<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 14 2004, 07:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 14 2004, 07:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Proof of this is evident when we see how adamantly France opposed invading Iraq, not because they cared about Iraq, but because they had a nice thing going with the Oil for Food Program. This is how the world works, everybody is looking out for their own interests, it’s not just politics it’s human nature. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep. Agree with you there to. Oil for Food was a major UN scandal. The US had every right to be **** (but a coup de etat?).
Maybe I have to much faith in the human spirit. <_< I really don't see why we can't all be united. Sure we got our differences and fight but overall nations can be united. Again, Europe, dis it all you want but after millenia of war they are united. That's a huge step in progress, right?
<!--QuoteBegin-x5+Oct 14 2004, 07:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5 @ Oct 14 2004, 07:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yep. Agree with you there to. Oil for Food was a major UN scandal. The US had every right to be **** (but a coup de etat?).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Oil for Food, but it was just one more benefit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe I have to much faith in the human spirit. <_< I really don't see why we can't all be united. Sure we got our differences and fight but overall nations can be united. Again, Europe, dis it all you want but after millenia of war they are united. That's a huge step in progress, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small to medium groups of people can get along perfectly well, but as you expand your views to the major amount of people involved when talking in terms of nations, I just can't imagine a way world peace would be possible. Look at America, half right, half left, and everyone else is in the middle or fed up. As for Europe, they are united in name only, but that’s another topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Oct 14 2004, 11:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Oct 14 2004, 11:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 14 2004, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 14 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Oct 14 2004, 11:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Oct 14 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And this is why we need someone as amazing as Teddy Roosevelt in office.
Also, you Kerry fanatics complaining about Bush changing his mind on something (this is the first ive heard about him 'flip-flopping' by the way) you should check out the Ultimate John Kerry Ad, it owns you, and your candidate.
www.johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
*edit* I personally don't really like either cadidate, aswell...but if I had to choose one, it would be Bush...just because he seems to be very firm in his ways, unlike Kerry who will probably do what will make him popular instead of what is (in the end) correct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, Bush got <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media' target='_blank'>owned</a> on that one <i>years</i> ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and I believe two weeks ago they ran a segment that made fun of people who looked at the Daily Show, and thought of it as a credable news source.
They've also repeatedly said that they're a fake news show.l <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm, and I suppose that the link I was replying to was journalism at its finest?
Also, the Daily Show mocks themselves in a very tongue in cheek, self-effacing manner-- I mean, they <i>did</i> win a Peabody award in 2000.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. For its gloriously entertaining coverage in the long American tradition of sidesplitting election punditry, a Peabody Award is given to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't necessarily consider it 'real news', but I don't see how its 'comedy show' status makes that clip any less comical. If anything, it's done very effectively.
<!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 14 2004, 09:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 14 2004, 09:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-ThE HeRo+Oct 14 2004, 11:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ThE HeRo @ Oct 14 2004, 11:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Oct 14 2004, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Oct 14 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Perdition Flamethrower+Oct 14 2004, 11:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Perdition Flamethrower @ Oct 14 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And this is why we need someone as amazing as Teddy Roosevelt in office.
Also, you Kerry fanatics complaining about Bush changing his mind on something (this is the first ive heard about him 'flip-flopping' by the way) you should check out the Ultimate John Kerry Ad, it owns you, and your candidate.
www.johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
*edit* I personally don't really like either cadidate, aswell...but if I had to choose one, it would be Bush...just because he seems to be very firm in his ways, unlike Kerry who will probably do what will make him popular instead of what is (in the end) correct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah, Bush got <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media' target='_blank'>owned</a> on that one <i>years</i> ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, and I believe two weeks ago they ran a segment that made fun of people who looked at the Daily Show, and thought of it as a credable news source.
They've also repeatedly said that they're a fake news show.l <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm, and I suppose that the link I was replying to was journalism at its finest?
Also, the Daily Show mocks themselves in a very tongue in cheek, self-effacing manner-- I mean, they <i>did</i> win a Peabody award in 2000.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. For its gloriously entertaining coverage in the long American tradition of sidesplitting election punditry, a Peabody Award is given to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't necessarily consider it 'real news', but I don't see how its 'comedy show' status makes that clip any less comical. If anything, it's done very effectively. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well its not journalism, however, the quotes arn't exactly taken out of context near as much as Daily Show's, because the point of the Daily Show is to entertain, however this serves as a anti-kerry ad.
Drleet: stop making rash statements and try reading the thread and supporting your opinions for once. really, 4 posts in and you're beginning to annoy me.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr_133t+Oct 15 2004, 12:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr_133t @ Oct 15 2004, 12:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Heres what i think.
IF we didnt have the debates. Bush would have won by 15%.
If we DID have the debates Kerry wins by 10%. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83195' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=83195</a>
Well considering this is allot more reliable then this crap you just made up, I think it's safe to say the debates my have helped Bush more then Kerry.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Oct 14 2004, 05:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Oct 14 2004, 05:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guess what atheists - "It was in self defence" has been used by countless more as an excuse then "God told me too". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But it's a difference of degree as well as amount. "God told me to" reasoning took us through the Inquisition, the Crusades, and perhaps to September 11. "It was in self-defense" resulted in the woman accused of witchcraft lashing out against her accusers, or countries defending their homeland. Rarely is the invasion of another country an act of self-defense. Too often it is the result of God's explicit of implicit instructions.
-Ryan!
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history." -- Robert A. Heinlein
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson, IBM (1943)
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr.Suredeath+Oct 13 2004, 09:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr.Suredeath @ Oct 13 2004, 09:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> One point to the Assualt Weapon. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't tell me you know what the assault weapon ban does, and if you do, I know you're full of s**t. Anyone who is for it must really love stupid pork-chop spending and pointless laws and amendments.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 15 2004, 02:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 15 2004, 02:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Proof of this is evident when we see how adamantly France opposed invading Iraq, not because they cared about Iraq, but because they had a nice thing going with the Oil for Food Program. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Talk for Bush: <a href='http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item%5fid=613590' target='_blank'>Bush administration prefer </a><a href='http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item%5fid=613590' target='_blank'>securing Iraq's oil supply than nuclear materials</a>.
Yea....lets not guard the only thing the Iraqi people have to help pay for rebuilding their country.
Let’s let the terrorists destroy the pipelines and oil fields, so that way we have to spend precious time rebuilding them instead of instantly making money for Iraq.
We weren’t guarding that for ourselves, if you can find proof that our oil prices have dropped thanks to Iraqi oil we’ve stolen I'd like to see it.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 23 2004, 06:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 23 2004, 06:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let’s let the terrorists destroy the pipelines and oil fields, so that way we have to spend precious time rebuilding them instead of instantly making money for Iraq. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So you prefer that terrorists take nuclear materials than destroying the pipelines and oil fields ?
<!--QuoteBegin-Joe2+Oct 23 2004, 12:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Joe2 @ Oct 23 2004, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you prefer that terrorists take nuclear materials than destroying the pipelines and oil fields ? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't be everywhere at once. If someone is stupid enough to "empty the yellow cake out of a barrel and use it for water" then they deserve what they get.
I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 23 2004, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 23 2004, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Joe2+Oct 23 2004, 12:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Joe2 @ Oct 23 2004, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you prefer that terrorists take nuclear materials than destroying the pipelines and oil fields ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't be everywhere at once. If someone is stupid enough to "empty the yellow cake out of a barrel and use it for water" then they deserve what they get.
I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In Europe under the Marshal plan we were able to rebuild Europes heavy industry. Iraq had no heavy industry. Their only real industry was oil. (pretty much the only industry of the Middle East).
It is their industry and without it they really would have no hope for recovery.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 23 2004, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 23 2004, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yea....lets not guard the only thing the Iraqi people have to help pay for rebuilding their country.
Let’s let the terrorists destroy the pipelines and oil fields, so that way we have to spend precious time rebuilding them instead of instantly making money for Iraq.
We weren’t guarding that for ourselves, if you can find proof that our oil prices have dropped thanks to Iraqi oil we’ve stolen I'd like to see it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yet there's still a 75 billion dollar + pricetag on Iraq. Where IS the oil going?
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Oct 23 2004, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Oct 23 2004, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 23 2004, 12:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 23 2004, 12:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Joe2+Oct 23 2004, 12:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Joe2 @ Oct 23 2004, 12:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you prefer that terrorists take nuclear materials than destroying the pipelines and oil fields ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can't be everywhere at once. If someone is stupid enough to "empty the yellow cake out of a barrel and use it for water" then they deserve what they get.
I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In Europe under the Marshal plan we were able to rebuild Europes heavy industry. Iraq had no heavy industry. Their only real industry was oil. (pretty much the only industry of the Middle East).
It is their industry and without it they really would have no hope for recovery. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The Marshall Plan probably isn't the best comparison you could use right now. After all, it was more about keeping Western Europe safe from democracy, and therefore keeping American trading partners open to us, than benevolently restoring their fractured economies. There has always been an underlying story of greed and profit in basically all American foreign policies, and that's really not going to change. The best we can hope for is that we do as much good as we can while still coming out on top, because it's already been proven that no one will do anything for another country just because it's the right thing to do. Sad but true.
[edit]Oh yeah, my impression of the debates: I watched the first, and it was a sad sad time for Bush. Kerry was a strong speaker, and he got his ideals across well, though specifics for his policies and how he planned to carry them out were lacking, I think. Still, a very nice "introduction" for America to his positions.
Unfortunately, I missed the second. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> I would have liked to see that town-hall style debate too....guess I'm waiting another 4 years for that....
In the third debate, I think that both candidates layed down their positions HARD. I mean, it answered a lot of question I had about exactly why Social Security is an issue, and healthcare is being debated, and more importantly both candidates layed down their plans for fixing America. The only thing I'm worried about, and Bush had a fun time poking holes in, was that Kerry doesn't always seem to have a grip on how much money all his programs will cost. I doubt he's going to be able to tax the rich enough to get his programs passed. But whatever, you can still admire his intentions, and SOME of the stuff he promises has to get done.
In the end, the third debate did one thing: it allowed the American voter to decide on a candidate based on whose programs that voter agrees with and believes will work. Enough with the slander and fear-mongering bs, the issues have been laid down, finally.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 23 2004, 07:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 23 2004, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> One good move for at least two very bad move, here another bad one: 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations (NYT).
What do you think Al-quaida can do with this ? If Bush wants a world more secure, why does he leaves some dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists ?
<!--QuoteBegin-Joe2+Oct 25 2004, 05:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Joe2 @ Oct 25 2004, 05:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Oct 23 2004, 07:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Oct 23 2004, 07:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> One good move for at least two very bad move, here another bad one: 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations (NYT).
What do you think Al-quaida can do with this ? If Bush wants a world more secure, why does he leaves some dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Don't worry about conventional explosives that were in Iraq.
If they are still around they still must be smuggled out of whatever country they are in, and into the US. Thats a lot of equipment that any first-day-on-the-job inspector can easily find. Worry more about Terrorists assembling a weapon from inside the US. Chances are, if they do build a conventional explosive, it will be an AmFO filled truck (what brought down the Murrah Fed. bldg.)
I can just hear it now, HCI clamoring for the banning of all materials that can be used by terrorists. They are using the same rational to suggest that terrorists would rather buy firearms in the US rather than smuggle them in (like a terrorists would submit to a background check when he can just go to Tijuana)
But people HAVE called for banning the materials that make up an AmFO bomb. Knee jerk and stupid.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One good move for at least two very bad move, here another bad one: 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations (NYT).
What do you think Al-quaida can do with this ? If Bush wants a world more secure, why does he leaves some dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why must every single thing that happens under the Bush administration be Bush's fault? The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it. What were you expecting him to do about it exactly? I'm curious.
You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.
@wizard@psu: I worry more about the soldiers in Irak... They are the current target.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why must every single thing that happens under the Bush administration be Bush's fault?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because he's the leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you think they will find all the stolen weapons ? It's more difficult than finding Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that. But i think he is too negligent.
<!--QuoteBegin-Joe2+Oct 25 2004, 04:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Joe2 @ Oct 25 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @wizard@psu: I worry more about the soldiers in Irak... They are the current target.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is a good observation. I agree though I am sure that the soldiers are quite aware that these sorts of explosives are out there and how best to protect themselves from them.
I feel that this issue is serious and trying to turn it political by blaming Bush is not only wrong, it is dangerous. While people argue that plant x or building d was not sufficiently handled during the initial phases of the war (which was the responsibility of the generals not the president) These explosives are being dispersed and delivered to insurgents.
Besides, it is still easier for them to produce high explosives near their target than to transport such a huge amount in secret.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why must every single thing that happens under the Bush administration be Bush's fault?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because he's the leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you think they will find all the stolen weapons ? It's more difficult than finding Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that. But i think he is too negligent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Blaming the leader for something that he had no involvement with is a bit like.. screwing up majorly a project you had to do for a company you worked for, and then blaming your boss for making you do the project. What sense does that make?
Bush did not tell them to lose the weapons. I know you want it to be that way, but wanting it to be true does nto make it true. Remember the differences between reality and the voices in your head. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Oct 26 2004, 03:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Oct 26 2004, 03:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why must every single thing that happens under the Bush administration be Bush's fault?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because he's the leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you think they will find all the stolen weapons ? It's more difficult than finding Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that. But i think he is too negligent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Blaming the leader for something that he had no involvement with is a bit like.. screwing up majorly a project you had to do for a company you worked for, and then blaming your boss for making you do the project. What sense does that make?
Bush did not tell them to lose the weapons. I know you want it to be that way, but wanting it to be true does nto make it true. Remember the differences between reality and the voices in your head. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush is the only person who has the power to STOP ANYTHING that is going on with regards to America because HE IS THE PRESIDENT, the single MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD. When he doesn't act to fix a problem that is within his power to fix, you're damn right he should be blamed.
You will learn that lesson when you get a real job. If an employee screws up and costs the company money guess who the CEO blames? THE MANAGER. Guess who the analysts blame? THE CEO. That's the way it goes.
Maybe that's the way it goes, but that's not the way it should be. Would you agree? If an employee goes nuts and blows up the company.. should the president of the company get blamed? He's never even seen the man in his life. Why should he get blamed if some low guy in the totem pole hired him? For all we know, this employee was responsible for shipping goods produced by the company. Not even anything very important.
"All the way to the top!" say people. I think they want to cut off heads, when in fact they should see the truth for what it is. Maybe the president is very powerful and very rich. Does he deserve to be blamed for things he didn't do? No, no matter how rich or powerful he is. If it isn't his fault, it isn't his fault.
<!--QuoteBegin-relsan+Oct 27 2004, 03:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (relsan @ Oct 27 2004, 03:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush is the only person who has the power to STOP ANYTHING that is going on with regards to America because HE IS THE PRESIDENT, the single MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD. When he doesn't act to fix a problem that is within his power to fix, you're damn right he should be blamed.
You will learn that lesson when you get a real job. If an employee screws up and costs the company money guess who the CEO blames? THE MANAGER. Guess who the analysts blame? THE CEO. That's the way it goes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Said President has to know whats going on - now mistakes like "Iraq had WMD", and Rumsfelds "We dont need THAT many troops" still have to be taken on the chin, but blaiming every military mistake on Bush is just stupid. He is not God, he does not control everything at every level. I swear if you guys got your social security cheque a week late you'd stand howling in the street "DAMN YOU BUSH, DAMN YOU TO HELL!".
Do you think Tommy Franks ran every single last order, strategy and plan past Bush to get his personal seal of approval before the war? I hope not, military planning and execution is NOT his field.
If Iraq does go to hell, then the blame will be placed squarely on the "CEO" as you put it. It will be the Administrations fault. But stop trying to pin every little thing that happens on them.
Comments
Yep. Agree with you there to. Oil for Food was a major UN scandal. The US had every right to be **** (but a coup de etat?).
Maybe I have to much faith in the human spirit. <_< I really don't see why we can't all be united. Sure we got our differences and fight but overall nations can be united. Again, Europe, dis it all you want but after millenia of war they are united. That's a huge step in progress, right?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Oil for Food, but it was just one more benefit.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe I have to much faith in the human spirit. <_< I really don't see why we can't all be united. Sure we got our differences and fight but overall nations can be united. Again, Europe, dis it all you want but after millenia of war they are united. That's a huge step in progress, right?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small to medium groups of people can get along perfectly well, but as you expand your views to the major amount of people involved when talking in terms of nations, I just can't imagine a way world peace would be possible. Look at America, half right, half left, and everyone else is in the middle or fed up.
As for Europe, they are united in name only, but that’s another topic.
Also, you Kerry fanatics complaining about Bush changing his mind on something (this is the first ive heard about him 'flip-flopping' by the way) you should check out the Ultimate John Kerry Ad, it owns you, and your candidate.
www.johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
*edit* I personally don't really like either cadidate, aswell...but if I had to choose one, it would be Bush...just because he seems to be very firm in his ways, unlike Kerry who will probably do what will make him popular instead of what is (in the end) correct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, Bush got <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media' target='_blank'>owned</a> on that one <i>years</i> ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and I believe two weeks ago they ran a segment that made fun of people who looked at the Daily Show, and thought of it as a credable news source.
They've also repeatedly said that they're a fake news show.l <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, and I suppose that the link I was replying to was journalism at its finest?
Also, the Daily Show mocks themselves in a very tongue in cheek, self-effacing manner-- I mean, they <i>did</i> win a Peabody award in 2000.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. For its gloriously entertaining coverage in the long American tradition of sidesplitting election punditry, a Peabody Award is given to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't necessarily consider it 'real news', but I don't see how its 'comedy show' status makes that clip any less comical. If anything, it's done very effectively.
Also, you Kerry fanatics complaining about Bush changing his mind on something (this is the first ive heard about him 'flip-flopping' by the way) you should check out the Ultimate John Kerry Ad, it owns you, and your candidate.
www.johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/
*edit* I personally don't really like either cadidate, aswell...but if I had to choose one, it would be Bush...just because he seems to be very firm in his ways, unlike Kerry who will probably do what will make him popular instead of what is (in the end) correct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, Bush got <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html&setplayer=real_media' target='_blank'>owned</a> on that one <i>years</i> ago. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and I believe two weeks ago they ran a segment that made fun of people who looked at the Daily Show, and thought of it as a credable news source.
They've also repeatedly said that they're a fake news show.l <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, and I suppose that the link I was replying to was journalism at its finest?
Also, the Daily Show mocks themselves in a very tongue in cheek, self-effacing manner-- I mean, they <i>did</i> win a Peabody award in 2000.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->. For its gloriously entertaining coverage in the long American tradition of sidesplitting election punditry, a Peabody Award is given to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Indecision 2000.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I don't necessarily consider it 'real news', but I don't see how its 'comedy show' status makes that clip any less comical. If anything, it's done very effectively. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well its not journalism, however, the quotes arn't exactly taken out of context near as much as Daily Show's, because the point of the Daily Show is to entertain, however this serves as a anti-kerry ad.
IF we didnt have the debates.
Bush would have won by 15%.
If we DID have the debates
Kerry wins by 10%. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=83195' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...showtopic=83195</a>
Well considering this is allot more reliable then this crap you just made up, I think it's safe to say the debates my have helped Bush more then Kerry.
But it's a difference of degree as well as amount. "God told me to" reasoning took us through the Inquisition, the Crusades, and perhaps to September 11. "It was in self-defense" resulted in the woman accused of witchcraft lashing out against her accusers, or countries defending their homeland. Rarely is the invasion of another country an act of self-defense. Too often it is the result of God's explicit of implicit instructions.
-Ryan!
"The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson, IBM (1943)
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't tell me you know what the assault weapon ban does, and if you do, I know you're full of s**t. Anyone who is for it must really love stupid pork-chop spending and pointless laws and amendments.
Talk for Bush:
<a href='http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item%5fid=613590' target='_blank'>Bush administration prefer </a><a href='http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item%5fid=613590' target='_blank'>securing Iraq's oil supply than nuclear materials</a>.
Let’s let the terrorists destroy the pipelines and oil fields, so that way we have to spend precious time rebuilding them instead of instantly making money for Iraq.
We weren’t guarding that for ourselves, if you can find proof that our oil prices have dropped thanks to Iraqi oil we’ve stolen I'd like to see it.
So you prefer that terrorists take nuclear materials than destroying the pipelines and oil fields ?
Can't be everywhere at once.
If someone is stupid enough to "empty the yellow cake out of a barrel and use it for water" then they deserve what they get.
I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made.
Can't be everywhere at once.
If someone is stupid enough to "empty the yellow cake out of a barrel and use it for water" then they deserve what they get.
I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Europe under the Marshal plan we were able to rebuild Europes heavy industry. Iraq had no heavy industry. Their only real industry was oil. (pretty much the only industry of the Middle East).
It is their industry and without it they really would have no hope for recovery.
Let’s let the terrorists destroy the pipelines and oil fields, so that way we have to spend precious time rebuilding them instead of instantly making money for Iraq.
We weren’t guarding that for ourselves, if you can find proof that our oil prices have dropped thanks to Iraqi oil we’ve stolen I'd like to see it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet there's still a 75 billion dollar + pricetag on Iraq. Where IS the oil going?
Can't be everywhere at once.
If someone is stupid enough to "empty the yellow cake out of a barrel and use it for water" then they deserve what they get.
I'm no fan of how the military planned the invasion of Iraq, you don't need years of training to recognize the screw-ups, but protecting Iraq's oil was one good move we made. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Europe under the Marshal plan we were able to rebuild Europes heavy industry. Iraq had no heavy industry. Their only real industry was oil. (pretty much the only industry of the Middle East).
It is their industry and without it they really would have no hope for recovery. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Marshall Plan probably isn't the best comparison you could use right now. After all, it was more about keeping Western Europe safe from democracy, and therefore keeping American trading partners open to us, than benevolently restoring their fractured economies.
There has always been an underlying story of greed and profit in basically all American foreign policies, and that's really not going to change. The best we can hope for is that we do as much good as we can while still coming out on top, because it's already been proven that no one will do anything for another country just because it's the right thing to do. Sad but true.
[edit]Oh yeah, my impression of the debates: I watched the first, and it was a sad sad time for Bush. Kerry was a strong speaker, and he got his ideals across well, though specifics for his policies and how he planned to carry them out were lacking, I think. Still, a very nice "introduction" for America to his positions.
Unfortunately, I missed the second. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo--> I would have liked to see that town-hall style debate too....guess I'm waiting another 4 years for that....
In the third debate, I think that both candidates layed down their positions HARD. I mean, it answered a lot of question I had about exactly why Social Security is an issue, and healthcare is being debated, and more importantly both candidates layed down their plans for fixing America. The only thing I'm worried about, and Bush had a fun time poking holes in, was that Kerry doesn't always seem to have a grip on how much money all his programs will cost. I doubt he's going to be able to tax the rich enough to get his programs passed. But whatever, you can still admire his intentions, and SOME of the stuff he promises has to get done.
In the end, the third debate did one thing: it allowed the American voter to decide on a candidate based on whose programs that voter agrees with and believes will work. Enough with the slander and fear-mongering bs, the issues have been laid down, finally.
One good move for at least two very bad move, here another bad one:
380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations (NYT).
What do you think Al-quaida can do with this ?
If Bush wants a world more secure, why does he leaves some dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists ?
One good move for at least two very bad move, here another bad one:
380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations (NYT).
What do you think Al-quaida can do with this ?
If Bush wants a world more secure, why does he leaves some dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists ? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't worry about conventional explosives that were in Iraq.
If they are still around they still must be smuggled out of whatever country they are in, and into the US. Thats a lot of equipment that any first-day-on-the-job inspector can easily find. Worry more about Terrorists assembling a weapon from inside the US. Chances are, if they do build a conventional explosive, it will be an AmFO filled truck (what brought down the Murrah Fed. bldg.)
I can just hear it now, HCI clamoring for the banning of all materials that can be used by terrorists. They are using the same rational to suggest that terrorists would rather buy firearms in the US rather than smuggle them in (like a terrorists would submit to a background check when he can just go to Tijuana)
But people HAVE called for banning the materials that make up an AmFO bomb. Knee jerk and stupid.
380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations (NYT).
What do you think Al-quaida can do with this ?
If Bush wants a world more secure, why does he leaves some dangerous materials in the hands of terrorists ?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why must every single thing that happens under the Bush administration be Bush's fault? The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it. What were you expecting him to do about it exactly? I'm curious.
You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.
I worry more about the soldiers in Irak... They are the current target.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why must every single thing that happens under the Bush administration be Bush's fault?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because he's the leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think they will find all the stolen weapons ? It's more difficult than finding Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that. But i think he is too negligent.
I worry more about the soldiers in Irak... They are the current target.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is a good observation. I agree though I am sure that the soldiers are quite aware that these sorts of explosives are out there and how best to protect themselves from them.
I feel that this issue is serious and trying to turn it political by blaming Bush is not only wrong, it is dangerous. While people argue that plant x or building d was not sufficiently handled during the initial phases of the war (which was the responsibility of the generals not the president) These explosives are being dispersed and delivered to insurgents.
Besides, it is still easier for them to produce high explosives near their target than to transport such a huge amount in secret.
Because he's the leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think they will find all the stolen weapons ? It's more difficult than finding Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that. But i think he is too negligent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blaming the leader for something that he had no involvement with is a bit like.. screwing up majorly a project you had to do for a company you worked for, and then blaming your boss for making you do the project. What sense does that make?
Bush did not tell them to lose the weapons. I know you want it to be that way, but wanting it to be true does nto make it true. Remember the differences between reality and the voices in your head. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Because he's the leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The weapons were stolen. He sent guys after it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you think they will find all the stolen weapons ? It's more difficult than finding Bin Laden.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make it sound like he donated explosives to terrorists because he had nothing better to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that. But i think he is too negligent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blaming the leader for something that he had no involvement with is a bit like.. screwing up majorly a project you had to do for a company you worked for, and then blaming your boss for making you do the project. What sense does that make?
Bush did not tell them to lose the weapons. I know you want it to be that way, but wanting it to be true does nto make it true. Remember the differences between reality and the voices in your head. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush is the only person who has the power to STOP ANYTHING that is going on with regards to America because HE IS THE PRESIDENT, the single MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD. When he doesn't act to fix a problem that is within his power to fix, you're damn right he should be blamed.
You will learn that lesson when you get a real job. If an employee screws up and costs the company money guess who the CEO blames? THE MANAGER. Guess who the analysts blame? THE CEO. That's the way it goes.
"All the way to the top!" say people. I think they want to cut off heads, when in fact they should see the truth for what it is. Maybe the president is very powerful and very rich. Does he deserve to be blamed for things he didn't do? No, no matter how rich or powerful he is. If it isn't his fault, it isn't his fault.
You will learn that lesson when you get a real job. If an employee screws up and costs the company money guess who the CEO blames? THE MANAGER. Guess who the analysts blame? THE CEO. That's the way it goes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Said President has to know whats going on - now mistakes like "Iraq had WMD", and Rumsfelds "We dont need THAT many troops" still have to be taken on the chin, but blaiming every military mistake on Bush is just stupid. He is not God, he does not control everything at every level. I swear if you guys got your social security cheque a week late you'd stand howling in the street "DAMN YOU BUSH, DAMN YOU TO HELL!".
Do you think Tommy Franks ran every single last order, strategy and plan past Bush to get his personal seal of approval before the war? I hope not, military planning and execution is NOT his field.
If Iraq does go to hell, then the blame will be placed squarely on the "CEO" as you put it. It will be the Administrations fault. But stop trying to pin every little thing that happens on them.