PDA

View Full Version : letters from iraq to micheal moore



veejay
05-10-2004, 12:39
Just stumbled across this, and thought it might be interesting for some folks out there...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

kak
05-10-2004, 13:16
You know veejay, actually there is still a few people who believe that this war was necessary, those people will answer you that michael moore is a big fat american, that he probably invented all this letters, that the Bush administration was and is still right , i think those people will never listen/admit :( :rolleyes:

Looking at the last poll about american election and After all this...I'm feeling actually very sad that a lot of american still believe in Bush :( :( :(

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 13:40
Originally posted by kakrout

Looking at the last poll about american election and After all this...I'm feeling actually very sad that a lot of american still believe in Bush :( :( :(

What you and a lot of other people in the international community are failing to realize is that the war in Iraq and foreign policy in general are only two of the many issues that voters in the USA consider before deciding for whom to vote. My vote has nothing to do with the war on Iraq. My vote is being cast based on many social and fiscal issues that I firmly believe in that Bush's opponent wants to change 180 degrees from my views. For the rest of the world, these issues are basically non-issues, but for the majority of Americans they are the most important issues.

You can have one president that enacts laws that can change the path of the country. I'd much rather put up with Bush's shortcomings than to vote for someone that wants to enact legislation that is 180 degrees opposite of what I believe on almost every domestic issue.

President Johnson is a great example of one President that absolutely put America on the wrong road. We're still on that dead end road and can't seem to get off of it. The war in Iraq will pass. America will eventually makeup with the rest of the world, but SOME HORRIBLE domestic policies seem to be cast in concrete, and we can't rid ourselves of them.

Whatever Americans beliefs are, most of us think that way. If a candidate is promising to enact legislation that we are totally opposed to, then we'll pick the other candidate. Kerry is promising things with a smile that make me want to puke, and then he changes his position on them and then changes back depending on opinion polls. I can't vote for a man like that. We don't need another Lyndon Johnson in the White House!

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 14:01
handy comparison....i think the last person to go on a spending spree like bush was johnson!

veejay
05-10-2004, 14:01
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
What you and a lot of other people in the international community are failing to realize is that the war in Iraq and foreign policy in general are only two of the many issues that voters in the USA consider before deciding for whom to vote. My vote has nothing to do with the war on Iraq. My vote is being cast based on many social and fiscal issues that I firmly believe in that Bush's opponent wants to change 180 degrees from my views. For the rest of the world, these issues are basically non-issues, but for the majority of Americans they are the most important issues.


Actually, I agree with you that the war in Iraq and foreign policy are just two of the many issues upon which each of us who are voting in the nearest future in the US need to base our decisions.

I am not a huge Kerry supporter/fan. However, I will be voting for Kerry / Edwards precisely because I disagree with just about everything that Bush/Cheney have done since they have entered the White House, and they represent the antithesis of what I believe in and the direction they have taken my country in -- be it domestic or foreign policy.

Idiot Amin
05-10-2004, 14:02
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
handy comparison....i think the last person to go on a spending spree like bush was johnson!

Bush...Johnson...well, they do go together, you know.....

kak
05-10-2004, 14:07
Yankee, i do not fail to realize that foreign policy is just one issue among others but...as far as i know regarding social and fiscal issues since Bush is leading the country it did not get too well for America?? did it?

well... maybe i've got the simple point of view of a foreigner but bush simply lied to the american people and when i say lie i mean major lies wich affect the country and the rest of the world as well

I feel concern about the US election because, i'm really afraid that with 4 more years of bush cheney...etc it will lead to something even more dangerous/unstable that the world situation right now (which is far from being brilliant)

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 14:07
well spotted idi. ;)

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 14:14
Originally posted by veejay
Actually, I agree with you that the war in Iraq and foreign policy are just two of the many issues upon which each of us who are voting in the nearest future in the US need to base our decisions.

I am not a huge Kerry supporter/fan. However, I will be voting for Kerry / Edwards precisely because I disagree with just about everything that Bush/Cheney have done since they have entered the White House, and they represent the antithesis of what I believe in and the direction they have taken my country in -- be it domestic or foreign policy.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Just about every intelligent person that I know votes in this manner. It's not a one issue election by any means.

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 14:16
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
handy comparison....i think the last person to go on a spending spree like bush was johnson!

Bushes spending spree is related to immediate events, not long term irreversible social policy. Johnson put us on the road to having 70% of the federal budget as entitlements. There is a HUGE difference. The president and congress today, only control about 30 to 35% percent of the US budget. The rest is mandated by law thanks to Mr. Johnson.

legspreader
05-10-2004, 14:18
Originally posted by kakrout
Yankee, i do not fail to realize that foreign policy is just one issue among others but...as far as i know regarding social and fiscal issues since Bush is leading the country it did not get too well for America?? did it?

well... maybe i've got the simple point of view of a foreigner but bush simply lied to the american people and when i say lie i mean major lies wich affect the country and the rest of the world as well

I feel concern about the US election because, i'm really afraid that with 4 more years of bush cheney...etc it will lead to something even more dangerous/unstable that the world situation right now (which is far from being brilliant)

you're trying to tell me your leader and goverment are telling the truth and leading to the right fight. you haven't been paying attention to some of whats coming out about the iraqi regime under the oil for food program have you.

on a comparison note one the russians will appreicate gorabchov yeltsin as far as I understand loved abroad hated at home....

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 14:20
well, i'm not american so it's by the by to me, apart from dealing in your currency and having to keep an eye on it. but bush spends like a drunken sailor.

85StonePolarBear
05-10-2004, 14:26
Originally posted by kakrout
well... maybe i've got the simple point of view of a foreigner but bush simply lied to the american people and when i say lie i mean major lies wich affect the country and the rest of the world as well


And this is the problem. POLITICIANS LIE!! THAT IS THE END OF THAT!! Just off the top of my furry head, all of the following are at least under suspicion of corruption:

Bush/Cheney
Chretien (now out of office; scandal seems to affect his successor as well)
Chirac
Berlusconi
Sharon

Now 4 of those 5 names probably account for 75% of the political news throughout the world. So, what is the answer? Does anyone have it? I threw up all four of my paws in exasperation a long time ago and decided not to even concern myself with politics (much as I enjoy reading the world press) because no matter where I would vote (presently a US citizen, should be Canadian as well and about to take care of that, might also become Israeli at some point), it seems as if the choice is between 2 or more candidates whom I would probably put on my Ignore list if they posted here! Why is it that the democratic world seems to be run by a political class comprised of utter mediocrities? Was it always this way or is this the byproduct of the unprecedented prosperity which the world is enjoying now, in which the elites enter business and other lucrative careers, and others seem to be most concerned with leisure and entertainment? Or am I just too cynical? In any case, I am not voting in the US elections - I have no time to deal with paperwork which allows me to decide whether a schmuck or a putz will run the world's most powerful democracy for the next four years, until we get the privilege of deciding between another schmuck and another putz!

Ned Kelly
05-10-2004, 14:30
it's always been like that, pb. there's just much more reporting and scrutiny of it these days.

kak
05-10-2004, 14:31
legspreader...as far as i know
1. you do not know me
2. since you do not me you have no idea about what i think about my government or leader ...(??)
but as you are not knew here i'm sure you have read a bit about what i think about my own government.
and to end that debate, if you are a bush supporter i can understand you reaction but i cannot really discuss with you since we are not on the same side which means that we'll never agree

85StonePolarBear
05-10-2004, 14:32
Kind of what I thought, Ned. Especially with the Internet - seems as if we learn of the minutiae of every accusation against every politician the moment it unfolds just by entering a few letters in our browsers.

kak
05-10-2004, 14:38
Originally posted by 85StonePolarBear
And this is the problem. POLITICIANS LIE!! THAT IS THE END OF THAT!! Just off the top of my furry head, all of the following are at least under suspicion of corruption:

Bush/Cheney
Chretien (now out of office; scandal seems to affect his successor as well)
Chirac
Berlusconi
Sharon

!

TOTALLY AGREE YOU! the trouble is that for me bush/cheney lies are far more dangeous for the planet! Chirac is a robber= bad for france and that's it! nobody else have to care about it except french people
bush and cheney lie = a war which bring to an unstable world situation
(btw a lot of innocent american people are still dying for this everyday :( )

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 14:44
I'm never one to criticize someone for their beliefs. If people have an INTELLIGENT reason for voting for Kerry, then I'm glad they are voting for him. I learned a long time ago that most people aren't going to change their mind about candidates no matter how convincing the argument. People, in general, hate to be wrong, hate to be proven wrong, and even more so, hate be challenged about their beliefs. I like to listen to intelligent arguments about why Kerry should be president, but instead all I ever hear is why Bush shouldn't be president.

I'd love to hear one compelling argument that shows me why I would want Kerry to be president of the USA that doesn't include a reference to the Bush administration. With that argument, it seems like Kerry could have the policies of Hitler and no one would be paying attention?

kak
05-10-2004, 15:02
yankee you are missing the point...i'm going to tell you a story, during the last french election we have to choice beetween chirac and lepen.
Since i'm almost sure you do not know lepen , let me explain you: he is hitler's son.
Result of this election was smthing like 80 for chirac and 20 for lepen wich means that 1/5 french is brainless/******* stupid...whatever and i'm not afraid to tell that about a part of fench people.
So you see, we HAVE to vote for chirac even if we did not like him knew the true about him.
The thing is when you have to choose beetween two evil you have to pick up the less dangerous/stupid :agree:

kak
05-10-2004, 15:05
so a good reason that you would want Kerry to be president of the USA is that you do not want Bush anymore...!!!

Maine Surfer
05-10-2004, 15:08
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
I'm never one to criticize someone for their beliefs. If people have an INTELLIGENT reason for voting for Kerry, then I'm glad they are voting for him. I learned a long time ago that most people aren't going to change their mind about candidates no matter how convincing the argument. People, in general, hate to be wrong, hate to be proven wrong, and even more so, hate be challenged about their beliefs. I

Couldn't agree more

85StonePolarBear
05-10-2004, 15:10
Originally posted by kakrout
yankee you are missing the point...i'm going to tell you a story, during the last french election we have to choice beetween chirac and lepen.


Was it really down to that? I do remember LePenible*'s good showing that election, but I don't understand the French system -is it a parliamentary system like the UK and Canada where if LePenible's party had placed first he would have gotten the prime minister's position?

* mods, this is NOT an obscene pun - not that LePen deserves anything but obscenities.

kritter
05-10-2004, 15:11
kakrout- I remember reading a thread by you about Israel- Palastine a while ago. Would I be right in saying that you think that this conflict and the war in Iraq are in your opinion the two worst tragedies happening right now? It's just that people who go on about these two act as if they are so terrible when in terms of actual number of people dying they are nothing compared to real genocides taking place in Africa and Asia. But, all you talk about is Israel and Iraq, so do you judge Africans by different moral standards than Americans and Israelis?

kak
05-10-2004, 15:20
Polarbear it was down to that! i'm sorry but my english is to poor to exlain the global French System (several and different type of election), but i'm sure you'll be able to read it by yourself here
http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/b/b3_elections/b33_tout_savoir/index_html/b33_tout_savoir/Les_modalites_d_election_en_France
(btw, in France the prime minister is choosen by the president)

kak
05-10-2004, 15:24
Originally posted by kritter
kakrout- I remember reading a thread by you about Israel- Palastine a while ago. Would I be right in saying that you think that this conflict and the war in Iraq are in your opinion the two worst tragedies happening right now? It's just that people who go on about these two act as if they are so terrible when in terms of actual number of people dying they are nothing compared to real genocides taking place in Africa and Asia. But, all you talk about is Israel and Iraq, so do you judge Africans by different moral standards than Americans and Israelis?

No...i think you are wrong about what i think, read this:
http://www.expat.ru/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12864&highlight=africa
especially point 9.

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:27
Originally posted by kakrout
TOTALLY AGREE YOU! the trouble is that for me bush/cheney lies are far more dangeous for the planet! Chirac is a robber= bad for france and that's it! nobody else have to care about it except french people
bush and cheney lie = a war which bring to an unstable world situation
(btw a lot of innocent american people are still dying for this everyday :( )

not true hes trying to carve out spheres of influence in the world especially aftrica he wants to be the counterbalance to the us

85StonePolarBear
05-10-2004, 15:29
Originally posted by kakrout
Polarbear it was down to that! i'm sorry but my english is to poor to exlain the global French System (several and different type of election), but i'm sure you'll be able to read it by yourself here
http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/rubriques/b/b3_elections/b33_tout_savoir/index_html/b33_tout_savoir/Les_modalites_d_election_en_France
(btw, in France the prime minister is choosen by the president)

Merci - je vais le lire pendant le week-end quand j'aurais du temps.

So who is the President now? I always thought Chirac = premier ministre and that the President was a ceremonial post - can't seem to remember who it is now and the last name I can remember in that position is Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

kak
05-10-2004, 15:33
chirac is president...and believe me it WAS the good choice even if i do not like him and i know everything i have to know about him

kak
05-10-2004, 15:39
Originally posted by legspreader
not true hes trying to carve out spheres of influence in the world especially aftrica he wants to be the counterbalance to the us

France? counterbalance to the US?
:p funny to hear that from an american ;)
bah i have nothing in common with chirac but i think he's like me in a way : he cannot stand bush ;)

85StonePolarBear
05-10-2004, 15:43
From what I understand, it is more that France (Chirac) and Germany (Schroeder-sp?) want the EU to be a counterbalance to the US.

legspreader
05-10-2004, 15:43
Originally posted by kakrout
France? counterbalance to the US?
:p funny to hear that from an american ;)
bah i have nothing in common with chirac but i think he's like me in a way : he cannot stand bush ;)

i didnt say it was a realistic goal but that it was his goal....

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 15:50
Originally posted by kakrout
yankee you are missing the point...i'm going to tell you a story, during the last french election we have to choice beetween chirac and lepen.
Since i'm almost sure you do not know lepen , let me explain you: he is hitler's son.
Result of this election was smthing like 80 for chirac and 20 for lepen wich means that 1/5 french is brainless/******* stupid...whatever and i'm not afraid to tell that about a part of fench people.
So you see, we HAVE to vote for chirac even if we did not like him knew the true about him.
The thing is when you have to choose beetween two evil you have to pick up the less dangerous/stupid :agree:

Noooooooooo.......I'm not missing the point. You are again looking at this from an international point of view. What's best for America in your eyes is not necessarily what's best for America to Americans. A WHOLE lot of people like a WHOLE lot of things that President Bush is doing. Your OPINION is that he is bad for America, and therefore, Kerry should be elected. YOUR OPINION about Bush is not shared by a lot of Americans. Would it be better for France if Kerry is elected? It's not an issue in America......not even a consideration to people who have no ties to France.

If it was a FACT that America is better off without Bush as President, then your argument would be valid. What you haven't done is prove your premise is a fact. Your whole argument is based on your OPINION that Bush is bad for America.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion. I'm just pointing out that your argument is based on YOUR OPINION and not on FACTS.

kak
05-10-2004, 15:57
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Noooooooooo.......I'm not missing the point. You are again looking at this from an international point of view. What's best for America in your eyes is not necessarily what's best for America to Americans. A WHOLE lot of people like a WHOLE lot of things that
President Bush is doing. Your OPINION is that he is bad for America, and therefore, Kerry should be elected. YOUR OPINION about Bush is not shared by a lot of Americans. Would it be better for France if Kerry is elected? It's not an issue in America......not even a consideration to people who have no ties to France.

If it was a FACT that America is better off without Bush as President, then your argument would be valid. What you haven't done is prove your premise is a fact. Your whole argument is based on your OPINION that Bush is bad for America.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion. I'm just pointing out that your argument is based on YOUR OPINION and not on FACTS.

YOUR OPINION about Bush is not shared by a lot of Americans
------------------------------------
Let's say that only half of america has the same opinion right now....

your OPINION that Bush is bad for America.
-----------------------------------
bad for america and the rest of the world as well!!! otherwise why would i care???? i'm not living in the US!

YOUR OPINION and not on FACTS.
-------------------------------------------
let's face some facts, but on a funny way ;)

http://www.extremelysmart.com/humor/dubyaresume.php

but yankee you are right that 's my opinion!

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 16:06
Originally posted by kakrout

but yankee you are right that 's my opinion!

Good........I'm glad that we can agree on something. :)

BTW, I'm not trying to antagonize you. I just want to point out that there are definitely differing views on this very issue. Many non-Americans will never understand why anyone wants Bush to be re-elected. Living here in Russia, I can understand that point of view. I see both sides of the issue. In my opinion, Bush has many faults. There's no doubt. But on the other hand, there are many issues that balance them out for me and a lot of other Americans. On November 2, we'll see which opinion is the most popular and make the best of it. What else can we do?

veejay
05-10-2004, 16:20
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Many non-Americans will never understand why anyone wants Bush to be re-elected.

And, there are many an American that can't understand why anyone would vote for Bush -- this election or the previous one...

Like it or not, the US has become an important presence in international politics and economics. Most Americans don't know and/or understand this simple fact of life today, which is why many of them are concerned only with domestic policy. Again, domestic policy is also important. But US foreign policy and domestic policy are nowadays inextricably bound given our position within the global arena.

PS...I really didn't intend this thread to be a little expat.ru debate -- I just thought some of those who had mentioned Moore's latest in a separate thread might be interested in the article from The Guardian...

kak
05-10-2004, 16:25
veejay when it comes to "political" there is always a debate ;) sometimes people agree, sometimes they just fight and will never agree ;)

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 16:26
Regardless of your political leanings, you have to admit that Moore is pretty much a creative politically correct smartass. He gets away with a lot of stuff that many other political commentators get crucified for. I've followed his work for quite some time. I personally find his creations to be very divisive. They make the people on the right farther right and the leftists more leftist. I think he just confuses moderates, but who knows?

veejay
05-10-2004, 16:30
Kakrout -- agreed. Of course people debate politics...It just wasn't my intention with this thread..

Yank -- I like Michael Moore's stuff. Not sure that it would put me further left however. Nader seems conservative to me...

:-)

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 16:37
Veejay,

Being on the left, do you consider Putin to be a conservative or a liberal? I can't decide what he is. Maybe he likes it that way?

veejay
05-10-2004, 17:09
Yank -- in my humble opinion, I'd Putin is conservative...but, coming from a completely different political tradition, and not being Russian, who am I to say?

kritter
05-10-2004, 17:22
"Left" and "Right" aren't very good for describing politics anywhere anymore.

Nagant Guy
05-10-2004, 18:05
European opposition to Bush will probably convince a few Americans to vote for Kerry and a large number of Americans to vote for Bush. After all if the French hate Bush then Bush must be doing something right.

I agree with Kritter that "Right" and "Left" don't mean much. Europeans call Marxist Socialist "Left" and National Socialist "Right". Where to non-socialist come in?

Filimon
05-10-2004, 20:32
I once heard a CNN commentator say about the elections in the US: "It's not just about making policy for America, it's about making policy for the world".

The only problem is the world does not get to participate in making the policy for itself.

Kakrout may be too oopinionated, but he raises an excellent point: had Bush's policy not affected the rest of the world, nobody would give a flying monkey about who was elected president in the US: Bush, Kerry or a Cookie Monster.

Someone was saying here or in another thread that noone gave a good reason for electing Kerry without comparing him to Bush. Well, I am yet to see a good reason for electing Bush without comparing him to Kerry. The last debate between them was a confirmation.

Goose0009
05-10-2004, 21:43
Well, Well, Well,
1,065 dead Americans, 7,543 wounded Americans, 200 billion dollars spent with American taxpayers money. I guess bush supporters have great respect for human life. Because as long as their son is not getting his jaw shot off or his arms blown off, then there are more important things that need to be taken care of. Most people who support bush and the war in Iraq should sign up. If Americans saw young Americans dying in Iraq or if it was their son's and daugter's they would have a different story. Half of America is part of the I got mine club, as long as my fat butt isn't out there or my son isn't out there then who cares. I worked in a ER trauma center and I seen some pretty bad things. My heart goes out to those poor souls. I can't Imagine what they are going through. I want them to come. How could war not be at the top of the list on election day. I guess unless your one of the members.

yankee@moscow
05-10-2004, 22:16
Well there Mr. Goose, if you think about it, it doesn't matter who gets elected then. Regardless of the election outcome, our soldiers will still be in Iraq. Do you think that the war is going to just go away if Kerry is elected? Don't fool yourself. It's not going to happen.

Canadian1979
05-10-2004, 22:28
Forget Iraq for a second. Bush has piled up a 7.2 TRILLION (not billion..... trillion) dollar deficit. Whereas the former Democrat President had brought in the USA’s largest surplus in history. Now, all Kerry's staffers are Clinton-ites.... Doesn’t it make sense to put a Democrat back in office to clean up yet anther Bush mess? Clinton cleaned up Daddy Bush's waste, time for Kerry to do it for Junior.

Goose0009
05-10-2004, 23:22
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Well there Mr. Goose, if you think about it, it doesn't matter who gets elected then. Regardless of the election outcome, our soldiers will still be in Iraq. Do you think that the war is going to just go away if Kerry is elected? Don't fool yourself. It's not going to happen.

Your so right god bless you sir. I hope George Bush gets relected. When America losses 10,000 soldiers and has 50,000 wounded and deficiet over half a trillion dollars and there is still no free Iraq and 100,000 Civilians die We can all thank the Great George Bush. How wonderful he is. He never has changed his mind in Iraq. Well You can't blame anyone president for the war in Vietnam. When the Great George Bush get's relected, We can blame him for it all. Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all had their part in Vietnam. I truely hope George Bush wins the election so he can be responsible for 6 years of war.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 11:59
Originally posted by Canadian1979
Forget Iraq for a second. Bush has piled up a 7.2 TRILLION (not billion..... trillion) dollar deficit. Whereas the former Democrat President had brought in the USA’s largest surplus in history. Now, all Kerry's staffers are Clinton-ites.... Doesn’t it make sense to put a Democrat back in office to clean up yet anther Bush mess? Clinton cleaned up Daddy Bush's waste, time for Kerry to do it for Junior.

yo skippy you forget something called 9/11 which severlly damaged a recovering economy. you also fail to realize that clinton was riding the internet tech bubble that burst towards the end of his presidency which pumped billions of dollars of revenue into the goverment. so your trying to tell me there was no defiect under clinton? that diciet is passed from presdient to president though has grown under bush

veejay
06-10-2004, 12:32
Actually, there was a budget surplus when Clinton left the White House. Yes, the economy was on a down-slide. However, masssive military spending and huge tax cuts for those most in a position to pay taxes have all contributed to the budget deficit we currently have, which is one if not the largest in our history...Seriously doubt that 9/11 alone was the catalyst for the deficit...

Just came across this...hard to argue with...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1320804,00.html

yankee@moscow
06-10-2004, 13:19
Sorry guys, but the budget surplus or deficit doesn't mean anything anymore. After the Graham Ruhdman act was implemented to balance the budget, the congress simply moved many items "off-budget". Whatever is off-budget is not counted in the surplus/deficet calculations. The bottom line is that there hasn't been a real budget surplus since the middle of the 20th century. If you would actually take the amount that the US government owes versus the money that we have to pay the debt (including social security) at any point in time, I'm sure that it has been a staggering figure for decades. This all started with FDR and hasn't stopped yet!

Goose0009
06-10-2004, 18:15
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Sorry guys, but the budget surplus or deficit doesn't mean anything anymore. After the Graham Ruhdman act was implemented to balance the budget, the congress simply moved many items "off-budget". Whatever is off-budget is not counted in the surplus/deficet calculations. The bottom line is that there hasn't been a real budget surplus since the middle of the 20th century. If you would actually take the amount that the US government owes versus the money that we have to pay the debt (including social security) at any point in time, I'm sure that it has been a staggering figure for decades. This all started with FDR and hasn't stopped yet!

Thats good. I hope the president can explain that to China and Japan when they want there money. I guess will just have to sell the golden gate bridge. I guess all that debt has nothing to do with our loss of currency. Are you going to tell me that the average American is living better now then 4 years ago. If most people answer that question honestly. they would have to say no. He pushed for war and he should be held to it. There are no WMD 9-11 commission stated that terror wasn't in Iraq. The biggest joke is Iraq violated 14 U.N. resolutions Wow, Wow, Wow, that justifies war. America's little brother Isreal has violated over 80 U.N. resolutions in the las 30 years. The only thing the U.S. has done to Isreal is give 30% of it's foreign aid budget. and lets not forget Isreal has 22nd Highest standard of living in the world.

Goose0009
06-10-2004, 18:17
Is there a democracy in Iraq?

Ned Kelly
06-10-2004, 18:20
Originally posted by Goose0009
Thats good. I hope the president can explain that to China and Japan when they want there money. I guess will just have to sell the golden gate bridge. I guess all that debt has nothing to do with our loss of currency. Are you going to tell me that the average American is living better now then 4 years ago. If most people answer that question honestly. they would have to say no. He pushed for war and he should be held to it. There are no WMD 9-11 commission stated that terror wasn't in Iraq. The biggest joke is Iraq violated 14 U.N. resolutions Wow, Wow, Wow, that justifies war. America's little brother Isreal has violated over 80 U.N. resolutions in the las 30 years. The only thing the U.S. has done to Isreal is give 30% of it's foreign aid budget. and lets not forget Isreal has 22nd Highest standard of living in the world.

oh shit....found myself nodding in agreement with almost every word of that!

veejay
06-10-2004, 20:57
Originally posted by Goose0009
Thats good. I hope the president can explain that to China and Japan when they want there money. I guess will just have to sell the golden gate bridge. I guess all that debt has nothing to do with our loss of currency. Are you going to tell me that the average American is living better now then 4 years ago. If most people answer that question honestly. they would have to say no. He pushed for war and he should be held to it. There are no WMD 9-11 commission stated that terror wasn't in Iraq. The biggest joke is Iraq violated 14 U.N. resolutions Wow, Wow, Wow, that justifies war. America's little brother Isreal has violated over 80 U.N. resolutions in the las 30 years. The only thing the U.S. has done to Isreal is give 30% of it's foreign aid budget. and lets not forget Isreal has 22nd Highest standard of living in the world.

indeed...

yank...again, i find it a bit unreasonable to support a president / administration that blatantly gives tax breaks to the richest in the US, while still spending billions on a war which is questionable...and then turning around and saying that the budget deficit we currently have and did not have when he took office (real or otherwise) is not entirely his doing...

if it had a been a democrat we were talking about, i seriously doubt this would have been your argument...

Canadian1979
06-10-2004, 22:34
Originally posted by legspreader
.....you forget something called 9/11 which severlly damaged a recovering economy.....


You're a blind fool if you think 9/11 caused 7.2 TRILLION in damages. Only a small portion resulted from that. The rest has been due to Bush's poor economic management and corperate hand-outs.

legspreader
06-10-2004, 23:59
what ever skippy, from what ive seen you dont know your head from your ass when it comes to business. what is your background. i bye no means am an expert but i have a good grasp of the fundamentals and how things work. it pretty obvious from many of your post that you do not....

zcyka
10-10-2004, 04:17
Originally posted by veejay
i find it a bit unreasonable to support a president / administration that blatantly gives tax breaks to the richest .....

Interesting. Who else has the capital resources to invest? Someone like me, who is far from the top 20% of the taxpayers of any country, or someone who is in the top 20% and who's finances would be impacted by such a tax adjustment to the extent that he'd be able to make a meaningful investment in production capacity? Such investment in production capacity enriches the investor, certainly, but the masses (of which I'm part) are thrilled to be able to participate in advancing the economy, also.

I'm enthusiastic about folks who blatantly do things like that. :D :D :D