Lucky...

No, got too much on my mind this election cycle. Gotta figure out a way to destroy Hillary first. That should only take a few hours. Then it's on to getting Jeb Bush set up to take over for his brother in 2008. Yea, 11 trillion $ debt isn't quite enough, 20T should be a lock w/8 years of Jeb, do I hear 25? By then we won't have to worry about Mexicans invading our borders, they'll be rejecting us. Brilliant.....

Um, most political criminal ARE democrats. At least for the last ten years. No, Bush has only been pres for just over 5, do your math

10 lbs of depleted uranium weighs the same as 10 lbs of feathers. So it's heavy, but very dense. But yes, it is dense and it is pretty safe.

SHHHHH!!! What do you know? You've only been there! Sheesh! We need to listen to the "hotel room reporters" as to whether or not a civil war is breaking out, THEY know what's up! If people want to call the ongoing violence a "civil war" because it makes things sound worse... that's one thing... but it doesn't make it true. I'll listen to people like you, thanks. Heal up fast, and get to freeflying! Many of those reporters are dead.

Let's hope Bush doesn't actually admit the obvious: the war is a failure. If Bush were to do that and pull out his points would significantly raise in the polls.

You know this civil war lefty talking point is getting very old. Just today ABC reported that the violence is in 3, ya thats right 3 of the 18 provinces in Iraq. Got a civil war huh? ooooooooK The media has been on the days talking point of "kill the messenger". Yesterday they were all talking about the "towel snapper" Bush. I love it when the media tries to defend their leanings............... It is fun to see

Yes, therefore we can't complain about 9/11 or any other attacks we suffer on US soil or otherwise. You said it, we are in the game so quit whining when you get scored upon. There is an option, GET OUT OF THE GAME. If we left the Middle East we would be considered to be out of the game and the various countries of the ME would go back to killing each other.

That is not true. At least in the middle east. Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Yea, we're victims. All of our medling in Israel and even going back to the 1947ish Palastinian War weren't our efforts, no. We are always right and never offend, huh? We just take it and take it until we can't take in no mo. Instead of looking at this through the eyes of an American, look at this thriugh the eyes of the world and you might have another conclusion. Don't put words in my mouth. Dispute my words, not your fantasies of what you THINK I said. Can you dispute the fact that we have been physically attacked over and over without a substantial response? Which words did I transpose - make your argument. I didn't misquote/misstate you, explain how I did. As for attacked without a substantial response, I think we have been engaged in this constant trading of barbs for centuries, but especially since post WWII with the Palestinian war that established Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Who are you talking about, Republicans?

Aside from how bizzare that is, what about the innocent who get excuted? What does that make us if we execute an innicent person, part them out and then realize we fucked up? Expedite the execution process? So more errors in exchange for less cost and free organs? Are you advocating mass havoc?

That is not true. At least in the middle east. Read some history - we suffered attack after attack and did nothing substantial in return. 9/11 was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. Yea, we're victims. All of our medling in Israel and even going back to the 1947ish Palastinian War weren't our efforts, no. We are always right and never offend, huh? We just take it and take it until we can't take in no mo. Instead of looking at this through the eyes of an American, look at this thriugh the eyes of the world and you might have another conclusion.

With that logic we would always be at war with someone. There is currently war going on somewhere, so if we are there in tehir business we will always be involved. So you're saying WWII was mishandled? Could it be that it was handled by a Dme so it must be poorly handled?

Tis true....however can we suffer the attacks that will occur in the USA if we pull out? We tried the foriegn policy of live and let live.....it got us 9/11. Shall we continue to allow ourselves to be bullied into the corner by a few...radicals. We should be out there hunting them down. Death is the only end that some will understand. The only difference that we can make is where they meet their maker. I dont want to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of american civilians. Which is likely to happen. which goes back to my initial question; what is the value of the lives of your loved ones? How many people are we willing to kill to insure that they remain safe? If, Tis true, then why the contradiction? The longer we are there, the more likely there will be attacks before or after the time we are there. Can't you understand that the longer we stir the pot, the potent the brew? A guy like you who is prone to defend his family or avenge some SOB doing harm to them can surely understand the position of an Iraqi citizen who has his family blown away by some broad attack where we kill them while clearing a villiage. They become more resolute and ruthless when they have nothing to live for. I can't see how you don't understand that position; your mental process and that of the guy who just had his family killed by some US attack are parallel. Actually 9/11 has been brewing for a long time. It intensified when Bush 1 forced Iraq out of Kuwait in the Gulf War and OBL asked Saudi to let him handle the mission and Saudi refused, leading to the revocation of OBL's passport to Saudi and him swearing to kill America. So when/where have we tried to live/let live thing? It will be more likely to happen if we continue this war thing, ya think? We can't run the fight out of these people, just be diplomatic. Ultimately we can't defend Israel the way we do and expect to stay out of it. You're staying with the premise that more war = less terrorism. The opposite is likely true and will pan out in future years.

In the US this is called self defense. Plenty of questionable cases have stood up to scrutiny in the good ol USA. In the Iraq scenario, we believed(or the government believed) that there was sufficient reason to make a decision to go to war. Self-defense plea. I am sure that you have heard the saying "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6". So we get to write our own terminology ebcause we can? Same logic used to steal this country, enslave Africans, suppress women, jail the innocent and so many other things. Changing the definition doesn't change the truth. Then why are the numbers for the support for the war way down? No, a few people decided there was sufficient reason to go, now there are far fewer people thinking that. Self defence requires some imminency as just addressed by someone else. You can call this a preemptive strike, but nothing more. I see that you want to enjoy some celebrity once you come back for good. I think we saw the victory celebrations of post WWII and we want to have that feeling again. The sacrifices given by you and all war soliers is respectable and equal, just that the premise is different. You/we can't manufacture a noble situation, we have to wait for them. I hope you come back in 1 piece and I also hope you are not dissapointed when you come back to see that you may not be revered as WWII soldiers were.

But enough about Christianity..... This sounds like the martyr's manifesto. Do you actually believe we are more safe due to the war or due to increased security here? What happens to your theory of we are attacked again? We can't sustain this forever, so when we do pull out, are we less safe? Your assertions have no exit strategy, hence aren't realistic.

Is this another one of those, responses w/o dealing with the issues thing? You can't blame CLinton for cutting the military, even though Bush 1 cut about as many troops, and still say the industrial military complex is the fault of the Dems. Which side of the fence??????

You beat me to it. I was thinking Eisenhower all the way as I read this thread. Corporatism is a function of Facism, so that's what I think.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism Corporatism or neo-corporatism is often used popularly as a pejorative term in reference to perceived tendencies in politics for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises. The influence of other types of corporations, such as labor unions, is perceived to be relatively minor. In this view, government decisions are seen as being influenced strongly by which sorts of policies will lead to greater profits for favored companies. Corporatism is also used to describe a condition of corporate-dominated globalization. Points enumerated by users of the term in this sense include the prevalence of very large, multinational corporations that freely move operations around the world in response to corporate, rather than public, needs; the push by the corporate world to introduce legislation and treaties which would restrict the abilities of individual nations to restrict corporate activity; and similar measures to allow corporations to sue nations over "restrictive" policies, such as a nation's environmental regulations that would restrict corporate activities. Critics of capitalism often argue that any form of capitalism would eventually devolve into corporatism, due to the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands. A permutation of this term is corporate globalism. John Ralston Saul argues that most Western societies are best described as corporatist states, run by a small elite of professional and interest groups, that exclude political participation from the citizenry. Many critics of free market theories, such as George Orwell, have argued that corporatism (in the sense of an economic system dominated by massive corporations) is the natural result of free market capitalism. Others critics say that they are pro-capitalist, but anti-corporatist. They support capitalism but only when corporate power is separated from state power. Often they cite a quote claimed to be from Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." However the most common cites for the quote do not track back to this phrase, and it is most likely an Internet hoax. [3]. Despite this, the alleged quote has entered into modern discourse, and it appears on thousands of web pages [4], and in books [5], and even a conspiracy theory advertisement in the Washington Post.[6]. However, the alleged quote contradicts almost everything else written by Mussolini on the subject of the relationship between corporations and the Fascist State.[7]. In the United States, corporations representing many different sectors are involved in attempts to influence legislation through lobbying. This is also true of many non-business groups, unions, membership organizations, and non-profits. While these groups have no official membership in any legislative body, they can often wield considerable power over law-makers. In recent times, the profusion of lobby groups and the increase in campaign contributions has led to widespread controversy and the McCain-Feingold Act.

I don't think they have ICBM's. The US has taught the world that if you have Nukes you will not be fucked with by the US, kind of positive reinforcement.

Good pint, didn't think of that one

Iran is not my son. I never said the USA is responsible. The bombing of Japan is the most inhumane act of war (make that TERRORISM) in the history of man kind. That includes the Holocaust. But it has nothing to do with Iran now has it? We treat weaker countries as our kids, so I think it's fair to draw that analogy. If the US isn't responsible then how can we dictate to other countries and expect respect from others and ourselves? Not the most inhumane, approx 70k killed in Hiroshima, as I recall, and less with Nagasaki since it was impromptu. 6 million in the holocaust and a reported 6 million American Indians by the settlers/early Americans. But we used Hiroshima as a petri dish, as opposed to bombing Tokyo where there may have been some war manufacturing or other military targets. We intentionally hit an unmolested city so we could see the damage - the war had been won, just the punctuation was left. Then after WWII we went to the Bikini Islands, Kwajalene and others and performed Atomic and/or Nuclear testing, which resulted in many cancer deaths and water babies. Point is, we're that hypocritical father who talks of getting drunk and scoring with chicks while condemning our kids for doing the same. Don't wonder why the world thinks we suck. As for having to do with Iran, how can we preach Nuclear responsibility when we started it? We didn't need to use it, but we wanted to see the damage. That's irresponsible and we have no right telling anyone not to have Nukes….. Wonder what Japan thinks of us requiring Iran to drop the nukes?

How the hell are you going to prepare for a nuclear attack? Duck and cover??? http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951 Do what ya, want, just that trying to prevent ownership is pathetic planning. Would you prohibit your kids from having drugs and think they'll never do em? Course not, you try ot educate them and hope they do the right thing. Finally, when we bombed Hiroshima, we did so with the planning that we didn't conventionally bomb Hiroshima at all. We did this so we could see the actual deaths and damage to an unmollested, undisturbed city; is this responsible handling of an attomic weapon? Who says we are so responsible? Us.........

Well, Bush had to sign: 1) The Patriot Act 2) The Overtime Law 3) War funding approrpiaions 4) Going to war 5) The Bankruptcy Law 6) Veto the Arsenic reductions 7) Veto the Erogonomics Bill 8) Tax cuts for the rich 9) Increases to the National Debt to the tune of 4Trillion to date. (so many more I can't think of right now) .......and ignore dying Americans in La while signing umpteen Billions for the war.

WTF They are making a nuke so the US of A should invade before they get a chance to destroy the free world. Republicans = War on _________________ a) Communism b) Drugs c) Terrorism d) all of the above d The Commies were a joke, drugs have been here long before the English settlers and will be here long after. Terrorsim is manufactured by way of irritating others. Get it, you can't stop these things, just prepare for them and deal with people with respect..... or do it the way of teh US.

Technically you're wrong, but essentially you're right. The US came here in the late 1400's and started the killing of American Indians since, so there was a gradual transition that was memorialized with the Declaration of Independence.

Yup, I imagine it does...when you add an off-budget surplus to a smaller on-budget deficit, it's going to show a net surplus. Right, so the net is that for those years the US had a budget surplus. Is it that hard to admit an obvious fact? How is it that there were deficits during those years? Please explain. The net result was that the US had a budget surplus.... establish otherwise. 68% of the US National Debt was created during the administrations of just three presidents - all Republicans: Ron Reagan, G.H.W. Bush and G.W Bush. SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT! I guessed earlier that 80% of the entire debt was incurrd during Republican years; I wonder how close that is?