For one thing, that's a soapbox report which could have been published by ANYONE, and holds no weight beyond one person's opinion. Some other recent soapbox reports:
Gay marriage is about refusal to accept the truth! It's about forcing society to accept deviancy as normal family life!
Bush is guilty of treason Stop the spread of fascism
Heart Disease cure ignored There is a book Why Animals Don’t Get Heart Attacks - But People Do (4th Edition). You can download it free or read a summary of the main points.
That 'alert' is nothing more than a paid advertisement, just a political propaganda medium sold for four dollars a month.
Secondly, the USAF can barely handle the men they have now thanks to decades of budget cuts. Does anyone thing that they're prepared to draft, train and deply a few million college kids?
Thirdly, Vietnam proved that supporting the draft for wars of aggression is political suicide. Bush is on the record as saying he doesn't want a draft, and so is Donald Rumsfeld.
And lastly...
"The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. "
Oh... except a quick once over of the bills reveals they're entirely sponsored by the Democratic party (likely to fuel a propaganda war against the current administration).
Thank you, wasted, for bringing some sense into this thread.
If the United States learned anything from Vietnam, it's that conscripts who don't want to be there don't perform well.
And wasted is indeed correct, as both bills are sponsored by Democrats. (Charles Rangel and Fritz Hollings). Also, both bills have languished with no advances to speak of since January of last year, before any of the recent bad news involving the war.
Not to mention that iirc, females still do not have to register for selective service. Fake and ridiculous article....more liberal posturing to make Bush look bad for the election.
darksheer [ds] Customize.org Staff Business Development
Eh, you could say that about any President. However, Clinton wasn't butchered by the media the way Bush is. For example, when the new Iraqi leader breaks into English to thank the Americans for their sacrifice in the liberation (not occupation) of Iraq, you don't hear it on the media.
He certainly isn't a good speaker. If it were up to me, I'd happily have Tony Blair speak for Bush at every opportunity possible - even at the dinner table. However, it's tough to deny that the media takes every opportunity to discredit Bush - especially in this election year.
We certainly don't need another argument about whether or not the media is slanted. Plenty of us here are never going to agree on that - even with the self-identification of many reporters tipping the scales a certain way.
I didn't realize there was an argument.....it seems so clear that to not see the slant is to be blind to something as obvious as 2+2.
100% agreed about the media portrayal of Bush; but moreover their portrayal of the "War in Iraq" Did you know that almost every poll taken since the beginning (and even those still being taken) with regards to the war shows the majority of America IN FAVOR of the conflict? If you listened to the media, you'd think that the whole country was against the idea.
It was broken down one time....news programs gave on average 14-16 minutes of air time to the "anti-war" protests in early 2003 while only 2-3 minutes was spent talking about Americans' support for the war. Meanwhile, every poll taken at the time showed that nearly 70% of Americans did in fact support the war.
Media not slanted.......HAH!
darksheer [ds] Customize.org Staff Business Development
If the draft does occur how willing would war supporters be to support a war if they knew themselves or thier kids could go and fight in a foriegn land and possibly die?
max customize.org staff member relations ~ accounts
C72 - That link is utterly misleading at best. This assumes the war on terrorism serves no use to the country; we may as well simply be burning the money. The idea behind the war - which I think is a pretty good one - is that we make this country safer by eliminating a mess of barbarians. On top of that, it's a war our governing body as well as the majority of the people supported. I'm tired of hearing about Bush's war - this was supported by both the House and the Senate as well as the people of this country. Also, I could make a website that charts all the money we've wasted on public education, global hunger and the like - and propose other places it could have gone, such as back to the people who funded it in the first place.
Max - I've had this discussion with my father who fully understands that and supports not only my brother and I going but he would himself go if he could. I've got no problem with going. And I would assume the majority of Americans are not cowards who simply support a war as long as they don't have to fight.
DS - we had a thread a while back where a bunch of liberal Customize users flatly assumed that the media were at least moderate but most likely conservative. While I think the coverage speaks for itself - such as the incredible slant against the war - there are plenty of numbers to support this. A good link for reference:
I know damn well the media is slanted left. As far as I'm concerned it's an immutable truth. I was simply trying not to take the thread in a different direction. But to hell with that.
I would go if called....not that there is ANY call for a draft...nor will there be in the next 2 years so there will almost certainly be no call for me.
To those who would turn against it if called...those who would refuse to fight, I give you the words of John Stuart Mill, an 19th century philosopher:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
darksheer [ds] Customize.org Staff Business Development
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror or your freedom. The reason stated was: Iraq must not be allowed do poses or develop weapons of mass destruction. It is now pretty much certain that those weapons and facilities do not exist. Certainly there are things worth fighting for. But if your commander in chief lies or is mistaken about the reasons for war then you should question weather that cause is worth your life, and if not refuse to fight.
Flintsliver, That link is just as bad as the first link on this thread
"Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed..."
He basically says; "59 percent of journalists say they are moderate, but I think they are lying"
It's opinion, conjecture and a very little fact. You can beleive that or not. I'd take it with a pinch of salt.
The Weekly Standard is a long-running and well-respected conservative media outlet. To compare them to the first link is borderline insane. Also, Fred Barnes is an excellent journalist and one of the most respected in the political arena. The Weekly Standard is known for producing factual and accurate articles, and the Pew Research Center is certainly one of the more respected polling outlets.
And I'd hate to break it to you, but even if moderates are truly moderate, liberals outnumber conservatives 5 to 1 (34 to 7). Now, let's play some number games. Say half of those 'moderates' lean right and the other half leans left. Now, we've got 63.5 to 36.5. This is a little less than 2 to 1. Even with that generous split, liberals still dominate the media.
The reason he made the statement is this:
"Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives."
So the study included more than just one question. They can call themselves moderates, but their views don't substantiate that claim. I can call myself a 600 pound Slavic man, for example, but that sure as hell doesn't make me one.
"we make this country safer by eliminating a mess of barbarians"
Holy fascism & racism, Batman!
Maybe after we're done exterminating those barbarians, we should round up all their women and children and put them in camps and gas them! I bet we could pull enough gold out of their teeth to make a couple really nice watches!
Because we all know the USA government did nothing to desreve the hatred of these people, they just woke up one day and decided to hate Americans because we have such nice cars and houses and they're just jealous!
Listen:The sooner we see these people as PEOPLE the sooner they'll quit wanting to kill us. The sooner we quit letting money run the USA the sooner the interests of citizens will be represented rather than the interests of corporations. This war is not about freedom or safety, and if you think it is you're only tuning in to media sources that coincide with your idealogy, as you've already illustrated. And before you whip out your label machine and brand me a puppy huggin' liberal, know that I support our military action in Afghansitan. I support welfare reform, I support a whole bunch of things that are traditionally looked at as conservative. But this Iraq war, it's bullshit and will go down in the history books as much and the whole world knows it.
Terrorism goes back a long way. The majority of terrorism is the last 50 years has been conducted by militant Muslim extremist males. We have not been the only target. They target 'infidels' or quite literally anybody who isn't a Wahabist Muslim. Terrorists targeted people in Spain, the Philippines, Israel, and on and on. They do hate us for a variety of reasons - mostly because we're allied with Israel. But I think we all know that.
Where you see the Iraq War as a failure I see it as an extension of the war on terrorism. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. Many people are very thankful that Saddam is gone - though you wouldn't know it from the news. I wouldn't be surprised if more people in Iraq supported our action than in the U.S.
I'm perfectly comfortable with labeling the remaining Iraqi insurgents as barbarians. I think the facts support that well enough - unless you think religous fanatics obsessed with death aren't barbaric. Quite frankly, I don't care. All the barbarians - the Nazis, the KKK, the Nation of Islam, the Muslim terrorists, the South American terrorists - can all duke it out to the death in hell for all I care. We don't need them. We certainly don't need to understand them. We understand all these people very well - they're fairly simple to decipher. You're naive if you think there's some sort of political motivation or deeper meaning to militant Islam.
I can see I'm pissing in the wind here anyway. Not a whole lot of sense in continuing this.
Pfff.. All this talk about the war on terrorism is weak. War on terrorism my ass. You remember the "war on drugs"? Good thing we had that, too, because you can't buy drugs anymore. [/sarcasm]
As with mojo, nobody I talk to is in favor of the war. We've found out that there were no WMDs, which we were led to believe. Hussein had done very little wrong since the Gulf War to justify another.
As for darksheer's quote, that really has nothing to do with the topic. Nobody's saying they wouldn't fight for something they believe in. However, Bush's war (yes, I'll call it that; he's the first president in the history of the United States to start a foreign war, and it was without a just cause - it's his war) is not something many people believe in enough to fight for, if at all.
Calling the Iraqi insurgents barbarians is ridiculous, as well. The game Freedom Fighters, ironically enough, makes a very good point as far as this goes. The game starts off by Russia taking over our country, claiming to be liberating us from our corrupt government. While it is definitely an exaggeration, the point is clear. Anybody can claim anybody else is corrupt, but that doesn't make them right. I'd sure as hell fight for our country if the previous situation came to fruition. And were they to truely believe what they were doing was right, the Russians would probably consider me an insurgent barbarian. Obviously, however, from my point of view, that's a moronic statement.
Every government opposes someone's ideals, sometimes to the point of oppression. In our own country, it's been blacks, women, gays, etc. And at every point in time, were we to be attacked by another country who claimed us corrupt, I'm sure we'd have fought them vigorously. That wouldn't have made us barbarians.
Hussein had done very little wrong since the Gulf War to justify another.
I'm just going to laugh and pretend you didn't make that statement......LMFAO. Get an education on the situation in Iraq before making an asanine statement like that again, please!
Bush's war (yes, I'll call it that; he's the first president in the history of the United States to start a foreign war, and it was without a just cause - it's his war) is not something many people believe in enough to fight for, if at all.
Again....I'm gonna try to pretend that you didn't say that. Apparently, the biased media has led you to this belief; have we so quickly forgotten Lyndon Johnson throwing us into conflict in Vietnam?
darksheer [ds] Customize.org Staff Business Development
Seattle, WA is most definitely NOT the place to gauge national public opinion as it is well-known for being overwhelmingly pacifistic; even extending itself to fully on "hippyism" in many facets.
darksheer [ds] Customize.org Staff Business Development
i agree, you are pissing in the wind... but in the wrong direction...
So you think you don't need to listen to those people, and just kill them straight away... Do you really think that will resolve anything? I feel sorry for you, man... You know what, the way you talk about these "Barbarians", you sound like a fundamentalist yourself, not to mention like a racist as colossus put it rightly...
Call me what you will if it helps you sleep at night. Call me racist, fundamentalist, fascist, whatever, because none of them are really even relevant. I call somebody a barbarian because they would happily kill me given the chance only because I'm not a Muslim and I'm American. If that doesn't make them a barbarian - or it makes me some sort of horrible person - then fine. Have it your way. Call me a racist if you can't come up with logical support for your own name-calling.
Aside from Vietnam, Clinton also entered troops into Kosovo without U.N. approval. Naturally, you didn't see the hundreds of peace marches and such on the news, though they were out there. Somalia wasn't the best, either.
To those of you here who believe in any sort of moral or ethical relativism, you may as well not participate in this thread. Unless you believe in right and wrong, you really have no stance on this issue. Because, after all, I think the U.S. is right, and the Iraqi insurgents don't. They are both equally valid opinions. Just like the bullshit we teach kids in school these days where everybody passes, everybody gets a gold star, and so on and so forth.
The fact is we live in a world of right and wrong. As far as I'm concerned, anybody with any knowledge of what went on under Hussein's dictatorship for the last 25 years fully understands the justification for this war. Our former Presidents understood this - Bush's plan on Iraq is very similar to Clinton's. If you think we unjustly invaded a sovereign nation who had done nothing wrong - well, I think it might be time to get your head out of the sand.
Fact is, Saddam killed at least a million people. Without cause. Those of you who say there were - and are - no WMDs, you can't argue that he already used them. Fact is, there are links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, even as much as it's simply denied despite the accumulating mountains of evidence. Fact is, there are still a good amount of weapons and weapon material that was unaccounted for. Liberals constantly claim now that was due to some accounting error - or, Saddam had them destroyed and just didn't bother to tell anybody. Logic would tell you that a man cowering for his life in a spider hole would've been broadcasting his supposed WMD destruction if it would save his ass. I believe the sarin shells we found are indicative of something greater - possibly weapons stored in Syria or buried in the sand. Additionally, there are a whole bunch of other 'suspicious' facts - Jordanian terrorists (excuse me, freedom fighters) acquiring 20 tons of chemical weapons, Iraqi weapons scientists mysteriously getting killed, and so on. Please, nobody ask me for evidence or tell me I'm lying. I can't be held responsible if you don't bother to read the news or at least attempt to get your news from more than one source.
I found a nice cure for AIDs. Lets just kill everyone with it. We can call it the war on aids, a pre-emptive strike against contaminating with rest of the world. Sound good to you Flint?
(gear) imma go get a glass so i can put my nuts in some salt water.
I'm sorry; I've been out having a lovely Thai meal with my wife. But I'd like to catch up on a couple of points.
Flintsilver: "Terrorism goes back a long way. The majority of terrorism is the last 50 years has been conducted by militant Muslim extremist males."
If you are talking about terrorism in America then you are probably right. Except for the bomb in Oklahoma, 1995. But have you ever heard of a little Irish organisation called the IRA? I don't believe there is a single Muslim among them.
I saw an American on TV recently who said, “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslim”. That made me cringe at his ignorance.
There are many countries that have been dealing with terrorism for a lot longer that the USA.
And if Bush is going to declare war on every country that harbours terrorists (as he says he will) then the UK, Spain, Greece, France, Italy, Croatia and many other countries should be on their hit list well before Iraq
What I'm about to say is not new or inventive, but, Why do you think people dislike the west and their values so much? How can it possibly be just because we are infidels.
You have to look back much further than recent politics:
Once Saddam seized power of Iraq in 1979 he was subsidised and used as a tool by the United States to destabilise Ayatollah Khomeini's control over Iran and the USSR's power over the Middle East. The USA made only minor objections as Saddam used chemical weapons against its enemies, and continued to provide intelligence to Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld made no public objection as he shook Saddam's hand for the cameras in 1983. Documents from that conflict clearly state "American intentions: The ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies."
Now since 1988 the USA is friend to Iran and the Enemy of Iraq.
Who would trust such a fickle friend, whose admitted goal is to protect the flow of oil?
Even if these statements are over 15 years old, the impression of the USA to the majority in the Middle East is that the USA is interested in Oil before the Freedom of the people in the middle east.
I'm just going to laugh and pretend you didn't make that statement......LMFAO. Get an education on the situation in Iraq before making an asanine statement like that again, please!
Enlighten me. Sure, he drove our inspectors out. However, a quick lookup in Wikipedia finds that:
In 1997, Iraq expelled all US members of the inspection team, alleging that the United States was using the inspections as a front for espionage, which the U.S. later admitted was true. The team returned for an even more turbulent time period between 1997 and 1999; one member of the weapons inspection team, US Marine Scott Ritter, resigned in 1998, alleging that the United States was blocking investigations because they did not want a full-scale confrontation with Iraq. He also alleged that the CIA was using the weapons inspection teams as a cover for covert operations inside Iraq.
He had every right to drive us out if we were using our inspections for espionage. No, he was by no means a benevolent leader. He treated many in his country poorly. By those standards, however, there are many other countries around the world we should be liberating instead.
Speaking of liberation, it's funny how quickly you forget the real start of the war. Read a transcript of Colin Powell's speech to the U.N. urging war. He makes no mention whatsoever of liberating the Iraqi people. We went to war over WMDs that do not - and did not - exist. That is the reason Congress backed the war. They trusted our president and his top advisors when he said we were facing an imminent threat.
Again....I'm gonna try to pretend that you didn't say that. Apparently, the biased media has led you to this belief; have we so quickly forgotten Lyndon Johnson throwing us into conflict in Vietnam?
We didn't start the war. We were the aggressors in Iraq. We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism. As for Kosovo, Milosivec performing ethnic cleansing, actively killing people for the world to see. There is a difference. Again, we were not the aggressors. The NLF, or Viet Cong, attacked South Vietnam.
And grow up.. Quit blaming everything on the media.
@Flint:
I do honestly believe we are right in believing that Saddam Hussein should not be in power. However, I also believe China should not be communist, Castro should not be in power, Bush is not fit to be our president. That doesn't mean I would stand behind an attack on those countries (or our president; whether or not I like him, I would never attempt a coup). Bush was wrong to send our soldiers to die for a lie - that Iraq was an imminent threat, and that Hussein possessed WMDs.
Yes, he used WMDs in the past. Yet, despite propaganda spouted by the White House, we've found no hard evidence of any such weapons since this war started, shown even more by the fact that the focus of the war has gone from the imminent threat of WMDs to the liberation of the people. Simply put, they were wrong, so they shifted their focus to downplay it.
To borrow what you said, logic would tell you that a man cowering for his life in a spider hole would use his damn WMDs if he had them. He did before, and there's no reason he wouldn't have this time, unless he didn't have them.
What was your intent by throwing that in there? It does little to prove your point and even more to show that you missed mine.
Please, nobody ask me for evidence or tell me I'm lying. I can't be held responsible if you don't bother to read the news or at least attempt to get your news from more than one source.
That's weak. Obviously you believe nothing you hear from the "liberal media", whom you believe to consist of most mainstream news sources. So who would that mean you get your news from? Most likely conservative sources like The Weekly Standard. Strange, because I believe them to be biased. I guess I can't trust anything you say... [/sarcasm] That argument can easily go both ways.
Flintsilver you seem to be digging yourself into a deeper hole: "I call somebody a barbarian because they would happily kill me given the chance only because I'm not a Muslim and I'm American."
It is the USA's foreign policy that has made people resent and hate you because you are an American.
The bigest grievence I have against Tony Blair is that for the first time in my life I am a target for extremeist terrorists. Before this war I was not percieved a threat, and worked in Saudi, Pakistan, and Iran without a problem. But the UK government's alliance to the USA has made me a target in these territories.
Since my use of the term barbarian has caused such an uproar, would everybody who disagrees with my classification of Muslim extremists as barbarians please classify the term?
When you feel so oppressed and trod underfoot for the convenience of the Oil business that you no longer feel that any democratic process available to you will have any effect what would you do.
The American constitution is built on the premise that if ever a state similar to that above ever comes into being, the populace is empowered with the tools (firearms) to deal with the Incumbent and overthrow the government.
In the case of civil war in America, who are the barbarians?
None. Not every war need have barbarians. To me, barbarianism is indicative of both a lack of intelligence as well as a lack of respect for human life.
Regardless, this thread is going absolutely nowhere. I feel that I proved my point long ago, and I'm sure all of my opponents feel that they have proven theirs. So, where does this take us? Anywhere? No, we just keep going in circles. I'll insist this, you insist that, and on and on we go. If you want, I'll continue. However, I STILL think this all boils down to the matter of moral and ethical relativism. Which, in and of itself, might also lead in a circle.
You can always expect this sort of thing when we start mixing American nationalism with terrorism. Bad combination that.
We all know where this is going, i think locking this thread sounds peachy right about now. If you don't expect to see world peace happening in ur lifetime, don't expect the argument in this thread to be resolved...
I think we all need to go to bed now, or better yet take a nice cruise to the Carribeans where the subject of politics and corruption is hopefully miles away...
----- 'Allez Enfer'- to those who deserve it. Don't shoot the messenger, for the universe works in mysterious ways...
Don't forget the systematic slaughter and general cultural genocide of Native Americans! But that's okay, it was a long time ago!
Barbarians? It all depends on your point of view.
No doubt those men who beheaded that Mr. Berg are animals and should be gutted and hung from a tree.
But I think your average young Muslim man (not a terrorist) probably feels the barbarians are us, and we should be eliminated.
Who's right, who's wrong?
Who's in who's backyard? Who inteferes in things they should just leave alone? Who manipulates other countries governments to their own needs? Who puts money and profit above human life? Who lets there politicians be ruined by corporate interest?
Why is America allowed to have nukes? Should not the world be allowed to invade us, by our precedent? Why are we exempt? Because we're the "good guys"?
Please.
You have no answers and you've proven no points my friend.
Just try to see yourself as a member of the human race, as a citizen of the world, just for second.
Bush didn't really make the most terrible mistake in the world. Based on the intellegence he had, it really did look like Iraq was developing chemical weapons. We had no way of knowing if Iraq had really followed up on their promise to destroy their illegal weapons; they'd kicked out both American AND United Nations inspectors.
Were we committing acts of espionage? Maybe. Should a guy who killed thousands of innocents in the events leading up to the Gulf War be scrutinized? Hell yes.
Another point here, if we were indeed spying by way of weapons inspections, why was our information on his WMD program so vastly off the mark?
Now, I know Bush isn't a popular guy, but why would he lie about WMD evidence? He knew perfectly well if he invaded Iraq and there were no WMD's he'd be disgraced.
Hindsight is 20/20. The Bush administration erred on the side of caution by ousting a tyrant who'd killed thousands and thousands of people and violated the terms of his Gulf War surrender time and time again.
Are there other dictators who should be ousted as well? North Korea is obviously due for liberation by the standards of the Bush administration, along with plenty of others. But let's look at this realistically: should we stop arresting drunk drivers until we can catch them all at once? Or should we deal with them on a case by case basis to the best of our abilities?
I've met the President once, during his 2000 campaign. I didn't vote for him, I don't agree with his policies. But he's not an evil man. He made the best decision he could and stuck by it.
In 1998 (at the height of the Clinton sex scandal), America bombed the hell out of Iraq without even GOING to the UN for approval. What's different now? The ONLY difference is that we've committed more of our forces, and that we've finished the job this time.
The people screaming bloody murder about this are the ones who never liked Bush in the first place. The war in Iraq is one of the few Bush decisions I support. Take a few moments to reflect on the series of events leading up to the war.
There is no good or evil here, just differing philosophies and ideologies. All the spite and venom people are firing back and forth is uncalled for.
wasted pixels comes in with the giant-ass logic bomb on this thread. Thanks for the great perspective!
Were we committing acts of espionage? Maybe. Should a guy who killed thousands of innocents in the events leading up to the Gulf War be scrutinized? Hell yes.
I'm glad someone has finally put it in those terms. A lot of times, these arguments get so partisan that we forget a simple truth like this: regardless of the presence of WMDs (which, quite frankly, I'm not sure don't still exist and have been moved...the months of posturing before the war was certainly plenty of time for Saddam to use his connections to relocate the weapons to a "safer" area...but we're not really talking about the WMDs here, all I ask is that you look at that fact and acknowledge that even though we haven't found any, that does not mean that they don't exist).
Now, I know Bush isn't a popular guy, but why would he lie about WMD evidence? He knew perfectly well if he invaded Iraq and there were no WMD's he'd be disgraced.
First, to add to my last point, you don't make up evidence to start a war in a non-monarchal society; Bush is an intelligent man (regardless of what his detractors would have you believe, just becuase a man is not the world's most gifted public speaker does not mean he's not intelligent; did you graduate from Yale?) and being intelligent, he would know that to make up evidence like that would shame him and likely have him removed from office. So, let's stop saying that the administration just made this stuff up; that's a ridiculous accusation. Bad intelligence? Maybe. Blame the CIA, not the "administration."
Additionally, you say "Bush is not a popular guy" I'm calling liberal media slant again here as that's certainly how he's portrayed. It's too bad that every poll up until the "Iraqi prisoner scandal" had Bush's approval rating and election hopes at above 50%. The fact that people blame the president for the prisoner thing is just absurd but the media is certainly quick to help them draw the conclusion that it's his fault.
In 1998 (at the height of the Clinton sex scandal), America bombed the hell out of Iraq without even GOING to the UN for approval. What's different now? The ONLY difference is that we've committed more of our forces, and that we've finished the job this time.
And what was the response of the media in 1998? "Clinton is doing the right thing by asserting our authority to continue inspections and ensure that Iraq is not a threat." So it's right to do a half-assed job but it's wrong to ensure that Iraq is not a threat with a sense of finality?
The people screaming bloody murder about this are the ones who never liked Bush in the first place. The war in Iraq is one of the few Bush decisions I support. Take a few moments to reflect on the series of events leading up to the war.
I couldn't agree with you more. Bravo on this post. I know most of my replies were probably not necessary, but I felt like expressing myself. :)
darksheer [ds] Customize.org Staff Business Development
