Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Bush has my vote for 2 reasons

#1. Legitimate according to whose opinion? Yours? Was the campaign in Bosnia illegitimate then?
#2. Osama and Al Qaeda are not the be all/end all of terrorism. The quote clearly says "support for terrorism" not "support for Osama and Al Qaeda". You do understand Al Qaeda is only one group out of many?
#3. The UN doesn't handle it. So yes, the US is the police of the world when it is in our national interests. That's just how the world works.
#4. It wasn't up to us to find POW's, it was up to Saddam to account for them. He never did.
#5. Saddam spending the Oil for Food money on weapons is not a threat to us? Were you paying attention when he was firing SAM's at our aircraft every day? It takes money to buy arms and if you are getting billions under the table from your buddies in France and Russia, you can buy a hell of a lot of arms. Who do you think he was buying them to fight, Kuwait again? Don't be ridiculous.
Next time think about how easily your opinions are shot down before posting. The key to debating is knowing both sides, not just your own. You don't see your own weaknesses if you fail to prepare this way.

NT

so you go off on some rant about how you're a left-wing tool who is bitter about Bush's poll numbers?
Thanks for the laughs. Come back when you can hold up your end of an argument.

it can only cement the reputation of liberals giving up when the going gets tough.

Stretch you've lost it !!! OMG , please !!

Like Rush and Hannity and them argue ad nausum. Please , attacking the person and not the point is PRECISELY why they think the way they do. Fuck facts , just observe what your leaders state. Hence the reason for this long post war.

The intel was wrong, so what? It has been wrong for years. Blaming Bush for that is illogical.
Saddam murdered his own people by the hundreds of thousands. This is a fact. He was a bad guy, our sworn enemy, unstable and still seeking WMD's, and we removed him. These are all facts.
So far all you've come up with is the equivalent of "Bush is a poopyhead".
Now run away like a liberal. <img src="/~stretch/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Though I do agree with much of what you said, especially about the part where you outlined the "all star" accomplishments.
However, two things you missed or may have missed you.
First, and foremost, much of the Iraq problem was developed over the past few decades including world opinion of our foreign policy. Simply, the US has meddled for far too long in the affairs of others and we are now reaping the benefits or just rewards. Lots of people like to blame Bush for that but the problem was prevelent even when Sr. was in office, he just lacked the sack to put and end to it. Not saying that was right or wrong, since the whole question becomes is might right? Bit of a contradiction if we tell him his brutality has caused the problem, then turn around and brutally and forcefully remove the very people you called tyrants from office. Incidentally, we gave him his arsenal years before that during the Iran contra affair. So go ahead and point the finger now, Bush may be a dumbfuck, but he didn't start the problem. Simply put, he is trying to provide a better solution than letting it be, which is what the international community would have done.
Second, you talked about Iraq being a charity case. Would that be like Germany was after their world war fiascos? You realize they paid for almost every dime of destruction they caused right? If you knew that, you would also know that Iraq, though destitute right now, has an enormous potential for capital with the number of oil wells there. It would be absolutely assenine to think that every dollar we spend over there now will not come back 5 fold in oil reductions and revenues at a later date.
Put frankly, Bush is a pretty stupid fucker but I think the alternative fucking porch monkey that Kerry provides doesn't leave us with much of a sterling step up. They are both worthless, one changes positions on a whim and the other just doesn't look ahead before he acts. However, one has one thing the other doesn't, which is at least worthy of a scrap of respect in my book. It's a little thing called resolve. If you make a decision, ride the fucker out and start making some good ones along the way to resolve the issue. I don't care for the whole, "let someone else make my decision" attitude that Kerry has.
I don't really care for Bush, but of the two evils, I think he has to be slightly less vile than Kerry is.
Vote Happy Harry Hardon for President of the United States!
Take it easy...

There are 100's of BAD dudes that kill their people. That has never been used as an excuse for pre-emptive war in Modern history , no wait i was wrong, the US did that in Panama also.

Where do you get off saying Sadam was Sworn Enemy ? He attacked Kuwait remember not the US. The US atatcked him with 30 other Nations, so no it was not Sadam vs the World. Perhaps Bin Laden can be disscribe that way now adays. Remember the US PUT Sadam in power and gave himhis bio weaps.

Very good post, I agree alot. but overall I say Kerry. I know what fuck ups bush has done, time to let someone else try. I can't see him being any worse.

The US did not put Saddam in power. The Ba'ath party took power in the 1970's while Saddam was #2 behind his uncle. He replaced him after a few years and murdered all dissenters. He's nothing but a gangster who murdered his way to the top just like any other hoodlum.
Yes there are 100's of bad dudes. We will take them out when we can and when it is in our national interests. See how that works? It's called reality. This is how the world has always worked and will always work. Every nation does what is in its own best interests.
Manuel Noriega
Slobodan Milosevic
Saddam Hussein
Charles Taylor
next?