Bush is a hero
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167332 Aug 29, 2013
Former GI Tommy Bridges
"
It was a useless war, as every war is.... How gaddamn foolish it is, the war. They's no war in the world that's worth fighting for, I don't care where it is. They can't tell me any different. Money, money is the thing that causes it all. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that the people that start wars and promote 'em are the men that make the money, make the ammunition, make the clothing and so forth. Just think of the poor kids that are starvin' to death in Asia and so forth that could be fed with how much you make one big shell out of.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167333 Aug 29, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Was Massachusetts a test case for this theory?
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romney...
Highlights of what RomneyCare has accomplished after 5 years of being in affect:
1 - Nearly every Massachusetts citizen is covered. A recent study showed that 98.1% of adults and 99.8% of children now have medical insurance. This is by far the highest rates in the nation. The overall national rate is 83%, with Texas having the worst rates in the nation at 74%. In Texas, one out of every six children is uninsured.
2 - Many more businesses are offering medical insurance to their employees. Now 76% of employers offer medical insurance to their employees, compared with 70% just five years ago. The national rate remained at 60%.
3 - The overall costs of the program to the state have not exceeded expectations. At the time of passage, Romney predicted that the new law would add just 1 to 1.5% to the state budget. Last year the additional cost to the state was only 1.2%– precisely where Romney predicted it would be even though the costs to the state would be much lower if the Massachusetts legislature and Governor Patrick (Romney’s successor) hadn’t added significant costs to the healthcare law.(This is covered more thoroughly in Section 6 – What changes would Romney make to RomneyCare?)
4 - The cost of health care premiums for individuals who buy insurance without the help of an employer have gone down dramatically. According to FactCheck.org , individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own.
5 - RomneyCare remains exceptionally popular among state residents. Studies repeatedly confirm that 67-84% of Massachusetts residents are happy with the plan and would not go back to the old system if given the chance.
Please pay particular attention to item number 2.
Romneycare and obamacare are not even close to being one and the same. If they were, people would be for obamacare, instead of 70% of the population being against it.

For instance Romneycare depends on private insurance competitively offering affordable insurance to its citizens, obamacare is designed to eventually destroy private insurance and eventually force citizens into a single payer government insurance program. Instead of reducing peoples health insurance costs through private insurance competing for business, obamacare is causing peoples rates to rise dramatically because it is reducing private insurance competition.

Because of those increased costs, many businesses are expected to be dropping their employee health insurance plans, and are expected to dump those employees into the government insurance program.

Once obamacare creates a standard work week of 29-1/2 hours or less, few companies will be offering health insurance benefits, and the employee will be responsible for obtaining health insurance for themselves and their family or paying the fine(s).

Romneycare didn't impact the standard work week, nor did it negatively impact peoples health insurance costs. That's why the people in Massachusetts&#8206; like Romneycare. Those are also two of the reasons why Americans don't like obamacare.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167334 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. And to make a very important point to others--read: Iran.
But US will start WW3 and even more death, As it definitely will involve Russia, China , Iran ... US invaded Syria way baCK MOST LIKEly setup a US puppet state.
yOUR ANSWER!

Michael Parenti,
Masters of War, ed Carl Boggs, p23

U.S. leaders profess a dedication to democracy. Yet over the past five decades, democratically elected reformist governments—guilty of introducing redistributive economic programs—in Guatemala, Guyana, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Syria, Indonesia (under Sukarno), Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, Bolivia, Haiti, the Congo, and numerous other nations— were overthrown by their respective military forces funded and advised by the U.S..

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167335 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Clementine, if the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to kill people, I don't think we (and by that I mean any decent people) can stand by and do nothing. There are moral limits, and this crosses them for me.
And mind you, I have been against all other U.S. military activity in the Middle East.
What are you doing over here? Get over there where you belong.
Better for us to kill thousands of Syrians with conventional weapons than to have someone in Syria kill a few hundred with chemicals? Dead is dead.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167336 Aug 29, 2013
Margolis,

Pentagon hardliners are drawing up plans to invade Iran once Iraq and its oil are 'liberated.'They hope civil war will erupt in Iran, which is riven by bitterly hostile factions, after which a pro-U.S. regime will take power. If this does not occur, then Iraq-based U.S. forces will be ideally positioned to attack Iran. Or, they could just as well move west and invade Syria...." [November 10, 2002]

Hey catcher . US wants Middle East, And Africa ... is all about the acquisition about Bloody oil and other raw resources...
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167337 Aug 29, 2013
missing piece. Toronto Sun's foreign editor, Eric Margolis,
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167338 Aug 29, 2013
William Blum, Killing Hope, 2004, p383

Policy papers emanating from the White House and the Pentagon, as well as from government-appointed commissions and think tanks closely associated with the national security establishment.

Here is the voice of the empire in 1992

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.... we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order.... we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

1996: "We will engage terrestrial targets someday-ships, airplanes, land targets-from space.... We're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space.

1997: "With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it."

2000: "The new [military preparedness] standard is to maintain military superiority over all potential rivals and to prepare now for future military rivalries even if they can not yet be identified and their eventual arrival is only speculative.... Military requirements have become detached from net assessments of actual security threats. Generic wars and generic capabilities are proffered as the basis for planning.... Particularities of real threat scenarios have become secondary to the generalized need to show raw U.S. power across the globe.”

2001: "The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability."

2001: "If we just let our own vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to be clever and piece together clever diplomatic solutions to this thing, but just wage a total war against these tyrants, I think we will do very well, and our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

2001: The Bush administration's "Nuclear Posture Review", directing the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries- China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria-and to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations.”

2002: In September, the White House issued its "National Security Strategy", which declared:

“Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.... America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.... We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed.... We cannot let our enemies strike first.... To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

Preemptiveness is essentially the rationale imperial Japan, without being overly paranoid, used to justify its attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and which Nazi Germany, as a sham pretext, used to justify its invasion of Poland in 1939.

To one observer, the meaning of the "National Security Strategy" was this:

“It dashes the aspirations of those who had hoped that the world was moving toward a system of international law that would allow for the peaceful / resolution of conflicts, through covenants and courts. In place of this, a single power that shuns covenants and courts has proclaimed that it / intends to dominate the world militarily, intervening preemptively where | necessary to exorcise threats.... Those who want a world in which no | power is supreme and in which laws and covenants are used to settle conflicts will begin a new debate-about how to contend with imperial America.”

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#167339 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I did.
There is no evidence that Hussein had WMD when we invaded.
I didn't oppose the Iraq War, although I'm bitterly critical of the amateurish way the country was occupied in the early years.

Hindsight is 20-20. There is no evidence NOW that Hussein had WMDs, and the U.S. spent tens of millions of dollars looking all over the country for them.

Prior to that, however, there was plenty of commonly accepted evidence that he did have them. It was a facade he maintained deliberately and purposefully, probably with an eye to his east more than to scare the West.

The comparison is totally bogus anyway, because (paranoid ramblings of the looney fringe and the "I-will-oppose-whatever-O bama-says-no-matter-what" crowd notwithstanding) nobody's talking about invading Syria or deposing Assad.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167340 Aug 29, 2013
David Ben-Gurion, May 1948 ---Was the first Prime Minister of Israel and widely hailed as the State's main founder. David Ben-Gurion was born in Plonsk, Poland in 188

“We should prepare to go on the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai.”

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167341 Aug 29, 2013
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Let's think about this for a minute.
You do know there has been a war in Syria for two years that's killed +/- 100,000 people and created about 2 million refuges, right?
Assad is killing people now. He's using his aircraft and his military to do that, and now he has allegedly used chemical weapons, perhaps for the second time.
A joint U.S. British strike would be aimed at his military, not the civilian population. Yes, some people will die as a result of those attacks, and some of them may be innocents - but the goal would be to reduce Assad's ability to kill people.
Why do we need to involve ourselves in another country's civil war? Is the Assad regime a direct threat to us? Will the new government be any better for our interests?

We involved ourselves in Libya, and today terrorists controlling Eastern Libya are training new terrorists fighters to fight in Syria. We would have been far better off leaving Gaddafi in Libya... he was helping us fight terrorism.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167342 Aug 29, 2013
In a speech at the University of Alabama, October 2006, General Wesley Clark again recounted his conversation with a general at the Pentagon in November 2001.

"We're Taking Down Seven Countries in Five Years”:
A Regime Change Checklist
by Gary Leupp

"I just got this memo today or yesterday from the office of the Secretary of Defense upstairs. It's a, it's a five-year plan. We're going to take down seven countries in five years. We're going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya, Somalia, Sudan, we're going to come back and get Iran in five years.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167343 Aug 29, 2013
Human Rights Watch
Anatomy of an Imperial War Crime
the invasion and occupation of Iraq
by Ashley Smith

The United States and the United Kingdom who led the invasion of Iraq have paid scant attention to the regional fallout caused by their intervention. Neither country has resettled more than a handful of Iraqi refugees from Jordan or Syria.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167344 Aug 29, 2013
Leading Israeli Scholar Avi Shlaim: Israel Committing “State Terror” in Gaza Attack, Preventing Peace
www.democracynow.org , January 14, 2009
"
The war of June 1967, was a major turning point in the history of Israel and the history of the region. In the course of the war, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan and Sinai from Egypt. After the war, Israel started building civilian territories in the occupied territories in violation of international law. So Israel became a colonial power and an imperial power.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#167345 Aug 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
But there was no doubt he had used chemical weapons.........
So?
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167346 Aug 29, 2013
Iran's New Oil Trade System Challenges U.S. Currency
Censored 2006

In mid-2003 Iran broke from traditional and began accepting eurodollars as payment for it oil exports from its E.U. and Asian customers. Saddam Hussein attempted a similar bold step back in 2000 and was met with a devastating reaction from the U.S. Iraq now has no choice about using U.S. dollars for oil sales However, Iran's plan to open an international oil exchange marker for trading oil in the euro currency is a much larger threat to U.S. dollar supremacy than Iraq's switch to euros.

While the dollar is still the standard currency for trading international oil sales, in 2006 Iran intends to set up an oil exchange (or bourse) that would facilitate global trading of oil between industrialized and developing countries by pricing sales in the euro, or "petroeuro." To this end, they are creating a euro-denominated Internet-based oil exchange system for global oil sales. This is a direct challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy in the global oil market.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167347 Aug 29, 2013
Would Jesus Get Out of Iraq?
by William Blum
www.zmag.org/ , 11/26/06

Oil was not the only motivation for the American invasion and occupation [of Iraq], but the other goals have already been achieved -- eliminating Saddam Hussein for Israel's sake, canceling the Iraqi use of the euro in place of the dollar for oil transactions, expansion of the empire in the middle east with new bases.
American oil companies have been busy under the occupation, and even before the US invasion, preparing for a major exploitation of Iraq's huge oil reserves. Chevron, ExxonMobil and others are all set to go. Four years of preparation are coming to a head now. Iraq's new national petroleum law -- written in a place called Washington, DC -- is about to be implemented. It will establish agreements with foreign oil companies, privatizing much of Iraq's oil reserves under exceedingly lucrative terms. Security will be the only problem, protecting the oil companies' investments in a lawless country. For that they need the American military close by.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167348 Aug 29, 2013
Iraqi Poet & Novelist Sinan Antoon
Democracy Now , July 6, 2007

It's important for American citizens to understand the responsibility of this country goes way back to supporting the Baathist takeover of power in Iraq and also supporting the Saddam regime while it was building its reign of terror and destroying Iraqi lives during the Iran-Iraq War. So 2003 and the invasion is a culmination for a long policy that's been going on for three decades.
UIDIOTRACEMAKEWO RLDPEACE

United States

#167349 Aug 29, 2013
Building an Embassy Fit for an Empire
by Adil E. Shamoo, The Baltimore Sun

Congress has appropriated nearly $1 billion to build the largest embassy in the world [in Baghdad, Iraq]. A significant portion of that money is for security infrastructure. This future "fortress" is housed in Saddam Hussein's former palace -- providing more bad symbolism to the Iraqis.
Why are we building such a mammoth embassy in the heart of Baghdad? The embassy complex is on 104 acres, with 21 buildings and facilities. It will eventually house a U.S. staff of 5,000. According to a recent report in the Washington Post, it has more than twice the staff and 20 times the budget of our Beijing embassy. The embassy will surpass all others in terms of size and staffing.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167350 Aug 29, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I did.
There is no evidence that Hussein had WMD when we invaded.
What? We knew Saddam had WMD's... we gave them to him when he was at war with our enemy, Iraq. What we didn't have evidence on was evidence that he had ever disposed of them, although we did know that he used some of his chemical WMD stockpile later on against the Iraqi Kurds.

BTW, after defeating Saddam, we found out that he had plenty of chemical WMD's stockpiled. Apparently, he just didn't dare use them against us with President Bush as our Commander-in-Chief.

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_le...

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#167351 Aug 29, 2013
Rider on the Storm wrote:
<quoted text>
But there was no doubt he had used chemical weapons.........
No doubt that he had chemical weapons either, since we gave them to him during his ten year war with Iran.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 8 min Drumpf Disaster 60,289
Depressed girlfriend. Don’t know what to do 14 min True Tamil Tiger 5
News US may never see another spiritual leader like ... 24 min discocrisco 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 58 min Feb 2018 695,738
female,15,horny (May '15) 1 hr Actorman182 31
Do Albanian men like hispanic/latina women? (Aug '11) 2 hr Fooledthefool 98
dog sex... really? (Feb '14) 2 hr SJMazt 56
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 hr Tellthetruth 994,146
wierd situation with my mom. (Jul '14) Feb 19 Pimpy 23
More from around the web