Bush is at it again.

[it290]

I for one am not saying we're there 'just' for oil, however it's silly to deny the benefits that big US companies -- companies closely affiliated with the President and VP -- have received as a direct result of the Iraq war.

[PaCrappa]

So how can you argue that we're in Iraq just for oil?

I haven't, I didn't and I won't. You asked how come gas prices went up and I answered you with the facts. Are you refuting the factual reason of exactly why gas prices went up? If you are, please give me a better reason with sources to prove it.

Pa

[VNAF Ace]

I'm not refuting the factual reason. And I didn't mean to say that you, PaCrappa, argued that we're in Iraq just for oil. Guess I made a typo somewhere.

[PaCrappa]

I do believe that lower gasoline prices were a highly touted fringe benefit of this war. What are your thoughts on gas prices instead going through the roof whilst the companies that sell it posting record profits? It's 110% the American way and about as far from communism as anyone could ever dream. So, is it awesome then? Is it making America better than it was beforehand?

Pa

[Brian]

If you really want to know why oil prices are rising, it is simply because the dollar has been losing its value. Due to tax cuts, war spending, doing nothing to combat deficits in trade, the value of the dollar has declined. Granted, it has made a little of a comeback, but in relative terms, it is still weak.

Now, oil is priced in dollars and so when the dollar is weaker, the price is higher, that is eco 101. If you look to the Euro during its rise, oil only rose about 5% in those countries, due to the fact that its currency is strong. If the dollar were to continue to decline, the oil producing countries would reset their prices into other currencies as the dollar is becoming more and more worthless to them.

So, when an analyst says that oil can go to $90 or $100 per barrel, what is actually being said is that dollar's value will drop another 45 or 50 percent. But, of course, no analyst is going to be that honest, so they use the barrel of oil as a way to mask the killing of the dollar that Bush and his cronies have set in motion.

[PaCrappa]

Here's another question! This time I know the answer but I want to see if supporters of the Bush family will try to twist it in their reply. Okay, here it go now:

How did good ol' Prescott Sheldon Bush (Dubya's grandaddy) make a massive huge chunk of the family's substantial wealth in the 30s and early 40s?

While it's certainly well within the confines of The American Way (possibly The White Man's Burden as well) the answer ain't pretty and I hope the Bush supporters here will not try to flower it up.

Give it to me!

Pa

[Brian]

Grandaddy Bush was a banker with ties to Nazis.

[PaCrappa]

Lookin' good Brian! Let's keep those thoughts coming people!

Pa

[VNAF Ace]

I'm not going to judge the President based on the actions of his relatives.

I'm sure all of us have at least one relative we aren't proud of...

[PaCrappa]

This just in! I got a nice breakdown of federal expenditures from my buddy the law student. I was honestly looking for interest paid out to be #2 expenditure behind defense spending. Even though the results are not what I was hoping for they still go a long way toward substantiating any assertion that our country is not being very wise financially. Here's what he had to say:

"Here is the GAO report detailing 2005 expenditures
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2005/05stmt.pdf

Here is a pdf explaining how it works
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2005/05gao2.pdf

You will see on the list
Military "wars"
SS
Medicare/AID
VA also known as "past wars"
INTEREST

While interest is 5 overall on the list there are considerations here. 1) There is no tangible capital received from this unlike the other four. We are simply paying close to $200B a year to satisfy foreign debt. 2) The interest compounds yearly and is subject to change. Since we are at some of the lowest interest rates historically, it is only rational to assume they are going up. Therefore this number is going up while the other four will go down (with the exception of military spending maybe) 3)Referring back to point one, there is no return on this, any capital to be gained would have been generated by the principal... and it doesn't look like is happening since we keep accruing more debt! Expenditures one two and three all have tangible returns, national security, social security, health security, and veteran security. This can be noted in the statement for net cost as there is no return noted for the interest payment.

You can google the web for various partisan websites that break this down according to their ideologies. I prefer to present the raw data and let it explain itself."

Interesting, no?

Pa

[PaCrappa]

I'm not going to judge the President based on the actions of his relatives.

I'm sure all of us have at least one relative we aren't proud of...

My dad was kinda mean. Nowadays I can occasionally be a little hasty to act in anger myself. The apple don't fall far from the tree.

GW Bush is clearly all about his daddy who clearly learnt it all from his daddy. With that kind of love and respect in the Bush family, would it really be a stretch to say that maybe GW Bush is a 3rd generation war profiteer who may not care so much what happens to all those unfortunate Iraqi civilians who die at the hands of the US in the name of their own "liberation"?

Pa

[BulletMagnet]

You seem to believe there's some grand conspiracy. If there was, then wouldn't it be in Bush's best interest to make sure gas prices didn't go up so people wouldn't get angry about gas prices? Why would he willingly risk pissing off voters?

You do know that Dick Cheney got together with a whole bunch of oil execs some time back to discuss the country's energy policy, right? And that the goings-on of that get-together remain classified to this day, despite numerous requests to let the people see what transpired?

As for what happened during Hurricane Katrina... The local, state, and federal gov'ts ALL share the blame for what happened. Many people also believed that the hurricane wouldn't be that bad. To pin all the blame on Bush is simply stupid and illogical.

Indeed, it's not just the federal level that messed up, but honestly, remember when they said that they simply hadn't been informed quickly enough of what was happening in N.O. because of a communications breakdown? That was just debunked too. Not to mention, of course, the already-publicized account of the Prez having to be shown a video of some of the coverage to get any idea of what was going on...also, remember Barbara Bush's comments about those seeking refuge in the dome ("they're destitute anyway, this is no big deal for most of them")? This is the woman who raised him. Or Jeb's comments about Florida's citizens not being prepared enough "on their own" for a hurricane which hit there? "It's not that hard," he said, if I recall; that's his brother. Not to mention his dad's oft-criticized response to natural disasters during his term. Do you honestly think Dubya regards the poor any differently?

We tried avoiding terrorists and oppressive regimes before and look at what happened: 9/11.

As has been said several times before in this thread, we did not "avoid" terrorists and oppressive regimes before 9-11; on several occasions we supported them or even helped them gain power when it served our purposes at the time. Those in power, of course, hope that people forget all about it by the time the aforementioned groups and governments wheel around and bite us years down the line, and become the next "evil which must be stopped at all costs." So when you say...

Those who aid the terrorists are no better than the terrorists themselves.

...I hope you realize what it is you're saying.

We know what the problem is: Oppression. That's why we need to spread democracy around the world. Who are you to decide who does and doesn't deserve the same freedom we enjoy?

You do realize that many would view being forced at gunpoint to adopt someone else's form of government, democracy included, as "oppression," right? And that this is the source of much of the current contention between us and the rest of the world, especially after we've already been messing with their part of the world for years, for our own ends? And that talking about "giving people choices" in the midst of all this only makes us look worse? Have you heard the latest inklings of the U.S. and Israel possibly attempting to overthrow Hamas in Palestine, even after it was fairly elected into power? Do you realize how phony this sort of thing makes us look, time and time again?

The regular Iraqi people now benefit from oil profits instead of having Saddam hoard all of the money to build his fancy palaces. The Iraqi people are using the profits from the sale of Iraqi oil to rebuild their country.

If I recall correctly, oil production is still below pre-war levels, and on most days electric power (where it exists) is only on for a few hours total.

As someone who knows what it's like to live under oppression... I fail to see how liberating 25 million people from one of the most oppressive dictators in human history is a joke.

Again: the "joke" is the fact that liberating Iraq is NOT why we invaded. The war would NOT have been approved if that had been the rationale at the time. Liberating Iraq is NOT what this is about; it's just what the Powers That Be are using as their current justification for being there.

Not to be a pest or anything, but it'd seem that you've more or less ignored my previous posts thus far.

[Brian]

Actually, I was not a fan of Daddy Bush either, but it is not fair to lump him in with his son. For one, he did not pander to right wing Christians. He was a moderate republican for sure, he knew that tax cuts were not sustainable so he raised the. He did not go into the Persian Gulf war and cut taxes, he knew what had to be done and he did it. Even though by doing it he effectively killed his career.

He was not stupid or naive enough to topple Saddam. He knew containment was the key to that regime. In fact, he even wrote a book about why he did not go into Baghdad. There was simply no benefit to it.

Lastly, he was a past President of Planned Parenthood, so that should tell you all you need to know about his privacy stances. In fact, to this day, he has not come out as a pro-life or pro-choice guy and he refuses to comment on his son's policy. I don't blame the guy one iota for being hurt by the attacks on his son, I mean Dubyah still is his son, regardless of the bad choices he makes.

[Acid King]

I do believe that lower gasoline prices were a highly touted fringe benefit of this war. What are your thoughts on gas prices instead going through the roof whilst the companies that sell it posting record profits? It's 110% the American way and about as far from communism as anyone could ever dream. So, is it awesome then? Is it making America better than it was beforehand?

Not to jump in or anything but you know by now pretty much everything they said pre-war has turned out to be bullshit. The whole post war period is nothign like they thought it would be (which they are pretty damn stupid if they really believed the rosy predictions they gave). Gas prices probably would have dropped more but production in Iraq is awful because of how insecure and dangerous the work is over there. Also, global demand has increased as other economies (namely China and India) have grown. They might dip a little more but on the whole, they're never goin to be as low as they used to be (I miss less than a dollar a gallon gas), and will increase gradually, and eventually, displaced altogether. My guess is in the next 50 years or so...

[Neon]

It's more like 5 more years of gas. If that.

[VNAF Ace]

You do know that Dick Cheney got together with a whole bunch of oil execs some time back to discuss the country's energy policy, right? And that the goings-on of that get-together remain classified to this day, despite numerous requests to let the people see what transpired?

Even IF some deal was made. Wouldn't the oil execs try to keep prices down during election year so less voters would be pissed off about gas prices? That's why I don't buy any of those war for oil conspiracy theories.

Or Jeb's comments about Florida's citizens not being prepared enough "on their own" for a hurricane which hit there? "It's not that hard," he said, if I recall; that's his brother. Not to mention his dad's oft-criticized response to natural disasters during his term. Do you honestly think Dubya regards the poor any differently?

Why shouldn't you be prepared on your own? If you live in an area that can be hit by hurricanes, then you should be prepared. I'm from San Francisco, and my family always has emergency supplies ready for an earthquake. Some people simply need to learn how to be RESPONSIBLE.

As has been said several times before in this thread, we did not "avoid" terrorists and oppressive regimes before 9-11; on several occasions we supported them or even helped them gain power when it served our purposes at the time.

I consider not taking the fight to them avoiding them. Cruise missilie strikes don't do ####. Soldiers on the ground win wars.

As for "supporting" terrorists and oppressive regimes... We may have supported Saddam when he fought Iran, but at least we're trying to make up for that mistake.

You do realize that many would view being forced at gunpoint to adopt someone else's form of government, democracy included, as "oppression," right?

I'm getting real sick of this argument. No one dragged the Iraqi people out of their homes and forced them to vote. Look at the Iraqi voter turnout. It was even higher than American voter turnout for the 2004 presidential elections, and the Iraqis had to worry about terrorist attacks. I don't know what more they need to do to prove that they want democracy.

If I recall correctly, oil production is still below pre-war levels, and on most days electric power (where it exists) is only on for a few hours total.

Actually, both oil production and utilities have been either restored or now exceed pre-war levels. But the news rarely shows the progress we've made in Iraq because good news doesn't get ratings.

Again: the "joke" is the fact that liberating Iraq is NOT why we invaded. The war would NOT have been approved if that had been the rationale at the time. Liberating Iraq is NOT what this is about; it's just what the Powers That Be are using as their current justification for being there.

It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom for a reason. At what point did we say we were just going in for WMDs and then leaving Iraq in shambles? We said from the beginning, that regime change was the goal if Saddam failed to comply. Saddam had his chance, chose to face us in combat, and lost.

He was not stupid or naive enough to topple Saddam. He knew containment was the key to that regime. In fact, he even wrote a book about why he did not go into Baghdad. There was simply no benefit to it.

Screw containment. Containment didn't work. Saddam defied the US and UN for 12 years, violated countless int'l agreements, and fired on US and UK planes. We kept threatening action, but never had the guts to pursue it until 2003. Our failure to act made America look like a "paper tiger" which emboldened the terrorists.

But don't take my word for it. The terrorists were the ones who usually cited America's failure to take out Saddam as proof that America was the "paper tiger."

[Turrican]

We all sound like the students in The Last Supper and VNAF Ace is Zach.

Err, Netflix +2 I guess.

[BulletMagnet]

Even IF some deal was made. Wouldn't the oil execs try to keep prices down during election year so less voters would be pissed off about gas prices?

Considering the record profits in the midst of accusations (and evidence) of price gouging, I'd say they really don't care very much at all. Why should they? No matter how much of a fuss they make, people still have to buy gas, seeing as there are few, if any, viable alternatives. They can charge pretty much whatever they want, since they're a) Not going to be at any real risk of retribution from the politicians they're in league with, and 2) Pretty much the only game in town, thanks to the oil-thirsty energy policy they helped draft.

Some people simply need to learn how to be RESPONSIBLE.

Such as, perhaps, Governor Bush, for his own inept response to the plight of his own citizens, rather than passing off the blame to them?

You're right that people should be prepared as best they can, but as many in power would like us to forget, a lot of people simply can't even afford to do that, as in N.O., when people didn't even have cars to drive out. Would you have given Ray Nagin the same sympathetic ear if he'd said "I didn't use buses to get people out, because they should have been working harder to buy themselves cars," as you have to Jeb, for pretty much saying "not my problem" when it came to disaster relief in Florida?

Honestly, people who live in such zones are very well aware they're at risk...do you think they willingly keep themselves unprepared for such a disaster? A lot of people in power would have you think so...

I consider not taking the fight to them avoiding them. Cruise missilie strikes don't do ####. Soldiers on the ground win wars.

You completely bypass the point I'm making: not only did we not "bring the fight to them," we ACTIVELY SUPPORTED them. And now we act like they just popped out of nowhere when they start acting up. And "making up for" having supported Saddam back then? Come on. We knew full well what kind of a ruler he was way back then, it's not like he was a really nice fella back in the 80's and just "went bad" more recently. We never should have gotten involved with him, or any of the other similar regimes we've backed (and continue to back) in the first place. Saying "oops" and sending troops to both die and kill others in order to clean up the mess we made (and, it would seem, are about to make again in Afghanistan), is not "making up for" anything; heck, we left him right where he was for a good long time, and didn't feel guilty about what he was doing then. It's simply our best interests at the moment talking, same as it's always been. We're not there for moral reasons.

I'm getting real sick of this argument. No one dragged the Iraqi people out of their homes and forced them to vote.

Well, obviously they prefer not having Saddam over their heads, they're not stupid. However, I'm sure you're also aware that a vast majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. They weren't granted the chance to vote on that. And again, even when democratic voting does take place, as with the rise of Hamas in the PLO, if it doesn't suit our interests we really don't care how someone was elected.

Actually, both oil production and utilities have been either restored or now exceed pre-war levels.

Got a source?

It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom for a reason.

Yes, to make it sound than "Operation WMDs" or something along those lines. You know as well as anyone else that "Freedom," "Liberty," etc. get more support for stuff they're attached to than if they weren't there; this administration certainly uses them often enough. Read on below:

At what point did we say we were just going in for WMDs and then leaving Iraq in shambles?

Well, for one thing that's pretty much what we did (and are about to do again) when we kicked the communists out of Afghanistan a decade or three back, giving rise to the Taliban in the process. Not to mention, of course, that against all advice, the administration went in completely unprepared for any sort of post-war reconstruction, and to this day lacks the manpower, resources, and planning to truly move forward towards any particular goal, an exit strategy included. And once again, I ask you, if going up against Saddam for the sole purpose of bringing democracy to Iraq was the rationale that the administration had presented to Congress and the American people before they invaded, do you think for a second that it would have passed muster?

WMD's are THE reason the war was able to get under way. The whole thing about "freedom for the Iraqis" was, and is, nothing more than a feeble backup.

[VNAF Ace]

I could care less about the "political" reasons. Fighting for freedom and human rights around the world is what I care about. That might seem too "simple" or "idealistic" to some people, but that's how I feel. If the rest of the world was willing to stand up to oppression, then the world would be a much more peaceful place.

BTW, we will leave Iraq when we're finished training the new Iraqi soldiers. I don't know if you've kept up with current events, but Iraqi soldiers have been going on joint patrols with Coalition forces for a while. Many Iraqis may want us out, but they also want us to protect them from the terrorists who keep on targeting innocent Iraqi civilians. And the terrorists sure as hell, don't have the popular support of the people.

More and Iraqi units are being activated over the next 2 years so you can also expect a reduction in American forces stationed in Iraq in the next few years. That's a decision that should be (and is) left to military commanders on the ground not politicians in Washington.

[Shatterhand]

Ok, so you can please ask mr. Bush stopping opressing the brazilian market? They treat stoping any kind of commercial trade with us if we don't accept every fucking stupid internatinal treat they want to force upon us with ALCA.

Oh yeah, and please, can you also ask Mr. Bush to actually "force" democracy upon USA? Because really, I can't understand what's democracy when only 2 parties exist.

Oh, and why USA installed a military base in Paraguay, very close to the Brazilian and Bolivian borders, VERY close to the Bolivia Oil fields, arguing that "They want to help Bolivia"? Why the fuck didn't they build a school, an hospital or something more useful to them?

And did anyone actually ASKED the Iraq people if they wanted USA to attack Saddam? Oh so much for "Democracy".

And I don't live in USA, so I don't have all the news around there, but what I read here is that when Katrina hit USA, the "helping services" actually worked... in the RICH areas. They just turned their back to the poorer areas. Oh so much for Democracy.....

[Acid King]

It's more like 5 more years of gas. If that.

Source based in reality?

[VNAF Ace]

Oh yeah, and please, can you also ask Mr. Bush to actually "force" democracy upon USA? Because really, I can't understand what's democracy when only 2 parties exist.

America usually has a 2 party system. The 2 party system has absolutely nothing to do with Bush. There are 3rd parties (such as the Green Party, Reform Party, and even a Socialist Party) but they don't have the support of most Americans, and therefore cannot get enough votes.

And did anyone actually ASKED the Iraq people if they wanted USA to attack Saddam? Oh so much for "Democracy".

Why don't you actually read the news and see how much the Iraqi people HATE Saddam? What makes you think the Iraqi people could've told the truth when they lived under a totalitarian regime (that would jail/torture/murder all dissenters)?

And I don't live in USA, so I don't have all the news around there, but what I read here is that when Katrina hit USA, the "helping services" actually worked... in the RICH areas. They just turned their back to the poorer areas. Oh so much for Democracy.....

Not true.

[BulletMagnet]

Fighting for freedom and human rights around the world is what I care about. That might seem too "simple" or "idealistic" to some people, but that's how I feel.

I imagine that most "regular" people who support the current operation feel the same way, and in all honesty I'd guess that most people in general, pro-Iraq or not, would like to see expanded human rights and such in more places, no one's gonna argue with you on that. However, when you say...

I could care less about the "political" reasons.

...that's where you and the people in charge of this war split. Like it or not, that's why we're there. Keeping ideals in mind isn't all bad, but doing so while ignoring the reality of a situation will get you nowhere. The majority of the soldiers in Iraq now, no doubt, believe that they're fighting for freedom and whatnot, and that's admirable, but whichever way you slice it, it's still not what they were sent there for. As the saying goes, it's the poor man's fight, but it's the rich man's war.

If the rest of the world was willing to stand up to oppression, then the world would be a much more peaceful place.

Again, using a vague word like "oppression" doesn't really help matters much...the people blowing themselves up over there believed they were doing just that. So did the 9-11 hijackers. No army in the world has Hedley Lamarr standing in front of them telling them to "fight for evil." Soldiers (and citizens, frankly) are ALWAYS taught, no matter who they fight for, in oversimplified black and white, that their side is good and right, and the other is evil and wrong. Attempts at actually understanding the other side, of course, are all but eliminated: after all, the more of that which goes on, the fewer wars tend to be fought, and the fewer spoils there are to collect. Notwithstanding, the almighty bottom line pretty much always wins out.

Many Iraqis may want us out, but they also want us to protect them from the terrorists who keep on targeting innocent Iraqi civilians. And the terrorists sure as hell, don't have the popular support of the people.

Methinks that depends on which faction you're asking...in an article in this morning's NY Times, come to think of it, apparently in a recent poll of Sunni Iraqis, 88 percent of them supported attacks on U.S. troops. At the same time, 86 percent said they believed that the violence in the country would decrease if the U.S. left. Among Iraqis in general, even though more than 3/4 of them say that getting rid of Saddam was "worth it," 70 percent want the U.S. out of the country within 2 years. With that in mind, 80 percent believe that America is looking to establish permanent bases in their country...see where the problem lies, when the U.S. refuses to even talk about leaving?

More and Iraqi units are being activated over the next 2 years so you can also expect a reduction in American forces stationed in Iraq in the next few years.

Some have said that the "deadline" for a partial withdrawal of American troops is, when you get right down to it, the 2006 election season. Frankly, I agree. This war was started for political reasons, and that's how it'll end.

That's a decision that should be (and is) left to military commanders on the ground not politicians in Washington.

True, but if you recall, before the war even began, the administration refused to listen to the warnings of military officials who said that they needed more troops, supplies, and planning in order to carry out the operation successfully. Remember a fellow named Shinseki, for one? It'd seem that the Commander in Chief and his ilk were the very first to override the advice of those "on the ground," so to speak.

[Shatterhand]

You call a 2 party system, "Democracy" ? I know this has nothing to do with Bush but with someone so worried about democacry in the world, how does come he doesn't actually do something for democracy in his country?

I don't know how many Iraqi people hate Saddam, I personally never met someone who lives there.

I do know that newspapers lie though. I keep reading about how Hugo Chavez is a dictator and stuff, while everyone I know from Venezuela tells me that's very far from the truth (He actually ENDED the 2 party system there, ironically). And I remember newspapers showing photos in weird angles so we could believe there were more people celebrating Saddam's fall than really was. If people were SO happy about it, why they had to fake a photo?

Like I said, I dunno what Iraq people actually think about Saddam, but I don't pretend to know the truth because "I read it on the newspaper"


Mate, you can be blind as you want, but you can't force blindness in other people. USA government isn't doing anything for the world, they are doing for themselves.

I am glad I manage to separate the PEOPLE of a country from its government, so I don't hate the American people... most american people I've met are very nice, and have a good understanding of what their government is doing with the world.

I still would like to understand how a military base would help poverty in Bolivia and Paraguay, heh

[VNAF Ace]

You call a 2 party system, "Democracy" ? I know this has nothing to do with Bush but with someone so worried about democacry in the world, how does come he doesn't actually do something for democracy in his country?

Once again the American gov't mainly a 2 party system because the majority of American voters vote for either Democrats or Republicans. It was our choice. No one forced the 2 party system on us. You will find multiple parties in some local gov'ts and even some state gov'ts, but none of the 3rd parties in America have the popular support of the general American public. And once again, it's our choice.

Like I said, I dunno what Iraq people actually think about Saddam, but I don't pretend to know the truth because "I read it on the newspaper"

I don't pretend to know the truth because I read it on the newspaper, read it on the internet, or saw the news on TV.

If I did, then I would've ignored all of the good news, and ignored the soldiers (who have served in Iraq) I've talked to.

Mate, you can be blind as you want, but you can't force blindness in other people. USA government isn't doing anything for the world, they are doing for themselves.

I'm not blind. My family owe our lives to the American gov't and the American military who helped defend South Vietnam from communist aggression and terrorism. My father wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the superior training he received from American military advisers. My family is living in freedom and democracy today because America welcomed my parents (along with millions of other Vietnamese refugees) when they risked their lives to escape the communist ####hole Vietnam became.

America isn't perfect, but I'm sure as hell not going to ignore the fact that we've helped out A LOT of people around the world.

I am glad I manage to separate the PEOPLE of a country from its government, so I don't hate the American people... most american people I've met are very nice, and have a good understanding of what their government is doing with the world.

When did I say I have a problem with the people of any country? When did the American gov't say they had a problem with the Iraqi people? We made it VERY CLEAR that our fight was with Saddam and not with the Iraqi people who suffered under his rule.

[NTSC-J]

You call a 2 party system, "Democracy" ? I know this has nothing to do with Bush but with someone so worried about democacry in the world, how does come he doesn't actually do something for democracy in his country?

Once again the American gov't mainly a 2 party system because the majority of American voters vote for either Democrats or Republicans. It was our choice. No one forced the 2 party system on us. You will find multiple parties in some local gov'ts and even some state gov'ts, but none of the 3rd parties in America have the popular support of the general American public. And once again, it's our choice.

That's bullshit, it's 2 parties because they have the cash. Do you honestly think it's because those are the most popular choices? The last election, people were voting for Kerry just because he wasn't Bush. He still sucked, but since no other candidate had a chance to win, people voted for the lesser of two evils. A true democracy would have 8 people doing the public debates, not two.

Like I said, I dunno what Iraq people actually think about Saddam, but I don't pretend to know the truth because "I read it on the newspaper"

I don't pretend to know the truth because I read it on the newspaper, read it on the internet, or saw the news on TV.

If I did, then I would've ignored all of the good news, and ignored the soldiers (who have served in Iraq) I've talked to.

But have you talked to many Iraqi citizens? I've read testimonies from plenty of citizens that didn't like Saddam but think the US is no better. One man lost his family in a bombing and said he would get revenge on the US by coming stateside and blowing himself up and taking down as many Americans as he could. The military is practically recruiting terrorism.

Mate, you can be blind as you want, but you can't force blindness in other people. USA government isn't doing anything for the world, they are doing for themselves.

I'm not blind. My family owe our lives to the American gov't and the American military who helped defend South Vietnam from communist aggression and terrorism. My father wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for the superior training he received from American military advisers. My family is living in freedom and democracy today because America welcomed my parents (along with millions of other Vietnamese refugees) when they risked their lives to escape the communist ####hole Vietnam became.

America isn't perfect, but I'm sure as hell not going to ignore all of the people they've helped around the world.

That's great that your family got helped out, but again, there were many who's lives were ruined by US intervention. A long war that cost a million lives and didn't "stop communism" for shit. How about the bombings of Cambodia's border in the early 70s that they tried to downplay? These constant attacks fucked things up and allowed the Khmer Rouge to gain power, which led to one of the greatest incidents of a dangerous communism ever! 6 million butchered, and it couldn't have happened without Nixon.

[VNAF Ace]

That's bullshit, it's 2 parties because they have the cash. Do you honestly think it's because those are the most popular choices? The last election, people were voting for Kerry just because he wasn't Bush. He still sucked, but since no other candidate had a chance to win, people voted for the lesser of two evils. A true democracy would have 8 people doing the public debates, not two.

Why don't you look at the poll numbers before the TV debates? Most Americans don't care about those 3rd parties. Many of those 3rd parties are too left-wing or too right-wing which is why they fail to persuade American voters to support them.

BTW... The Republican Party was a new party formed right before the Civil War. That's proof that 3rd parties have managed to earn the support of the American public in the past.

I don't know how you can argue that America isn't a democracy. It's up to the parties themselves to persuade American voters to support them. It's up to the parties themselves to persuade Americans to donate money to their cause. There's nothing silencing those parties.

But have you talked to many Iraqi citizens? I've read testimonies from plenty of citizens that didn't like Saddam but think the US is no better. One man lost his family in a bombing and said he would get revenge on the US by coming stateside and blowing himself up and taking down as many Americans as he could. The military is practically recruiting terrorism.

I've also read the testimony of Iraqi citizens, and American soldiers who have interacted with Iraqi citizens. I admit most of them don't want American forces there, but they also know that American forces are the only thing protecting them from terrorists. That is changing as more and more Iraqi soldiers take over for us.

That's great that your family got helped out, but again, there were many who's lives were ruined by US intervention. A long war that cost a million lives and didn't "stop communism" for shit. How about the bombings of Cambodia's border in the early 70s that they tried to downplay? These constant attacks fucked things up and allowed the Khmer Rouge to gain power, which led to one of the greatest incidents of a dangerous communism ever! 6 million butchered, and it couldn't have happened without Nixon.

The North Vietnamese started the war which cost millions of lives. The NVA and VC were the ones that intentionally tortured and murdered South Vietnamese civilians (Example: They tortured and murdered thousands of South Vietnamese civilians in Hue in 1968). The North Vietnamese were the ones who decided to enter Laos and Cambodia and provoke retaliation from American and South Vietnamese forces. The Ho Chi Minh trail (which was a supply route for the communists) went thru Laos and Cambodia. The blame rests solely on the communists for starting the whole thing in the first place!

We lost the Vietnam War because of we tried to fight a defensive war instead of invading North Vietnam and overthrowing the communist regime. But America's heart was still in the right place. Defending a friend from communist aggression and terrorism is a noble cause.

Unfortunately, the idiotic anti-war movement managed to elect a bunch of idiotic liberals who voted to abandon South Vietnam in 1975 at a time when we needed economic/military aid to stop the final NVA invasion (which was a blatant violation of the peace treaty signed by America, North Vietnam, and South Vietnam). All the ARVN needed was some air support, and the VNAF had used up most of their bombs by 1975. Hell, the US Navy had a carrier within striking distance, but the liberals in Congress refused to help. There was no way the South Vietnamese military (without any air support) could've held back the NVA (who still had the support of the Chinese and the Soviets). And to make things worse... Some of the same idiotic liberals today continue to spread lies about the South Vietnamese military by calling them a bunch of unorganized cowards and blaming our defeat on those courageous men who risked their lives fighting for freedom. It's simply disgusting.

[BulletMagnet]

But America's heart was still in the right place. Defending a friend from communist aggression and terrorism is a noble cause.

You've still got your head in the clouds, after all that's been said...as far as individuals go, I'm sure that some of the soldiers who helped your family out back in Vietnam really did care about the people of the country, and had "freedom" in mind when they went over there. I don't doubt that, or criticize it, for that matter. However, "the U.S.," when you're talking about it as a country, I will say it again, was only acting in its own best interests. It's not pessimism, it's not a dislike for the country talking here, it's simply the way ALL governments operate. No government wants its citizens to think that way, of course, so it thinks up loftier rationales for what it does to gain support and keep patriotism (or, even more desirably, jingoism). EVERY country does it. The U.S. is no different, and never has been.

Why did we fight against communism back in the day? Because we wanted to see freedom spread abroad, see people live better, more enlightened lives? If that was really the case, then we wouldn't have put dictatorships and other such repressive regimes in the communists' place after we kicked them out of wherever they were headed, a la Afghanistan. "Freedom" in the sense of the word that you usually hear was NOT why we fought: it was to protect capitalism's interests. The "freer" the MARKET, on the other hand, the more lucrative trade possibilities there are, the larger (and cheaper) the labor pool is (despite all the bluster you hear about outsourcing, as long as industry benefits from it, mark my words, the government will NOT limit or stop it), and, on the bottom line, the richer the country will get. It's the same reason we support Israel in the mideast: to have a democratic presence, not for the sake of "freedom" (if that's the case, why do we leave Saudi Arabia alone as it is? Why'd we outright support Saddam for so long?), but rather for the free market. Heck, right here at home, if "freedom" is the beginning, middle, and end of this administration, why are they suspending long-standing rights even for their own citizens just about anywhere you look? Because limiting (poor) workers' rights, in particular, and keeping closer tabs on the flow of information makes it easier to make the influence, and thus the money, go where you want it to. The poor exist to further enrich the enriched. No matter where you live, it's the same song.

One last time: I do not "hate America," nor do I want others to "hate" it, or not appreciate the good things it offers. But for heaven's sake, see it as it is: another country out for itself, which has, by chance, NOT by some intangible innate benefaction which all other countries somehow lack, done some good along the way.

[Acid King]

You call a 2 party system, "Democracy" ? I know this has nothing to do with Bush but with someone so worried about democacry in the world, how does come he doesn't actually do something for democracy in his country?

We do have more than 2 parties, but the only people that vote for third parties are like, me and the guy down the street that thinks that airforce pilots flew the planes in to the trade center. Also, America is a republic, a kind of democracy that controls (or makes an attempt to) the majority. We don't want to spread true democracy since that would basically be inviting religious theocracries in the middle east.

[CMoon]

Hey, a two party system is only one party away from totalitarianism.