Moore sued for falsifying newspaper headline for movie

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Diemen said:
We get the criteria, honestly we do. However, the difference in opinion stems from whether Saddam not following the regulations of 1441 constituted an immediate threat that should've been dealt with at the time it was dealt with, or if the problem was not great enough to require a full military occupation.

Some of us believe that there still has to be a proven threat to justify the scale of military force we used in Iraq, resolution or no, and some of us feel that there wasn't enough of an actual threat to put our men and women in harm's way.

Obviously we have very differing opinions on this, so can we just agree to disagree?

Let me ask you this, if you were the Presidents deputy National Security Adivsor for the Persian Gulf how would you have advised the President on policy in the questions below. Please answer it from the perspective of one that is responsible for this particular region and recommend policy options based only on that. The President and others will make overall decisions about more forces or less forces needed for region x or y, so stay on Iraq.

#1 Would you have gone to war to remove Saddam's large, well equiped military, from Kuwait in 1991 as Bush Sr. did?

#2 If the answer to #1 is yes, what would you have required of Saddam in order for there to be a ceacefire? Would you have required that Saddam Verifiably Disarm of all WMD?

#3 Would you back up an obligation for Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD, with the understanding that military force would be used to achieve verifiable disarmament if Saddam failed to meet that obligation?

#4 With the violations that Saddam was committing as of March 2003, would you have advised the use of military force at that time?

#5 If not at that time in #4, when and why then? Please be specific.



Independent of the questions above, do you feel that the the huge efforts being made by US military personal in Iraq, currently are necessary for the security of the region, the World, and the United States?


I'll let you have the last word on all these questions and promise not to respond.

I can't promise of course that none of these issues will not pop up in another thread sometime in the future. :wink:
 
Diemen said:
Obviously we have very differing opinions on this, so can we just agree to disagree?

Obviously we can't. :rolleyes:

Even in the face of a good natured request, you just can't back down for a second, can you, Sting?
 
Diemen said:


Obviously we can't. :rolleyes:

Even in the face of a good natured request, you just can't back down for a second, can you, Sting?

Actually, if you read my post, you'll see that I infact did.
 
STING2 said:
Let me ask you this, if you were the Presidents deputy National Security Adivsor for the Persian Gulf how would you have advised the President on policy in the questions below.
well, since according to lots of people Bush makes a better president than Kerry because he doesn't give in to 'the real threats' but attacks them, I would guess that with another president (who misses this immense braveness) Iraq wouldn't have been attacked at the time no matter what the National Security Adivsor has to say


+ :wink:
 
Salome - a question: who's "lots of people"?

Just because one person might be "tougher on terrorism" than another person doesn't automatically mean that the American people, three years on from 9/11, will vote for them.
:ohmy:

From what I've read of the European press (mainly the BBC and news outlets from Germany and France) , they GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATE the anger of the American People regarding our lack of economic recovery during the Bush administration.

The American People ultimately VOTE THEIR POCKETBOOKS and there is MUCH DISSATISFACTION with the way the Bush administration has decided to give the biggest taxbreaks to the richest people while the poor in America ARE getting poorer and the middle class is shrinking.:tsk:

So, with all due respect, the news that you get in Europe about the people in the USA isn't always correct about how we TRULY feel and will vote. :wink:

Just wanted to rationally express my opinion of what I've seen of the European press. :hug:
 
Yeah I was just gonna say that. Also Bush has been very generous to working class families with his tax cuts and child tax credit refunds, $600 per child additional money back the last 2 years in a row! (Kerry aims to do away with both)
 
I'm sorry - doing well? Not according to the figures I saw today.

Housing down, consumer confidence down, and job losses up while job creation down.
 
Is that a single month stat?

Overall, the US economy is currently growing.

But then again, it HAD to grow....I am not sure if it could get any worse! :wink:
 
STING2 said:


Actually, if you read my post, you'll see that I infact did.

And if you read mine:
Obviously we have very differing opinions on this, so can we just agree to disagree?
you'd see that I had and have no interest in continuing this debate.

Asking for basically an essay on specific points (of your choice) is not what I would call backing down.
 
I think you all have to come to live in the state that Bush's policies have destroyed!

Since Bush instituted his form of "tax relief" for corporations and severe cuts in social programs for the people of Texas, we have been experiencing a SEVERE DEPRESSION IN HIS "HOME" STATE - and he doesn't even care enough to try to help Texas "recover" from the economic mess he left us with here!:ohmy:

Shows you Bush's concern for working people ....

And my tax refund this year (and I make less than $22,000 a year) was SEVERELY CUT so that Bush could give his "tax refunds" to higher bracket tax payers! :tsk:

So. anyone here can criticize my viewpoints(we all have different ones) but don't tell me that Bush's tax cuts are helping the lower working class - I AM PROOF THAT THEY HAVE NOT. :(
 
nbcrusader said:
Economic indicators do not SUPPORT your contentions.

Nationally! :wink: But this is pretty recent. The uptick has only happened in the last 6-8 months.

It would be interesting to look at it on the State level.

nbcrusader said:
In general, people are better off TODAY than they were four years ago.

Four years ago? I thought we were better off than we were two years ago, but I would like to see the economic information that says the majority is better off than we were four years ago!?!
 
Last edited:
Gee, if Texas were left in such a bad state, why would they have been in the Bush column? Want to see if they vote for Kerry this time around, but I doubt it.
 
It seems as if you guys are minimalizing Jamila situation - as if she is not telling you the truth about herself and others who are seeing economic hardships in texas. As if what are factual statements about the economy in Texas (as opposed to the overall country) are false!?

Yes, I would suspect that Texas will again vote for Bush. Considering it is his adopted home state, and that there are plenty of his "buddies" who have benefited from his tax policies still supporting him in Texas, it seems like a no brainer! No pun intended.
 
Jamila said:
Salome - a question: who's "lots of people"?
I actually put that incorrectly, I meant:
a lot of the Bush supporters name that as one of their reasons
 
fly on the wall said:
It seems as if you guys are minimalizing Jamila situation - as if she is not telling you the truth about herself and others who are seeing economic hardships in texas. As if what are factual statements about the economy in Texas (as opposed to the overall country) are false!?

Yes, I would suspect that Texas will again vote for Bush. Considering it is his adopted home state, and that there are plenty of his "buddies" who have benefited from his tax policies still supporting him in Texas, it seems like a no brainer! No pun intended.

1st its not minimalizing, but it does not mean that everyone is walking in those shoes.

2nd It almost sounds as if you think that the "buddies" of Bush are more than half the voting population of Texas.

3rd It seems like a no brainer that BUsh has not made "buddies" with the number of voters necessary to win Texas.

:wink:
 
Well, I for one am not better off than I was 4 years ago. With manufacturing jobs (laser printers) down and still going overseas, my dept. was eliminated and so was my job. When I think of the money saved by people who would not be struggling, even if they hadn't received it, I can't help but wonder why it is even considered a tax cut. It's just a give away program. And they call democrats "tax & spend" Although I am thankful my son and his little girls benefited from the tax break. At least it went to where it was needed there.
Still not enough to make me vote for him, however.

Edited to say: Damn I'm totally off subject. I need a nap.
 
Last edited:
Leeloo said:
Yeah I was just gonna say that. Also Bush has been very generous to working class families with his tax cuts and child tax credit refunds, $600 per child additional money back the last 2 years in a row! (Kerry aims to do away with both)

I know we needed it in my house. It helped pay the $13,000 in school and daycare bills.
 
BTW...I am a product of private HS and college...

let's divide out the $13,000...how much for daycare,and how much for PRIVATE school? :wink:

Are the publice schools not good enough? OR, are you needing to additionally fund the activities that your children do in the Public schools?

:hmm:

Instead of tax custs....shouldn't tax money go to funding some of these items (Public school funding or daycare)?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom