Germany invaded Belgium, Holland, France, Poland ,etc,etc....back in 1939-1940. Should we go to the Napoleanic era? How about the Huns, the Vikings, The Mongols and such. Did they need any reason other than spoils of war? How about Saddam going into Kuwait? Shall I continue?..... one doesn't need to instigate or provoke another to head off to war. I'll say it again...Go back as far as you like and there will be proof that a weak military invites aggression. you are young and idealistic UI as I was at one time too...perhaps in the future you'll see things in a better light.   Belgium was a nice route for the Germans. China was an enemy. Poland, "manifest Destiny "thing. Canada for one doesn't have to worry about that.

correct...as I stated above....Canada isn't strategically important in the scheme of things....except maybe to harrass the US.

gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: gdub411 wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: gdub411 wrote: A weak military invites aggression....that can be proven throughout history. Canada isn't invaded, because it doesn't hold alot of strategic importance nor does it have any significant resources that one can't aquire elsewhere. Also, why have a military when the USA wouldn't stand for Canada being invaded. Worry not my larger, but weaker neighbor...the US will protect you! Or Canada doesn't get invaded because we don't go around pissing off the rest of the world. Hmm. that didn't work when Japan invaded China back in 37. That didn't work when Germany invaded Belgium, Holland, France, Poland ,etc,etc....back in 1939-1940. Should we go to the Napoleanic era? How about the Huns, the Vikings, The Mongols and such. Did they need any reason other than spoils of war? How about Saddam going into Kuwait? Shall I continue?..... one doesn't need to instigate or provoke another to head off to war. I'll say it again...Go back as far as you like and there will be proof that a weak military invites aggression. you are young and idealistic UI as I was at one time too...perhaps in the future you'll see things in a better light.   Belgium was a nice route for the Germans. China was an enemy. Poland, "manifest Destiny "thing. Canada for one doesn't have to worry about that. correct...as I stated above....Canada isn't strategically important in the scheme of things....except maybe to harrass the US.

We agree then. America needs Defense though, not offense, and the more small countries they invade, the more they take, the less they can handle. Then their empire will crumble! hahahaha! And Canada can take over, and all of Norht America will be socialist!

America will fall deeper and deeper into debt, then realize it's not worth expanding. Kurds shi'ites, etc will battle over the land, and eventually a new anti-American government will emerge. You gave them the weapons fools!

DO they teach history in The States?

Garion81 wrote:   I agree with GDub on this. Over 50% of eligible voters turned out in Iraq. No country that has free elections can claim better right now, I'll wager, including the United States. Even if they don't like Bush or Americas presence they turned out, historically, to create a new nation in a region ruled by dictators going back to Nimrod. They did so under the threat of death, amazing. If anyone here has a problem with that then you hate democracy. If nothing else, no matter what happens, the people of Iraq at least have a small chance to create a government free of dictators or a pawn of rich fanatical terrorists. I wish them the best. It will be the first in that region among Arab countries. Contrary to popular world belief the people of the United States don’t wake up every morning to kiss a picture of Dubya’s butt before leaving for work. There are things that bother me about his policies but those are more domestically than in Iraq. Lets talk about the secret contacts the French had with Sadam and the nuclear reactors they built there before we start bashing Dubya on getting rid of him. That is a far more dangerous and untouched subject on this forum. Oh, but the French had no reason to oppose the US policy on Iraq except pure humanitarian reason. Bullsh*t. Oh, to our friends to the north even if Canada pissed someone off who cares?

Democracy? 51% says yes, the other 49% can go to hell. That's democracy right?

you voted for a government which does the opposite of what you hire them to do!

Nice work.

Rob The Plant wrote: Garion81 wrote:   cares?   Democracy? 51% says yes, the other 49% can go to hell. That's democracy right?

Lets see the US had 48% last election How many rode their donkeys to the polls in your last election?  over 50% UNDER THE THREAT OF DEATH. You couldn't get 35% in 85 degree weather on a Holiday I bet. Wait you can't vote your not old enough.

Garion81 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Garion81 wrote:   cares?   Democracy? 51% says yes, the other 49% can go to hell. That's democracy right?   Lets see the US had 48% last election How many rode their donkeys to the polls in your last election?  over 50% UNDER THE THREAT OF DEATH. You couldn't get 35% in 85 degree weather on a Holiday I bet. Wait you can't vote your not old enough.

I wasn't referring to voter turnout. I wish we rode donkeys up here! 

I think the progress in iraq is exceptional. And i would support it much more if the reason for invasion was to oust hussein rather than to disarm imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

I think the united states should take initiative and disarm thier own "weapons of mass destruction", i know the whole "BUT THEN THEY COULD NUKE/GASS US AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO". wrong, even without nuclear weapons united states still has the most powerfull military in the world. I think there is some things that man should not play with, and "mass destruction" is one of them.

As for being idealistic, I dont think so. I understand that the ideals are unattainalbe, but as human beings it is our duty to try and get as close to utopia as we possibly can. basically to shorten the gap between what we have, and what the ideal is.

and in Canada I am old enough to vote(and drink - 18(I love quebec)) and have done so before.

Canada is an isolationist country, like the us used to be back in 1914. (funny enough canada at the time also was a military superpower. My oh my how things change eh?) Which I support, were to small population wise to really have an impact on anything. Leave it to the big boys.

Now just a bit to the france hating, part of the american jokes about the french are about how the government surrenderd in the second world war. Might I add against the will of the people, who then conducted one of themost successfull guerilla wars of all time, tieing up thousands of soldiers and hundreds of SS agents. Now the U.S. on the other hand didnt enter the war at all, untill both the alliance and the nazi's were ready to fall apart. Of course the americans won, their was no way they could of lost. (well unless maybe they didnt bomb the japanese, and required the massive amount of troops to actually take it over. Oh and i think bombing them was the right decision, the amount of people on both sides that would have died in an invasion would have been discusting.) so who was more cowardly? the people who were betrayed by thier government? Or the people to scared to muddy thier boots?

It's sick to insult the french concerning WW2, how could someone sink that low?

If America was prepared to enter a war to liberate it would be different, however it's an unrealistic goal, and unless Dubya (or rather those who control him) were complete idiots they would realize that it is not going to happen, therefore they must have entered the war for resources.

Hangedman wrote: I think the progress in iraq is exceptional. And i would support it much more if the reason for invasion was to oust hussein rather than to disarm imaginary weapons of mass destruction. I think the united states should take initiative and disarm thier own "weapons of mass destruction", i know the whole "BUT THEN THEY COULD NUKE/GASS US AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO". wrong, even without nuclear weapons united states still has the most powerfull military in the world. I think there is some things that man should not play with, and "mass destruction" is one of them. As for being idealistic, I dont think so. I understand that the ideals are unattainalbe, but as human beings it is our duty to try and get as close to utopia as we possibly can. basically to shorten the gap between what we have, and what the ideal is. and in Canada I am old enough to vote(and drink - 18(I love quebec)) and have done so before. Canada is an isolationist country, like the us used to be back in 1914. (funny enough canada at the time also was a military superpower. My oh my how things change eh?) Which I support, were to small population wise to really have an impact on anything. Leave it to the big boys. Now just a bit to the france hating, part of the american jokes about the french are about how the government surrenderd in the second world war. Might I add against the will of the people, who then conducted one of themost successfull guerilla wars of all time, tieing up thousands of soldiers and hundreds of SS agents. Now the U.S. on the other hand didnt enter the war at all, untill both the alliance and the nazi's were ready to fall apart. Of course the americans won, their was no way they could of lost. (well unless maybe they didnt bomb the japanese, and required the massive amount of troops to actually take it over. Oh and i think bombing them was the right decision, the amount of people on both sides that would have died in an invasion would have been discusting.) so who was more cowardly? the people who were betrayed by thier government? Or the people to scared to muddy thier boots?

Hmm....the nazi's were ready to fall apart in late 41'?....you have really never examined the military Germany  possessed then. With Russia in the War there is no telling how WWII would have gone without the USA. Indeed we were isolationists, but trust me when I say we were not ready for war in 39' militarily or mentally. It would have been a disaster.

Apparently France had not the stomach for war either as they rolled over after the nazi's captured Paris. Indeed the French citizenship fought a valiant guerrilla campaign, but their government failed them big time. That whole pro nazi Vichy French thing was an embarrassment for their country. I don't blame France for what happened in WWII...the Germans clearly had better leadership and a more modern military and there was little they could have done. Even if the French government would have fought on, though, Germany was taking them anyway. I just don't like their present day attitude.

Also saying we were too scared to muddy our boots when we fought a highly bloody campaign in the dense jungles of the  Pacific and lost tons of soldiers in the battle for Okinawa, is just silly. You Europeans weren't dealing with a nation with the crazed,never say die, fervor, the Japanese possessed. We would of had to kill darn near every one of those crazed maniacs to take that Island. 

gdub411 wrote: Hmm....the nazi's were ready to fall apart in late 41'?....you have really never examined the military Germany  possessed then. With Russia in the War there is no telling how WWII would have gone without the USA. Indeed we were isolationists, but trust me when I say we were not ready for war in 39' militarily or mentally. It would have been a disaster. Apparently France had not the stomach for war either as they rolled over after the nazi's captured Paris. Indeed the French citizenship fought a valiant guerrilla campaign, but their government failed them big time. That whole pro nazi Vichy French thing was an embarrassment for their country. I don't blame France for what happened in WWII...the Germans clearly had better leadership and a more modern military and there was little they could have done. Even if the French government would have fought on, though, Germany was taking them anyway. I just don't like their present day attitude. Also saying we were too scared to muddy our boots when we fought a highly bloody campaign in the dense jungles of the  Pacific and lost tons of soldiers in the battle for Okinawa, is just silly. You Europeans weren't dealing with a nation with the crazed,never say die, fervor, the Japanese possessed. We would of had to kill darn near every one of those crazed maniacs to take that Island.

dont get me wrong, if not for the us involvement the alliance probably would have been defeated and the world would be a very different, most likely devastated, place. The nazi army though was pressed on all sides, and was in serious trouble. Attacking the USSR was a horrible tactical mistake.

As for modern french, they are all over the place both politically and just well... personailty wise. Coming from someone who was raised French Canadian , the french from france love to insult anything that isnt from france (at least the travelling ones do). Hating them for it is like hating grasshoppers for jumping. It doesnt make sense.

and for the japanese, yeah they were pretty nuts. Thats why the nuclear weapons were employed. I mean the religious fanatics that were there are scarier than the historical christian ones (although less agressive) and the modern islamic fanatic. They really didnt give up.

First of all where did bashing France in WW2 start?  I said that no one talks about the secret contracts France and Germany had with Sadam in the last decade. If anyone thinks they're opposition to the war is for humanitarian or moral reasons think again.  It was far more dangerous that these two countries felt it was safe for the rest of the world to build nuclear power plants inside Iraq under Sadam. 

Second is yes, Rob, a majority government rules in a democracy but to say that the opposition  has no strong controls in place or no power is incorrect.  If you doubt me look at the committees and sub committees in congress and see what is actually given them to vote on and how much it changes before it comes back to signed.  Besides, regardless of Gdub or any president Congress has it's own agenda.  Democracy doesn't mean because someone gets elected they have unrestrained power. It is very different than that.  The fact that Congress has allowed things to go on in Iraq and Afghanistan is for the most part they believe what is happening is correct.  I would also say that the trend has been when one party has a majority in both houses of congress and the president the congress is much harsher on the president.  It happened under Reagon, Clinton and it will happen under Bush.  The Republicans have a divison that is much more moderate than Gdub. He will have some probelms trying accomplish some things. Watch. 

Hangedman wrote: . I think the united states should take initiative and disarm thier own "weapons of mass destruction", i know the whole "BUT THEN THEY COULD NUKE/GASS US AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO". wrong, even without nuclear weapons united states still has the most powerfull military in the world. I think there is some things that man should not play with, and "mass destruction" is one of them.

Yeah...and then I am sure the rest of  the world will follow suit and then get together for one giant hug!! Please!!!!

"Of course they do...and who epitomizes democracy and freedom better than the greatest leader the world has ever known?

DUBYA!!!!!"

I did not just read this did I? 

One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections..

The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement.

The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical.

Blacksword wrote: One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections.. The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement. The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical.

Well Said

People must remember the whole reason to go to Iraq was greed.  As long as the US corporations make their money, that is all that matters to the US government.  How can you trust governments that are run by political parties that care more about funding than principal and justice. 

Spartacus wrote: Blacksword wrote: One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections.. The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement. The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical. Well Said People must remember the whole reason to go to Iraq was greed.  As long as the US corporations make their money, that is all that matters to the US government.  How can you trust governments that are run by political parties that care more about funding than principal and justice.

As was the countries who opposed the US going in. They had put thier eggs in Sadams basket and they lost.   It was all greed. 

Jimmy Carter should hand over his Nobel Peace Prize to Dubya for bringing freedom, democracy and yes, eventually peace and stability to an otherwise instable region!

Dubya...The Peace Maker!!!

Wasnt the Winchester Rifle known as a peacemaker, because the Indains couldnt get near enough to fight back?

Reed Lover wrote: Wasnt the Winchester Rifle known as a peacemaker, because the Indains couldnt get near enough to fight back?

Yeah?  so what? 

Reed Lover wrote: Wasnt the Winchester Rifle known as a peacemaker, because the Indains couldnt get near enough to fight back?

Indeed...beautiful design and invention...I love the Tale of the Gun show on The History channel!

Should watch it more closely Dork Boy.

It was the Colt 45 which was known as The Peacemaker!!!!!

It is too easy sometimes.

Reed Lover wrote: Should watch it more closely Dork Boy. It was the Colt 45 which was known as The Peacemaker!!!!! It is too easy sometimes.

Actually I'd take the Winchester.  Longer range although less damage. Certainly had a huge effect on the last two years of the civil war.  Boys in gray didn't have them and the boys in blue did.  In fact I think Phil Sheridan really started something with his "mounted infantry" moving troops brigade and divison sized  by horse to a battle or during a battle all armed with the Winchester and other repeating rifles.  But hell, with medicine the way it was back then you could have killed someone with an icepick.

gdub411 wrote: Jimmy Carter should hand over his Nobel Peace Prize to Dubya for bringing freedom, democracy and yes, eventually peace and stability to an otherwise instable region!   Dubya...The Peace Maker!!!

Come on man, he's not going to stabalize the Middlee East! As Beu Heem and I said, the instability will return. America doesn't have the resources to fight a constant war to supress rebellions.

Dubya... The War Monger!!!

gdub411 wrote: Hangedman wrote: . I think the united states should take initiative and disarm thier own "weapons of mass destruction", i know the whole "BUT THEN THEY COULD NUKE/GASS US AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO". wrong, even without nuclear weapons united states still has the most powerfull military in the world. I think there is some things that man should not play with, and "mass destruction" is one of them. Yeah...and then I am sure the rest of  the world will follow suit and then get together for one giant hug!! Please!!!!

Hahaha, i was more suggesting an ultimatum, but whatever. Hey the USSR did it and you didnt nuke them. the fact is thier isnt one leader in the entire world who actually has th guts to do it, and if they did (and it wasnt the us) they would losthier power immediatly.

Sweetnighter wrote: Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist government and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one. Canada's social programs work because government legislation, particularly in terms of health care and drugs, forces low costs. Low costs result in medical providers jammed up in a system where they are hamstrung, unable to compete against other doctors in providing medical treatment, unable to use alternative medicine, unable to do basically anything other than what the government says they can do. Plus, if any Americans want to know why drug prices are so high in the US, its because other countries have price limitations... to balance the loss drug companies jack up prices in the states in order to make the kind of profits they want. So its no wonder that American seniors are heading to Canada to buy drugs... government coercion keeps prices down there. Should the US government try to put caps on drugs, I fear for the future of the drug industry... not so much in terms of whether or not they'll survive, which some might not, but the lack of competition in the market will really screw the consumers out of better, higher quality products. So as government medicine takes over in Canada, those in need of higher quality top-of-the-line medical care come to the States, to places like Cleveland, Chicago, and upstate New York where medicine hasn't been legislated into the ground, and Americans cross the border to take advantage of legislation that puts price caps on drugs. Why can't we just let the doctors take care of the medicine? Competition will grow, scientific development will prosper, drug prices will fall, and we won't have government agencies like the FDA withholding desperately needed drugs from the public because they haven't been "approved." After all, its not the government's responsibility to provide health care... let alone tell people whats best for them. I'd like to see where socialized medicine in Canada is thirty years from now. Socialist programs do not make profits: they feed off of the public and drive governments deeper and deeper into debt. These programs work for a while, but as government corruption grows and funds lessen, these programs start to falter. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare... all common examples. Anybody have any idea how heavily in debt the US government is, even excluding the Iraq war? Nobody knows, and frankly, who really wants to think about it? I don't. And I should add that diehard socialists will continually point to the rich portions of society and accuse them of greed and demand the government to steal their money and be like Robin Hood... and ask yourself: Do you want Robin Hood governing your country? Those who make money justly have the right to keep it... the US was founded on the principle of individual liberty and the right to reap the fruit of one's labor. If we give every man this opportunity, then individual's will thrive on their own rather than having to feed off of those who are already well off. Is being rich a crime? Finally, I should add that public education sucks. Not all people are suited for standard western education, its as simple as that. Some people would be better off learning in different environments! So what good does shoving thousands of energetic, violent and passionate teenagers into thousands of brick and cement "schools" all around the country do them? Sure, some make it through with a decent understanding of the world, but so many don't. Some come out emotionally scarred by the fighting, teasing, boredom, sleeping around, peer pressure, harassment, what have you. Public school kids are treated much more like sheep than human beings... a girl who I'm friends with who goes to another school is getting B+'s and A-'s in her school and she got a 700 on the SAT! Doesn't that say something about the quality of education? Furthermore, I do not support either the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. Wow, that was a rant.

Hey, I like the idea of not having to mortgage my house to get surgery. But i could be wrong.

Sweetnighter wrote: Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist government and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one. Canada's social programs work because government legislation, particularly in terms of health care and drugs, forces low costs. Low costs result in medical providers jammed up in a system where they are hamstrung, unable to compete against other doctors in providing medical treatment, unable to use alternative medicine, unable to do basically anything other than what the government says they can do. Plus, if any Americans want to know why drug prices are so high in the US, its because other countries have price limitations... to balance the loss drug companies jack up prices in the states in order to make the kind of profits they want. So its no wonder that American seniors are heading to Canada to buy drugs... government coercion keeps prices down there. Should the US government try to put caps on drugs, I fear for the future of the drug industry... not so much in terms of whether or not they'll survive, which some might not, but the lack of competition in the market will really screw the consumers out of better, higher quality products. So as government medicine takes over in Canada, those in need of higher quality top-of-the-line medical care come to the States, to places like Cleveland, Chicago, and upstate New York where medicine hasn't been legislated into the ground, and Americans cross the border to take advantage of legislation that puts price caps on drugs. Why can't we just let the doctors take care of the medicine? Competition will grow, scientific development will prosper, drug prices will fall, and we won't have government agencies like the FDA withholding desperately needed drugs from the public because they haven't been "approved." After all, its not the government's responsibility to provide health care... let alone tell people whats best for them. I'd like to see where socialized medicine in Canada is thirty years from now. Socialist programs do not make profits: they feed off of the public and drive governments deeper and deeper into debt. These programs work for a while, but as government corruption grows and funds lessen, these programs start to falter. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare... all common examples. Anybody have any idea how heavily in debt the US government is, even excluding the Iraq war? Nobody knows, and frankly, who really wants to think about it? I don't. And I should add that diehard socialists will continually point to the rich portions of society and accuse them of greed and demand the government to steal their money and be like Robin Hood... and ask yourself: Do you want Robin Hood governing your country? Those who make money justly have the right to keep it... the US was founded on the principle of individual liberty and the right to reap the fruit of one's labor. If we give every man this opportunity, then individual's will thrive on their own rather than having to feed off of those who are already well off. Is being rich a crime? Finally, I should add that public education sucks. Not all people are suited for standard western education, its as simple as that. Some people would be better off learning in different environments! So what good does shoving thousands of energetic, violent and passionate teenagers into thousands of brick and cement "schools" all around the country do them? Sure, some make it through with a decent understanding of the world, but so many don't. Some come out emotionally scarred by the fighting, teasing, boredom, sleeping around, peer pressure, harassment, what have you. Public school kids are treated much more like sheep than human beings... a girl who I'm friends with who goes to another school is getting B+'s and A-'s in her school and she got a 700 on the SAT! Doesn't that say something about the quality of education? Furthermore, I do not support either the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. Wow, that was a rant.

Drug comapny competition is terrible. They pop out new drugs just to market them as superior, when really the purest form of it often works best. Western medicine is horrible.

Hangedman wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist government and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one. Canada's social programs work because government legislation, particularly in terms of health care and drugs, forces low costs. Low costs result in medical providers jammed up in a system where they are hamstrung, unable to compete against other doctors in providing medical treatment, unable to use alternative medicine, unable to do basically anything other than what the government says they can do. Plus, if any Americans want to know why drug prices are so high in the US, its because other countries have price limitations... to balance the loss drug companies jack up prices in the states in order to make the kind of profits they want. So its no wonder that American seniors are heading to Canada to buy drugs... government coercion keeps prices down there. Should the US government try to put caps on drugs, I fear for the future of the drug industry... not so much in terms of whether or not they'll survive, which some might not, but the lack of competition in the market will really screw the consumers out of better, higher quality products. So as government medicine takes over in Canada, those in need of higher quality top-of-the-line medical care come to the States, to places like Cleveland, Chicago, and upstate New York where medicine hasn't been legislated into the ground, and Americans cross the border to take advantage of legislation that puts price caps on drugs. Why can't we just let the doctors take care of the medicine? Competition will grow, scientific development will prosper, drug prices will fall, and we won't have government agencies like the FDA withholding desperately needed drugs from the public because they haven't been "approved." After all, its not the government's responsibility to provide health care... let alone tell people whats best for them. I'd like to see where socialized medicine in Canada is thirty years from now. Socialist programs do not make profits: they feed off of the public and drive governments deeper and deeper into debt. These programs work for a while, but as government corruption grows and funds lessen, these programs start to falter. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare... all common examples. Anybody have any idea how heavily in debt the US government is, even excluding the Iraq war? Nobody knows, and frankly, who really wants to think about it? I don't. And I should add that diehard socialists will continually point to the rich portions of society and accuse them of greed and demand the government to steal their money and be like Robin Hood... and ask yourself: Do you want Robin Hood governing your country? Those who make money justly have the right to keep it... the US was founded on the principle of individual liberty and the right to reap the fruit of one's labor. If we give every man this opportunity, then individual's will thrive on their own rather than having to feed off of those who are already well off. Is being rich a crime? Finally, I should add that public education sucks. Not all people are suited for standard western education, its as simple as that. Some people would be better off learning in different environments! So what good does shoving thousands of energetic, violent and passionate teenagers into thousands of brick and cement "schools" all around the country do them? Sure, some make it through with a decent understanding of the world, but so many don't. Some come out emotionally scarred by the fighting, teasing, boredom, sleeping around, peer pressure, harassment, what have you. Public school kids are treated much more like sheep than human beings... a girl who I'm friends with who goes to another school is getting B+'s and A-'s in her school and she got a 700 on the SAT! Doesn't that say something about the quality of education? Furthermore, I do not support either the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. Wow, that was a rant. Hey, I like the idea of not having to mortgage my house to get surgery. But i could be wrong.

Indeed. I know someone who would have had to pay 10,000 dollars for her treatment over the last month. Ouch. Makes you glad you're not from the States. That reminds me, I should get my healthcare card renewed. 2 years expired!

Rob The Plant wrote: Hangedman wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: Hangedman wrote: Rob The Good wrote: You know, I can't stand Socialists. I'm leaving NZ as soon as I can because it is ruled by an EVIL Socialist government that hates me. They've ruined education and health care...where will they stop next?! Hey Canada has a socialist government and we have the best education and health care in all of america. But *GASP* we dont have a good military!  like we need one. Canada's social programs work because government legislation, particularly in terms of health care and drugs, forces low costs. Low costs result in medical providers jammed up in a system where they are hamstrung, unable to compete against other doctors in providing medical treatment, unable to use alternative medicine, unable to do basically anything other than what the government says they can do. Plus, if any Americans want to know why drug prices are so high in the US, its because other countries have price limitations... to balance the loss drug companies jack up prices in the states in order to make the kind of profits they want. So its no wonder that American seniors are heading to Canada to buy drugs... government coercion keeps prices down there. Should the US government try to put caps on drugs, I fear for the future of the drug industry... not so much in terms of whether or not they'll survive, which some might not, but the lack of competition in the market will really screw the consumers out of better, higher quality products. So as government medicine takes over in Canada, those in need of higher quality top-of-the-line medical care come to the States, to places like Cleveland, Chicago, and upstate New York where medicine hasn't been legislated into the ground, and Americans cross the border to take advantage of legislation that puts price caps on drugs. Why can't we just let the doctors take care of the medicine? Competition will grow, scientific development will prosper, drug prices will fall, and we won't have government agencies like the FDA withholding desperately needed drugs from the public because they haven't been "approved." After all, its not the government's responsibility to provide health care... let alone tell people whats best for them. I'd like to see where socialized medicine in Canada is thirty years from now. Socialist programs do not make profits: they feed off of the public and drive governments deeper and deeper into debt. These programs work for a while, but as government corruption grows and funds lessen, these programs start to falter. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare... all common examples. Anybody have any idea how heavily in debt the US government is, even excluding the Iraq war? Nobody knows, and frankly, who really wants to think about it? I don't. And I should add that diehard socialists will continually point to the rich portions of society and accuse them of greed and demand the government to steal their money and be like Robin Hood... and ask yourself: Do you want Robin Hood governing your country? Those who make money justly have the right to keep it... the US was founded on the principle of individual liberty and the right to reap the fruit of one's labor. If we give every man this opportunity, then individual's will thrive on their own rather than having to feed off of those who are already well off. Is being rich a crime? Finally, I should add that public education sucks. Not all people are suited for standard western education, its as simple as that. Some people would be better off learning in different environments! So what good does shoving thousands of energetic, violent and passionate teenagers into thousands of brick and cement "schools" all around the country do them? Sure, some make it through with a decent understanding of the world, but so many don't. Some come out emotionally scarred by the fighting, teasing, boredom, sleeping around, peer pressure, harassment, what have you. Public school kids are treated much more like sheep than human beings... a girl who I'm friends with who goes to another school is getting B+'s and A-'s in her school and she got a 700 on the SAT! Doesn't that say something about the quality of education? Furthermore, I do not support either the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party. Wow, that was a rant. Hey, I like the idea of not having to mortgage my house to get surgery. But i could be wrong. Indeed. I know someone who would have had to pay 10,000 dollars for her treatment over the last month. Ouch. Makes you glad you're not from the States. That reminds me, I should get my healthcare card renewed. 2 years expired!

Those of us who work credible jobs have excellent health coverage. Working at UPS I have awesome health coverage....for free.....one just needs to work hard for it...something libs know nothing about....you slackers!!

haha, always funny when Americans lecture others about hard work.

Rob The Plant wrote: haha, always funny when Americans lecture others about hard work.

I heard the Brits only work 6 hours/day and have 2 hour long tea breaks....no wonder they're slipping into their opium induced, we were great once, self indulgent decadence.!!

gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: haha, always funny when Americans lecture others about hard work. I heard the Brits only work 6 hours/day and have 2 hour long tea breaks....no wonder they're slipping into their opium induced, we were great once, self indulgent decadence.!!

Just wait a few years, and America will be the same.

well we can't work because most of us are out of jobs

aqualung28 wrote: well we can't work because most of us are out of jobs

Milking off my hard working tax money...eh?....you're just not looking hard enough...you lazy waste of skin...you!

aqualung28 wrote:

Glad you took it in the way it was meant.

Rob The Plant wrote: Almost 13 posts a day Gdub. Can't be working that hard.

er...I put in 10.5 hours today.....I just don't sleep much!

gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Almost 13 posts a day Gdub. Can't be working that hard. er...I put in 10.5 hours today.....I just don't sleep much!

  I see, now that I think of it, it doesn't look like many of us sleep much.

Rob The Plant wrote: gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Almost 13 posts a day Gdub. Can't be working that hard. er...I put in 10.5 hours today.....I just don't sleep much!   I see, now that I think of it, it doesn't look like many of us sleep much.

I haven't called in sick to work in nearly 2 years....I just like money too much!! I have 4 rum barrells streaming through my veins at the moment and probably get about 4-5 hrs sleep for the day and still suffer through work.....I rule!!

gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Almost 13 posts a day Gdub. Can't be working that hard. er...I put in 10.5 hours today.....I just don't sleep much!   I see, now that I think of it, it doesn't look like many of us sleep much. I haven't called in sick to work in nearly 2 years....I just like money too much!! I have 4 rum barrells streaming through my veins at the moment and probably get about 4-5 hrs sleep for the day and still suffer through work.....I rule!!

Yeh, you rule alright. 

You like money too much, I am shocked, you really do have a lot in common with the man you name yourself after.

Spartacus wrote: gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Almost 13 posts a day Gdub. Can't be working that hard. er...I put in 10.5 hours today.....I just don't sleep much!   I see, now that I think of it, it doesn't look like many of us sleep much. I haven't called in sick to work in nearly 2 years....I just like money too much!! I have 4 rum barrells streaming through my veins at the moment and probably get about 4-5 hrs sleep for the day and still suffer through work.....I rule!! Yeh, you rule alright.  You like money too much, I am shocked, you really do have a lot in common with the man you name yourself after.

Gdub= Greg Waters...get it....G as in Greg and Dub=W...the 1st letter in my last name...it is not a reference to George W Bush.

Spartacus wrote: Blacksword wrote: One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections.. The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement. The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical. Well Said People must remember the whole reason to go to Iraq was greed.  As long as the US corporations make their money, that is all that matters to the US government.  How can you trust governments that are run by political parties that care more about funding than principal and justice.

To me all the arguments about Saddams appalling record on human rights are also hollow. There are human rights abuses taking place all over the world. In the case of China and N. Korea the offending governments are also armed to the teeth with WMD. Why did we not deal with them first? Why did we not do anything about Rwanda, Darfor, Zimbabwe..

Blacksword wrote: Spartacus wrote: [QUOTE=Blacksword] One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections.. The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement. The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical. Well Said People must remember the whole reason to go to Iraq was greed.  As long as thcorporations make their money, that is all that matters to the US government.  How can you trust governments that are run by political parties that care more about funding than principal and justice.

To me all the arguments about Saddams appalling record on human rights are also hollow. There are human rights abuses taking place all over the world. In the case of China and N. Korea the offending governments are also armed to the teeth with WMD. Why did we not deal with them first? Why did we not do anything about Rwanda, Darfor, Zimbabwe..

/QUOTE]

Well....because it took a president brave enough to start the ball rolling. That president would be George W. One country at a time Blacksword. Next in line....Iran?

gdub411 wrote: Blacksword wrote: Spartacus wrote: [QUOTE=Blacksword] One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections.. The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement. The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical. Well Said People must remember the whole reason to go to Iraq was greed.  As long as thcorporations make their money, that is all that matters to the US government.  How can you trust governments that are run by political parties that care more about funding than principal and justice.  To me all the arguments about Saddams appalling record on human rights are also hollow. There are human rights abuses taking place all over the world. In the case of China and N. Korea the offending governments are also armed to the teeth with WMD. Why did we not deal with them first? Why did we not do anything about Rwanda, Darfor, Zimbabwe..   /QUOTE] Well....because it took a president brave enough to start the ball rolling. That president would be George W. One country at a time Blacksword. Next in line....Iran?

Oh yes, Iran. They are definately in Dubyas sights.

I had thought that if the elections in Iraq didn't go well, then the US could leave Iran to Israel to deal with, while the political dust settled.

But, gdub, my point was why did we start with Iraq? There were far worse human rights abusers out there who posed a demonstrably bigger threat - in theory -  to the US. Is it not dangerous to allow such nations as North Korea the time to develop further their WMD capability?

gdub411 wrote: Spartacus wrote: gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: gdub411 wrote: Rob The Plant wrote: Almost 13 posts a day Gdub. Can't be working that hard. er...I put in 10.5 hours today.....I just don't sleep much!   I see, now that I think of it, it doesn't look like many of us sleep much. I haven't called in sick to work in nearly 2 years....I just like money too much!! I have 4 rum barrells streaming through my veins at the moment and probably get about 4-5 hrs sleep for the day and still suffer through work.....I rule!! Yeh, you rule alright.  You like money too much, I am shocked, you really do have a lot in common with the man you name yourself after. Gdub= Greg Waters...get it....G as in Greg and Dub=W...the 1st letter in my last name...it is not a reference to George W Bush.

I'm sorry I was so presumptuous, now how did I come to think such a thing?