are the party of compassion and diversity ( as long as you agree with them)
Bullies are actually cowards. You all knew one in elementary school. He would go out to the black top after lunch with his gang of fat boys and find the meekest kid in the 4th grade then intimitate and beat him up with his gang.
Until...... one day he picks on the wrong little kid who knows some martial arts, or some real boxing and beats the crap out of the bully. Gives him a broken nose or some cracked ribs.
The bully never shows up on the black top again, or threatens anyone.
George Bush is this bully/coward. He attacks a third rate country with no WMDs,, has his three stooges of fat boys to back him up (Wolfowitz/Cheney/Rummy). Sure he goes in and defeats a weak little nation.
But then, Bush thinks he can fight the DPRK. But the DPRK has got NUKES. Bush huffs and puffs and says he won't deal. But what happens? He removes troops from ROK and starts sending food to DPRK! he chickens out! As the Bush sympathizers/collaborators/thralls in here say.. "Bush is afraid of the DPRK using nukes on our troops!"
True sign of a coward.
BUSH FLIP FLOPS by dealing with the DPRK
This is cowardly on Bush part and is his hallmark. His first flip flop and cowardly act after being installed in the White House, was when he refused to deal with PRC when they captured the US spy plane. Then Bush backed down, FLIP FLOPPED and apologized to get the flyers and plane back.
Return America to Americans. Defeat Bush!
MissDemeanor
PS. Before you attack me and say I am just hating Bush...beware. Hate is sometimes appropriate when it is directed at a vile, venal, vicious, and immorally violent coward and bully like Bush.
Let the reactionaries begin the rebuttal.
If it is, long time no see, sister.
its true colors. The ending suffering and brutality caused by Saddam and sons means nothing. Fathers would not let their daughters as young as 11 or 12 walk anywhere near the sadddam boys because the young female would be raped. Females were not aloowed to go to school. All three fed people alive into tree chippers, obviously nothing compared to being forced to lay on a floor naked!!!!
Bush had actionable intelligence and showed courage. The byproduct is scores of dead Al Quida and a much safer Iraq "for the children" of Iraq.
I guess for the Left, children only matter if they happen to be born in the USA.
The more liberals that have abortions, take to drugs, live on welfare and cling to divorce (ultimately destroying their families), the sooner they will become extinct.
Face it, if liberals want these things, let them have them. They are only destroying themselves and what better way to see them wiped from the ass of the earth.
Abortion should be a liberal woman's birth right. In fact, we should encourage liberals to use abortion as birth control up to the time of birth.
Yes, promote the liberal agenda!
Let's hear it for NOW, they ultimately will help the world rid itself of the liberal plague that curses us.
(hehehe, I bet most of the responders don't get to this point before leaving a message. It's a joke folks, just a joke.)
are the party of compassion and diversity ( as long as you agree with them)
Otherwise you are a right-wing wacko. I have always been amazed at the hate speech that routinely comes from self-proclaimed tolerant, broad-minded people.
Why shouldn't the rest of Americans at least have these items as options?
And I agree, our nation would have been much better served had Barbara Bush gotten an abortion prior to birthing Dumbya. The only folks who would NOT have been better off are oil executives and Osama Bin Laden.
boys treated their people, a little naive don't you think? The Bush admin. doesn't give a crap about the people here, why would they care about some Iraqis? But it what the admin. wants you to think while they steal the Iraqi oil. Good plan, say one thing and do another and get the stupid to cheer, like they are doing some to help someone else. By the way there are plenty of bad leader in the world, I don't see Bush freeing their people, why not? Are the not deserving of freedom, oh yeh, NO OIL.
If you believe this war was/is about the Iraqi people I think HarryLime may still have a bridge for sale in Boston. Just think, you can charge all the cruel Dems a fortune to cross your brand new shiny bridge !!!!
I do hope some good will come out of this and the Iraqi people can be better off. However, I would like to know which dictator is on the hit list - I mean, which people will our hero NobleBush(tm) free next.
I do hope some good will come out of this and the Iraqi people can be better off. However, I would like to know which dictator is on the hit list - I mean, which people will our hero NobleBush(tm) free next.
Don't ask bush, go straight to the top. Ariel Sharon...
The Mullahs of Iran are the next victims of US\Israeli aggression.
Seriously, Sharon has in the last 2 weeks called for the US to invade Iran and Syria next.
Will just have to wait and see.
Waiting for a cogent point. Saddam was a total scumbag- agreed. But bush had no intelligence, nor did he possess any facts to support his claims! (Read that again to get the points)
If being a scumbag gets you invaded by the US, then where were we when Pinochet was in Chile? Somoza? Batista? Ferdinand Marcos? Ngao Ky? Chiang Kai Shek? Mobutu?
Oh, that's right we PUT them in Power! And how do you explain our long-term support of Saddam?
I am a zionist, so kicking some Arab potentate's behind is not a bad thing to me. But this was a cock up of monumental proportions. A war fought well, but administered poorly, planned poorly, and for no apparent reason.
A war fought well, but administered poorly, planned poorly, and for no apparent reason.
Cmon,,you and I both know there was a reason..Re-open the pipeline to Haifa, and remove a threat to a certain country.
Would you send your daughter to fight and possibly die in Iraq?
This is a yes or no question.
If Bush is so courageous, why hasn't he sent HIS daughters to fight for the Iraqi liberty? (No need to answer this question)
And you did KNOW the tortures by the US military has officially reached 94, and includes death by torture, not just the miminalist poopooing by Bush sympathizers who claim it was all just a frat prank.
And why haven't you addressed the DPRK flip flop by Bush?
Why is it only Iraqi women and children Bush wants to save from brutal dictators but when it comes to the DPRK, Bush and his thralls are silent and refuse to invade that country to save the children?
Just wondering.
If you presented a factual argument based on reason, instead of ideological hatred, then that would be worth a rebuttal.
RLTW
The Clinton Admin adopted the "ignore it and maybe it'll go away" approach by offering fuel and food assistance in exchange for a "promise" by the Short Little Big Haired Freak to stop playing with uranium. That didn't work very well, so keep that in mind when you start blaming everything on the Bush Admin. At least they're trying to get China, Japan, and Russia to apply diplomatic pressure on North Korea. There's also the PSI, look it up and read about it.
It would be great to invade the north, kill the midget madman and free the people who have been living like dogs for the last fifty years. But the problem with that approach is the fact that the NK army has a shitload of artillery right across the DMZ. Aimed mostly at a little city called Seoul sitting in a valley about 60 clicks to the south, with about 12 million people. All together now... FUBAR.
Thankfully the Second to None, 2nd Infantry Division sits on the south side of the DMZ. With a bunch of combat ready infantry and an impressive amount of Div Arty. So Freakshow Kim is reluctant to do anything more than puff-up and strut every now and then.
As far as removing troops from the DMZ. One light/heavy brigade was rotated out of the 2nd ID to Iraq. The U.S. and South Korea have been working out the details of a reduction of U.S. forces from the DMZ for several years now.
I've read alot of bitching in here from chairborne generals, but haven't seen any serious suggestions.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/27/2004 9:08:53 PM
You didn't understand the point.
Bush originally said he wouldn't DEAL with the DPRK.
NOW.....
He is dealing with the DPRK by sending food to them and removing troops from the south.
This is Bush flip flopping, just like he did in the spy plane debacle he lost.
But I do find it funny you think Bush is too fearful of the DPRK military to invade. LOL
MissDemeanor
I understand the point clearly; that you're not very informed on this issue. Troop withdrawal plans were initiated by the request of the ROK government in order to eventually turn over more security resonsibilities to the ROK army. The workings of this have been going on for years.
As for Bush being afraid, that's plain stupid. Considering the fact that a firestorm of conventional and chemical artillery would rain down upon a city of 12 million people for several days, or weeks, it's prudent to seek solutions by means other than a conventional military assault. Anyone who's spent any amount of time in Seoul realizes that the citizens live with the thought of that horror daily. Hopefully, diplomacy may work. But when dealing with a crazy idiot ruling his own hermetically sealed private Idaho, you have to try different approaches until you find effective solutions.
RLTW
-- Modified on 7/28/2004 7:05:55 AM
-- Modified on 7/28/2004 7:23:09 AM
The fact that the U.S. hasn't initiated a military response in Korea is a demonstration of the Bush Administration's common sense. N. Korea has a MILLION troops, butt-loads of conventional weapons, and likely nukes aimed at South Korea.
As for a flip-flop, look to Kerry for the King of flip-flops. I love Bush's line, something to the effect "John Kerry has been politics long enough to take both sides on all the issues."
But casually getting militarily involved with marginally dangerous countries while letting NK off the hook is a dumb-ass policy. We ought to have been holding fire in Iraq, while running some brinksmanship packages at Mr. J-Il. While we actually mopped up Afghanistan.
Now we are behind in all three areas- proving that your hero- whilst bravely using other people's lives- is just not the sharpest tack in the classroom. God I wish he saw himself as more of a crusader king- perhaps leading from the front. Then at least we'd stand a chance of him A) getting offed or B) Actually understanding what the army is good at or for .
And we know that NK will implode under the weight of a messed up system eventually- we just have to keep them from taking the rest of us with them!
-- Modified on 7/28/2004 5:05:07 PM
You're gonna have the Secret Service in here. We don't need that kind of attention.
But on your points, Bush isn't my hero. He's just not the villian you guys have been claiming and he's a far "less negative" choice than the U.N. appeasing, re-invention man from Vietnam. If the whole public thinks so poorly of him, it's sure strange that his ratings are steady and sKerry can't gain any ground on him.
We'll have to disagree on "letting NK off the hook", I just don't see that as being the case.
RLTW
He's not a villain- we know. He's just too stupid to spot a villain and so the rest of his admin is riddled with 'em.
"UN Appeasing?" WTF is that? I was unaware of any UN army invading anyplace or of an aggresive UN military agenda. The usual problem in the UN is not enough stick, not too much.
If Kerry blew Kofi Annan every second day, he'd still be a better choice than Bush!
And the Kerry folk have figured out that US voters are so dumb (my thoughts not theirs) that they do better to let Bush hoist his own petard. When Bush speaks, he loses points, as his inner nimrod is revealed.
I'd gladly vote for Pee Wee Herman before Bush. At least I understand HIS go-it-alone policy!
“I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” - John sKerry
appeasement:
n : the act of appeasing (as by acceding to the demands of) [syn: calming]
Relax Sully, it's all good fun here. Pack a bowl of skunk in the hookah and read some Chomsky.
RLTW
Having studied a fair amount of Chomsky- I find him a good writer of utter balderdash. Beguiling texts empty of heart and sense. You read him for the arguments- then discard the conclusions. But that's me. Mr. Vegas.
sorry- just al ittle salute to John Candy.
Do you want the U.S. and South Korea to attack North Korea (it would surely take that to stop their nuke program) and start a new war on the Korean penisula? Do you know what you are talking about? A million North Korean troops, tons of conventional weapons, likely several nukes, with Seoul just a few miles away from the DMZ.
Do you really think trying to avoid a horrific attack that might involve the nuking of our troops, South Korea's troops, and a very populous city is "true sign of a coward"?
You probably need to stick with escorting and avoid writing about things you obviously have not reasoned out.
Yuo seem to be as out of touch with political dialogue. Her point, boiled down so you can see in more clearly is that with Iraq, a marginal threat, that we KNEW we could pummel senseless in a conventional way -we were ready to attack and remove a threat.
With NK, A REAL THREAT of much larger proportions, we negotiate - and poorly at that-see my Slate post- and withdraw troops.
She's right in that sense, althuogh your point is a good one too. It's just not totally over her head, while she apparently sailed one over yours. YOU need the rap on the knuckles not her.
You may go now.
But keep posting- you do get the occasional point across...