I don't mean to sound as though I think the capture of Saddam is a bad thing, by all means I am glad that he was captured, I am also glad that he was living with the rats because that is his rightful place. The only problem with the capture of Saddam is that it is going to give Bush a reason to get out of Iraq. Bush like his father might say, oh well, our mission is completed I can just pull out now. The problem is that we have to rebuild Iraq and ensure that a stable government takes over, unlike what we have done in Afgahnistan. If we are to pull out now, ever soldier that died has died in vein because we will have done nothing. Iraq is looking for a leader, to rebuild their nation, to bring peace, and to bring freedom . . . the first dictator that comes into Iraq will be heralded as a hero, and will have Saddam two. Bush the senior already pulled out on the Iraqi people, which left many dead as kurds revolted against Saddam and were brutally supressed.
So basically my point is this, we can rejoice in the fact that Saddam will hopefully meet the same fate as Milosovic and that one of the world's greatest evil will be punished in this world, but we can not forget, in our rejoicing, that Iraq is still very explosive and if we forget about it, as we have with Afgahnistan or as Bush senior did, we will be back in Iraq in about 10 more years. Bush has to take seriosly the fact that hundereds of US soldiers have died, and he has to honor their deaths by finishing the job, and hopefully bring peace and hopefully a true democracy to Iraq.
OK, I am sick and tired of U-F's censorship on the AP Gov forum, so for old time sake....FUCK YOU ALL!!! YOU ARE ALL FUCKING MORONS AND DESERVE TO ROT AWAY IN A PILE OF SHIT!!!
Ok, I just needed to get some "inappropriateness" out of my system. Thanks.
OK, Dean's going to go down. Most people agree that he's going to be the nomination. His platform is all about anger, and I don't think that an angry candidate is ever going to be able to win the electorate. He also comes off as some kind of a snob, something, though George Bush may be one, he doesn't come off as one. Finally, Dubbya has a lot of things going for him. The economy is great, he has been able to push through medicare and educations legislation, not to meantion the tax-cuts. The only thing that Bush's opponents can bash him on is Iraq, and even then, Bush has instant credibility just because he's President. So Dean's going down. Dubbya's president until January 2009, when Hilary Clinton will be sworn in.
Okay here's the deal. I am sick and tired of this endless ranting and raving that there is some conspiracy amongst George W. Bush and the leaders of this country. Its time we realize several things. One, just because we havent completely wipped the floor with the insurgents in Iraq doesnt mean the operation is a failure. Rebuilding a country does not happen overnight and it doesnt help that the only picture that most people get from the news is that the Iraqi people hate us and want to burn us alive along with out system of government. The fact is Reuters completed a poll with in the month that reported the following....
75% of the Iraqi people want us to stay until Iraq has a stable democracy in place
Of the remaining 25%, approxamately 20% or so want us to stay in Iraq for at least one more year
Thus you are left with 5% of the population that is often portrayed as the majority.
Second, we went into Iraq for the oil. This is so false, it makes me want to throw up every time someone points to it as our reason for removing a system of government who's idea of populace control involved throwing "insurgents" off multi-story buildings, cutting off their tounges, and fingers, all of which was done in the local public square for all to see and fear. Proof of this has recently been uncovered in the form of video tapes shot by the Former Iraqi Republican Guard. All of Iraq's oil remains in the control of the Iraqi People. We had an oppourtunity to take this oil free of charge, but we returned and will pay to use it just as we would've anyway.
Third, lets just forget about the countless thousands of innocent people who were killed at the hands of Sadam while the UN dragged its feet passing 13 consececutive security council resolutions which Sadam Hussein's government promptly violated without any fear of the UN getting off its but and taking the action "mandated" by the resolutions. In my opinion, if you're the United Nations speak loudly but carry a very small stick. But the world has been quick to blame the US for taking the Action that UN was supposed to take by its own accord starting 12 years ago. The blood of those who died under Sadam is on the United Nations Hands, but you know, why appropriately place blame them when you can blast the US.
I sincerely doubt that the social-Armageddon that many claim to be just around the corner is going to come to pass. There's been a lot of "outrage" about kids being singled out for not standing for. First, I am yet to hear someone be ostracized for not standing. And second, yes there is going to be some judging going on but, I am just waiting for it to separate the "true believers" and the "infidels." If someone cares enough about their beliefs to not say the pledge, they should find it as a source of determination not as a source of degradation when they choose to sit down. As for those who sit down feeling some sense of regret, i personally think that everyone owes some debt to the nation for their overall quality of life. But then again, why the hell should we give any credit to the lifestyle that this nation and the liberties it provides, protects, and preserves. We should be damn thankful that this pledge is voluntary and that we have the right to sit down. Thus, I continue to wait for a shred of evidence to indicate that a voluntary pledge to a country to which, whether we like to admit it or not has played a commanding role in our quality of life, has divided us into the goats and the sheep.
"What did everyone think of the Pledge? Does it abridge civil liberties? Is it a blatantly political move by a conservative government in the face of an upcoming presidential election? Your call, not mine."
1st: Giving people the option to say the pledge or not does not abridge civil liberties because you can choose your course of action.
2nd: The bill had broad support from conservatives and liberals, so it was not a political move by a "conservative government"
3rd: The vote had nothing to do with the presidential election because it was passed on the state level, so they really are not affected if Bush is elected or not.
First off, Franson, you suck for taking so long to post. Secondly, no, I do not think any of that crap you said. I think it is just another meaningless and even more so stupid law somehow managed to pass. Like three people in my class stood for it, and I sure as hell did not. I do not plan to stand for any symbol ever again. I do not live in Nazi Germany and I do not have to fear the Gestapo. I have no respect for anything made by man because as it is said ?everything made by man turns to shit? which is so very true.
Indeed, I amn't dead after all. I disagree Jesse: they all jump the shark. Lieberman strikes me as evil, as a proponent of the restriction of freedom of speech (and crime against the Bill of Rights) known as 'censorship'. However, it doesn't particularly matter to me; so long as Bush continues to lay the smackdown in the polls against all ten democratic candidates, and with the donkeys as flagrantly divided as they stand, I can't see a liberal outcome for the Presidential Election.
Ah well. On the RIAA, I don't really have anything to say. I believe the best quote to address the situation is 'This is unprecedented... Suing one's best customers? The music industry seems to have irrevocably lost its grip on reality'.
What did everyone think of the Pledge? Does it abridge civil liberties? Is it a blatantly political move by a conservative government in the face of an upcoming presidential election? Your call, not mine.
Cheers,
Franson
Of all the Craaazy Democrats running for presidental Nomination THE ONLY ONE that doesn't jump the shark would have to be Liberman. Dean lies about everything he says, and looks to be a sneak. His entire base is based on insulting everything the repulbicans do. I meen, C'mon I dont think the man can even come up with a logical argument. I meen if Bush were to say to him "The Sky is Blue" Dean would retort with "No its not you egotistical bastard"
And California, I change my vote to Gary Coleman! "Whatchu talkin' 'bout"
The Democrats really need to get their act together. With the coming of Presidential election season, 2/3 of people have no idea who any democratic presidential candidate is and the party itself is in shambles, unable to agree on anything. With Howard Dean as the frontrunner for the Presidential nomination, I would be really concerned if I was a democrat. Bush leaves so much to be desired, and can be probably beaten on almost every issue imaginable, yet he is leading in nearly every poll taken. The democrats fail to capture the public's imagination the way they used to and are in need of a major makeover. Unless one of the current candidates is able to change the face of the party, which doesn't look likely, we can look foreward to four more years of Dubbya.
