Natalee Holloway & the President

NoEd wrote:

> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message news:deq48s$3fr$
>
>> NoEd wrote:
>>
>>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
message news:depojo$rhr$
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet.
Support for the war is in the toilet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can even 40% approve of Bush?
>>>>
>>>> He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting
in the deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men
women and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the
USA more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The war was necessary. It removed the threat of SH and is
attempting to establish a democracy in the middle east
>>>
>>
>> What was "the threat of SH"? He had no WMDs, no nuclear, no
biological, no chemical weapons. All he did have was the odd rocket that
could only manage 150 miles, hardly enough to get out of Iraq, a few old
Russian tanks, rocket propelled grenades and small arms. Just what was
the threat to America 6000 miles or so away? That he would wiggle his
mustache at you?
>
>
>
> Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still
acquired them. The world is better off without SH.
>
No they didn't. America had satellites watching and spy planes flying
over Iraq for 10 or 12 years after the first Gulf war and probably
before. They knew there were no WMDs there in Iraq in the same way they
know whenever Iran or North Korea change any of their nuclear
installations. They can see it. There is even a web site now linked to
satellite observations that anyone can use to focus down on any part of
the world, even to individual houses.

Also the UN had 100 observers roaming Iraq for four months looking for
weapons and they found absolutely nothing. There was not a shred of
evidence for any WMDs or any threat which is why millions of the public
did not believe a word of it and marched in demos against the war before
it started. In the Uk there was so little evidence that MI5 had to
invent lies about it under pressure from Blair and put out a false
"dodgy brochure" trying to justify a non-existent threat from Iraq.

Looking at the conditions in Iraq now and its likely future there is no
sign that it is better off without Saddam. It seems a lot worse now. He
united it and ruled it for 30 years in relative peace, in spite of the
US vendetta against him and their successful attempts to destroy Iraq's
economy with sanctions. There were rebellions during his rule, as now,
and he put them down with brutal military force, as the US try do now,
only Saddam was successful. Iraq ran a lot better under Saddam and the
best thing the US could do now is give him his old job back, with
compensation for wrongful imprisonment and destroying his country.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
>>>
>>
>> What is false? Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Qa'eda a
going concern. Bush could not catch them so he attacked someone else
instead who had no connection to 9/11. I suppose he had to be seen to be
doing something, however inept.
>
>
>
> Because OBL has not been caught proves nothing, and the subsequent
attacks proves there is truely a war on terror. By the way, Clinton
couldn't catch him.
>
>
>
>> SH a threat? How? America is a superpower with enough WMDs to
destroy the whole planet while SH had none and virtually no conventional
arms either. He was just a pussy cat compared to Bush.
>
>
>
> He invaded Kuwait, remember? Crazy people with money and power are a
threat.
>
Sounds like Bush!

On that basis Germany and Japan and Italy are still threats and we
should keep invading them, overthrowing their governments and
imprisoning their people without trial.

>
>>>> Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is
still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis
are now marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting
the western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
percentage of the populace voted?
>>>
>>
>> Only the Shia and Kurds voted. The Sunni boycotted it. That's not
democracy. Why should they accept a system forced on them by an invading
army? If China conquered the USA would you be happy to take part in a
one-candidate communist style election because the Chinese preferred it?
The Sunni will now reject the American imposed "constitution" and, in
fact have already rejected it. Where does America go from here?
>
>
>
> So? It was still vote, and Im not sure that is true. They are
writing and voting on the constitution now.
>
The Sunni have already rejected the constitution. If you don't know that
then you are not paying attention.

>
>>>> 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends.
Other captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> False again.
>>>
>>
>> You've not heard of Guantanamo Bay then? It's in Cuba. Or of similar
prisons in Afghanistan and other countries expressly set up to deprive
the captives of their legal rights. How many of the captives have been
charged with any crime, brought to trial and found guilty?
>
>
>
>
> I heard of it, and your claim is false.
>
Saying it is false will not help any of the 600 or more prisoners held
there without trial or legal redress for 3 years. Don't they tell you
about this on American TV? Is there censorship over there or do you just
not know what is going on?

>
>>>> At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run
a record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.
>>>
>>
>> They are all true. Try reading the papers or watching TV.
>
>
>
> I do read the papers. May be you should try something other than the
left wing rags you read.
>
Like the Daily Telegraph you mean? Not many people in the UK consider it
left wing. Once again you seem to live on a different planet. You really
should get out more!

>
>
>>>> Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
masochists?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bush was easily the best choice.
>>>
>>
>> From all the brilliant businessmen and scientists in America he was
really the best you could find?
>
>
>
> Better than Kerry, that was choice. I am sorry of your inferiority
complex and angst about the US. Live with it.
>
>
I have no inferiority complex about the US, which is a great country, as
are the UK, France, Germany and many others. I disagree with US
government policy, and equally with UK government policy, over Iraq. It
may be a tricky concept for you that I disagree with one policy of a
government but agree with many others and still admire a country that is
doing the wrong thing in one area but many good things as well in others.

>
>

Re: Natalee Holloway & the President

"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:desd30$hv3$
> NoEd wrote:
>
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> message news:deq48s$3fr$
> >
> >> NoEd wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> message news:depojo$rhr$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet.
> Support for the war is in the toilet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How can even 40% approve of Bush?
> >>>>
> >>>> He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting
> in the deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men
> women and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the
> USA more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The war was necessary. It removed the threat of SH and is
> attempting to establish a democracy in the middle east
> >>>
> >>
> >> What was "the threat of SH"? He had no WMDs, no nuclear, no
> biological, no chemical weapons. All he did have was the odd rocket that
> could only manage 150 miles, hardly enough to get out of Iraq, a few old
> Russian tanks, rocket propelled grenades and small arms. Just what was the
> threat to America 6000 miles or so away? That he would wiggle his mustache
> at you?
> >
> >
> >
> > Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still
> acquired them. The world is better off without SH.
> >
> No they didn't. America had satellites watching and spy planes flying over
> Iraq for 10 or 12 years after the first Gulf war and probably before. They
> knew there were no WMDs there in Iraq in the same way they know whenever
> Iran or North Korea change any of their nuclear installations. They can
> see it. There is even a web site now linked to satellite observations that
> anyone can use to focus down on any part of the world, even to individual
> houses.
>
> Also the UN had 100 observers roaming Iraq for four months looking for
> weapons and they found absolutely nothing. There was not a shred of
> evidence for any WMDs or any threat which is why millions of the public
> did not believe a word of it and marched in demos against the war before
> it started. In the Uk there was so little evidence that MI5 had to invent
> lies about it under pressure from Blair and put out a false "dodgy
> brochure" trying to justify a non-existent threat from Iraq.




>
> Looking at the conditions in Iraq now and its likely future there is no
> sign that it is better off without Saddam. It seems a lot worse now. He
> united it and ruled it for 30 years in relative peace, in spite of the US
> vendetta against him and their successful attempts to destroy Iraq's
> economy with sanctions. There were rebellions during his rule, as now, and
> he put them down with brutal military force, as the US try do now, only
> Saddam was successful. Iraq ran a lot better under Saddam and the best
> thing the US could do now is give him his old job back, with compensation
> for wrongful imprisonment and destroying his country.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
> organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
> recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
> Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is false? Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Qa'eda a
> going concern. Bush could not catch them so he attacked someone else
> instead who had no connection to 9/11. I suppose he had to be seen to be
> doing something, however inept.
> >
> >
> >
> > Because OBL has not been caught proves nothing, and the subsequent
> attacks proves there is truely a war on terror. By the way, Clinton
> couldn't catch him.
> >
> >
> >
> >> SH a threat? How? America is a superpower with enough WMDs to
> destroy the whole planet while SH had none and virtually no conventional
> arms either. He was just a pussy cat compared to Bush.
> >
> >
> >
> > He invaded Kuwait, remember? Crazy people with money and power are a
> threat.
> >
> Sounds like Bush!
>
> On that basis Germany and Japan and Italy are still threats and we should
> keep invading them, overthrowing their governments and imprisoning their
> people without trial.
>
> >
> >>>> Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is
> still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis
> are now marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
> western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
> percentage of the populace voted?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Only the Shia and Kurds voted. The Sunni boycotted it. That's not
> democracy. Why should they accept a system forced on them by an invading
> army? If China conquered the USA would you be happy to take part in a
> one-candidate communist style election because the Chinese preferred it?
> The Sunni will now reject the American imposed "constitution" and, in fact
> have already rejected it. Where does America go from here?
> >
> >
> >
> > So? It was still vote, and Im not sure that is true. They are
> writing and voting on the constitution now.
> >
> The Sunni have already rejected the constitution. If you don't know that
> then you are not paying attention.
>
> >
> >>>> 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
> charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other
> captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> False again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You've not heard of Guantanamo Bay then? It's in Cuba. Or of similar
> prisons in Afghanistan and other countries expressly set up to deprive the
> captives of their legal rights. How many of the captives have been charged
> with any crime, brought to trial and found guilty?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I heard of it, and your claim is false.
> >
> Saying it is false will not help any of the 600 or more prisoners held
> there without trial or legal redress for 3 years. Don't they tell you
> about this on American TV? Is there censorship over there or do you just
> not know what is going on?
>
> >
> >>>> At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run
> a record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
> and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
> the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.
> >>>
> >>
> >> They are all true. Try reading the papers or watching TV.
> >
> >
> >
> > I do read the papers. May be you should try something other than the
> left wing rags you read.
> >
> Like the Daily Telegraph you mean? Not many people in the UK consider it
> left wing. Once again you seem to live on a different planet. You really
> should get out more!
>
> >
> >
> >>>> Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
> masochists?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bush was easily the best choice.
> >>>
> >>
> >> From all the brilliant businessmen and scientists in America he was
> really the best you could find?
> >
> >
> >
> > Better than Kerry, that was choice. I am sorry of your inferiority
> complex and angst about the US. Live with it.
> >
> >
> I have no inferiority complex about the US, which is a great country, as
> are the UK, France, Germany and many others. I disagree with US government
> policy, and equally with UK government policy, over Iraq. It may be a
> tricky concept for you that I disagree with one policy of a government but
> agree with many others and still admire a country that is doing the wrong
> thing in one area but many good things as well in others.
>
> >
> >

Re: Natalee Holloway & the President

David,

There is no point in arguing. I think the war in Iraq was justified and
needed; you don't. Nothing either will say will change that. The best we
can ever hope for is agreement on the facts, e.g. was SH the dictator of
Iraq? I say "yes." What do you say?

Christopher Hitchens is a very bright and recently wrote an article called
"A War To Be Proud Of." His views align with mine. Here is the article:







"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:desd30$hv3$
> NoEd wrote:
>
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> message news:deq48s$3fr$
> >
> >> NoEd wrote:
> >>
> >>> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
> message news:depojo$rhr$
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet.
> Support for the war is in the toilet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How can even 40% approve of Bush?
> >>>>
> >>>> He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting
> in the deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men
> women and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the
> USA more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The war was necessary. It removed the threat of SH and is
> attempting to establish a democracy in the middle east
> >>>
> >>
> >> What was "the threat of SH"? He had no WMDs, no nuclear, no
> biological, no chemical weapons. All he did have was the odd rocket that
> could only manage 150 miles, hardly enough to get out of Iraq, a few old
> Russian tanks, rocket propelled grenades and small arms. Just what was the
> threat to America 6000 miles or so away? That he would wiggle his mustache
> at you?
> >
> >
> >
> > Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still
> acquired them. The world is better off without SH.
> >
> No they didn't. America had satellites watching and spy planes flying over
> Iraq for 10 or 12 years after the first Gulf war and probably before. They
> knew there were no WMDs there in Iraq in the same way they know whenever
> Iran or North Korea change any of their nuclear installations. They can
> see it. There is even a web site now linked to satellite observations that
> anyone can use to focus down on any part of the world, even to individual
> houses.
>
> Also the UN had 100 observers roaming Iraq for four months looking for
> weapons and they found absolutely nothing. There was not a shred of
> evidence for any WMDs or any threat which is why millions of the public
> did not believe a word of it and marched in demos against the war before
> it started. In the Uk there was so little evidence that MI5 had to invent
> lies about it under pressure from Blair and put out a false "dodgy
> brochure" trying to justify a non-existent threat from Iraq.
>
> Looking at the conditions in Iraq now and its likely future there is no
> sign that it is better off without Saddam. It seems a lot worse now. He
> united it and ruled it for 30 years in relative peace, in spite of the US
> vendetta against him and their successful attempts to destroy Iraq's
> economy with sanctions. There were rebellions during his rule, as now, and
> he put them down with brutal military force, as the US try do now, only
> Saddam was successful. Iraq ran a lot better under Saddam and the best
> thing the US could do now is give him his old job back, with compensation
> for wrongful imprisonment and destroying his country.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
> organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
> recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
> Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Completely false. SH was a threat.
> >>>
> >>
> >> What is false? Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Qa'eda a
> going concern. Bush could not catch them so he attacked someone else
> instead who had no connection to 9/11. I suppose he had to be seen to be
> doing something, however inept.
> >
> >
> >
> > Because OBL has not been caught proves nothing, and the subsequent
> attacks proves there is truely a war on terror. By the way, Clinton
> couldn't catch him.
> >
> >
> >
> >> SH a threat? How? America is a superpower with enough WMDs to
> destroy the whole planet while SH had none and virtually no conventional
> arms either. He was just a pussy cat compared to Bush.
> >
> >
> >
> > He invaded Kuwait, remember? Crazy people with money and power are a
> threat.
> >
> Sounds like Bush!
>
> On that basis Germany and Japan and Italy are still threats and we should
> keep invading them, overthrowing their governments and imprisoning their
> people without trial.
>
> >
> >>>> Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is
> still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis
> are now marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
> western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
> percentage of the populace voted?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Only the Shia and Kurds voted. The Sunni boycotted it. That's not
> democracy. Why should they accept a system forced on them by an invading
> army? If China conquered the USA would you be happy to take part in a
> one-candidate communist style election because the Chinese preferred it?
> The Sunni will now reject the American imposed "constitution" and, in fact
> have already rejected it. Where does America go from here?
> >
> >
> >
> > So? It was still vote, and Im not sure that is true. They are
> writing and voting on the constitution now.
> >
> The Sunni have already rejected the constitution. If you don't know that
> then you are not paying attention.
>
> >
> >>>> 600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
> charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other
> captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> False again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You've not heard of Guantanamo Bay then? It's in Cuba. Or of similar
> prisons in Afghanistan and other countries expressly set up to deprive the
> captives of their legal rights. How many of the captives have been charged
> with any crime, brought to trial and found guilty?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I heard of it, and your claim is false.
> >
> Saying it is false will not help any of the 600 or more prisoners held
> there without trial or legal redress for 3 years. Don't they tell you
> about this on American TV? Is there censorship over there or do you just
> not know what is going on?
>
> >
> >>>> At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run
> a record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
> and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
> the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.
> >>>
> >>
> >> They are all true. Try reading the papers or watching TV.
> >
> >
> >
> > I do read the papers. May be you should try something other than the
> left wing rags you read.
> >
> Like the Daily Telegraph you mean? Not many people in the UK consider it
> left wing. Once again you seem to live on a different planet. You really
> should get out more!
>
> >
> >
> >>>> Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
> masochists?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bush was easily the best choice.
> >>>
> >>
> >> From all the brilliant businessmen and scientists in America he was
> really the best you could find?
> >
> >
> >
> > Better than Kerry, that was choice. I am sorry of your inferiority
> complex and angst about the US. Live with it.
> >
> >
> I have no inferiority complex about the US, which is a great country, as
> are the UK, France, Germany and many others. I disagree with US government
> policy, and equally with UK government policy, over Iraq. It may be a
> tricky concept for you that I disagree with one policy of a government but
> agree with many others and still admire a country that is doing the wrong
> thing in one area but many good things as well in others.
>
> >
> >

Re: Natalee Holloway & the President

OK, we'll agree to disagree.

You are entitled to your opinion, whatever I think. Let's watch how it
pans out in the longer run.

NoEd wrote:
> David,
>
> There is no point in arguing. I think the war in Iraq was justified and
> needed; you don't. Nothing either will say will change that. The best we
> can ever hope for is agreement on the facts, e.g. was SH the dictator of
> Iraq? I say "yes." What do you say?
>
> Christopher Hitchens is a very bright and recently wrote an article called
> "A War To Be Proud Of." His views align with mine. Here is the article:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
> news:desd30$hv3$
>
>>NoEd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>
>>message news:deq48s$3fr$
>>
>>>>NoEd wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in
>>
>>message news:depojo$rhr$
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you seen the polls. Bush's popularity is in the toilet.
>>
>>Support for the war is in the toilet.
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How can even 40% approve of Bush?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He has taken his country into a totally unnecessary war, resulting
>>
>>in the deaths of over a thousand Americans and at least 25,000 Iraqi men
>>women and children with tens of thousands more injured. He has made the
>>USA more unpopular abroad than at any time in its history.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The war was necessary. It removed the threat of SH and is
>>
>>attempting to establish a democracy in the middle east
>>
>>>>What was "the threat of SH"? He had no WMDs, no nuclear, no
>>
>>biological, no chemical weapons. All he did have was the odd rocket that
>>could only manage 150 miles, hardly enough to get out of Iraq, a few old
>>Russian tanks, rocket propelled grenades and small arms. Just what was the
>>threat to America 6000 miles or so away? That he would wiggle his mustache
>>at you?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Everyone believed he STILL had WMDs, plus he could have still
>>
>>acquired them. The world is better off without SH.
>>
>>No they didn't. America had satellites watching and spy planes flying over
>>Iraq for 10 or 12 years after the first Gulf war and probably before. They
>>knew there were no WMDs there in Iraq in the same way they know whenever
>>Iran or North Korea change any of their nuclear installations. They can
>>see it. There is even a web site now linked to satellite observations that
>>anyone can use to focus down on any part of the world, even to individual
>>houses.
>>
>>Also the UN had 100 observers roaming Iraq for four months looking for
>>weapons and they found absolutely nothing. There was not a shred of
>>evidence for any WMDs or any threat which is why millions of the public
>>did not believe a word of it and marched in demos against the war before
>>it started. In the Uk there was so little evidence that MI5 had to invent
>>lies about it under pressure from Blair and put out a false "dodgy
>>brochure" trying to justify a non-existent threat from Iraq.
>>
>>Looking at the conditions in Iraq now and its likely future there is no
>>sign that it is better off without Saddam. It seems a lot worse now. He
>>united it and ruled it for 30 years in relative peace, in spite of the US
>>vendetta against him and their successful attempts to destroy Iraq's
>>economy with sanctions. There were rebellions during his rule, as now, and
>>he put them down with brutal military force, as the US try do now, only
>>Saddam was successful. Iraq ran a lot better under Saddam and the best
>>thing the US could do now is give him his old job back, with compensation
>>for wrongful imprisonment and destroying his country.
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>He has not caught the people who caused 9/11 nor broken their
>>
>>organisation. Far from fighting the so-called "war on terror" he has
>>recruited more terrorists for the other side by a brutal invasion of a
>>Muslim country that posed no threat to the USA and had not attacked it.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Completely false. SH was a threat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What is false? Osama Bin Laden is still at large and his Al Qa'eda a
>>
>>going concern. Bush could not catch them so he attacked someone else
>>instead who had no connection to 9/11. I suppose he had to be seen to be
>>doing something, however inept.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Because OBL has not been caught proves nothing, and the subsequent
>>
>>attacks proves there is truely a war on terror. By the way, Clinton
>>couldn't catch him.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>SH a threat? How? America is a superpower with enough WMDs to
>>
>>destroy the whole planet while SH had none and virtually no conventional
>>arms either. He was just a pussy cat compared to Bush.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>He invaded Kuwait, remember? Crazy people with money and power are a
>>
>>threat.
>>
>>Sounds like Bush!
>>
>>On that basis Germany and Japan and Italy are still threats and we should
>>keep invading them, overthrowing their governments and imprisoning their
>>people without trial.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Two years after he "won" the war in Iraq and deposed Saddam he is
>>
>>still fighting it with no end in sight. Far from being grateful, Iraqis
>>are now marching in demos holding up pictures of Saddam and rejecting the
>>western-style democracy he is trying to foist on them.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>False again. Did they have a vote recentily where a large
>>
>>percentage of the populace voted?
>>
>>>>Only the Shia and Kurds voted. The Sunni boycotted it. That's not
>>
>>democracy. Why should they accept a system forced on them by an invading
>>army? If China conquered the USA would you be happy to take part in a
>>one-candidate communist style election because the Chinese preferred it?
>>The Sunni will now reject the American imposed "constitution" and, in fact
>>have already rejected it. Where does America go from here?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So? It was still vote, and Im not sure that is true. They are
>>
>>writing and voting on the constitution now.
>>
>>The Sunni have already rejected the constitution. If you don't know that
>>then you are not paying attention.
>>
>>
>>>>>>600 or more captives have been imprisoned for three years without
>>
>>charges, trial or access to legal aid or their families or friends. Other
>>captives have been humiliated, tortured and even killed.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>False again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You've not heard of Guantanamo Bay then? It's in Cuba. Or of similar
>>
>>prisons in Afghanistan and other countries expressly set up to deprive the
>>captives of their legal rights. How many of the captives have been charged
>>with any crime, brought to trial and found guilty?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I heard of it, and your claim is false.
>>>
>>
>>Saying it is false will not help any of the 600 or more prisoners held
>>there without trial or legal redress for 3 years. Don't they tell you
>>about this on American TV? Is there censorship over there or do you just
>>not know what is going on?
>>
>>
>>>>>>At home there has been a mass exodus of jobs to China. He has run
>>
>>a record budget and balance of payments deficit. The dollar has weakened
>>and sunk against other currencies, even the despised Euro. Over 5 years
>>the stock market has gone exactly nowhere.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Spending is too high, but the the rest of your statements are false.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are all true. Try reading the papers or watching TV.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I do read the papers. May be you should try something other than the
>>
>>left wing rags you read.
>>
>>Like the Daily Telegraph you mean? Not many people in the UK consider it
>>left wing. Once again you seem to live on a different planet. You really
>>should get out more!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>Amazingly Americans voted him in for a second term! Are they all
>>
>>masochists?
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bush was easily the best choice.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>From all the brilliant businessmen and scientists in America he was
>>
>>really the best you could find?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Better than Kerry, that was choice. I am sorry of your inferiority
>>
>>complex and angst about the US. Live with it.
>>
>>>
>>I have no inferiority complex about the US, which is a great country, as
>>are the UK, France, Germany and many others. I disagree with US government
>>policy, and equally with UK government policy, over Iraq. It may be a
>>tricky concept for you that I disagree with one policy of a government but
>>agree with many others and still admire a country that is doing the wrong
>>thing in one area but many good things as well in others.
>>
>>
>>>
>
>