Bush Economy the worst since Herbert Hoover

[2Lexus430s]

I don't understand why people can't figure some things out.

For instance:

Do you think that we might need help Policing Iraq from the pu$$y Iraqi Gorilla Fighters who attack our soldiers then run? YES WE DO.... Thats why we are calling on the help of the UN (primarily Countries IN the UN).. Unless you think we should provide all the policing ourselves... if so, tell our soldiers that.

Also....

Do you people know that this war is expected to cost the Government $500,000,000,000 before it is all over??? Wow, I think thats alot of money, don't you?.. well lets research a bit futher.. Did you people know that IF this war does end up costing that much money that over $475,000,000,000 will go RIGHT BACK INTO THE ECONOMY??? wow, I still think thats alot of money..

What do you people think.. you do think that when the government spends that money they are just burning it? No, they are spending that money with American Companies on American Machine provided by American Labor. That money goes right back into the economy..

[BAWLEX94]

I'm amazed at your train of thought. In war there is no such thing as pus*sy fighting. This is war bud, and war is bloody. You better expect that the Iraqi's who don't want us there will fight the only way they know how.
The United States is the country that has refused to allow other countries to have any role in this war. You're right in saying that we need other countries militaries to help. But you seem to have forgotten that WE were the ones who originally told them to keep their noses out. So therefore, your comment in no way shows how the U.N. is still irrelevant. All you did was show how they are, and how United States still needs their help.

[LB Lex]

It doesn't help our economy when manufacturing jobs are being lost to countries such as Inda and China where labor is extremely cheap. Just like it was stated above, our economy was starting to go downhill when Clinton was in office and the attack on 9/11 along with the subsequent defense expenses helped drain budgets. It is pure liberal rhetoric to blame the WHOLE economic downfall on Bush.

Liberal propaganda can easily be seen when stating the failure of the Roadmap to Peace is because of Bush. Why did we stop dealing Arafat? Because he couldn't control the suicide bombers. Another reason for its failure is the extremist terrorists who repeatedly subvert peace by continuing with suicide bombings. This problem hasn't been solved in the last thirty years by past Presidents' attempts. Why don't you blame them too, is it because it doesn't fit in your political agenda?

Take your ideological blinders off, then you'll see the situation is more complicated than you think. Blaming one person (Bush) is short sighted and ideologically driven. I'd rather have Bush in office instead of the *****-cat Gore who most likely would have been too chicken to attack Al Quada in Afganistan after 9/11.

[BAWLEX94]

well never mind. I guess you realized what i just said because you erased your comment

[2Lexus430s]

"The United States is the country that has refused to allow other countries to have any role in this war. You're right in saying that we need other countries militaries to help. But you seem to have forgotten that WE were the ones who originally told them to keep their noses out. So therefore, your comment in no way shows how the U.N. is still irrelevant. All you did was show how they are, and how United States still needs their help."

here we go again..

you are Wrong Wrong Wrong.

We asked for Support and Help from Every country that would send troops.. We didn't tell ANYONE to keep their noses out.

The French had TOO MUCH INVESTED with Iraq to risk us finding that out. Thats why they didn't send troops.

The Germans were the same way.. They got oil in exchange for weapons and munitions like all the other countries that didn't want to help..

same with the Russians..

Research before you type.

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
well never mind. I guess you realized what i just said because you erased your comment

I put it back.. I accidently erased it, but thanks for helping me rememeber what I typed.

[2Lexus430s]

French and Iraq Ties


In 1975, when Jacques Chirac first served as prime minister of France, he visited Baghdad – even before Saddam Hussein had assumed his full dictatorial powers.

Chirac helped pave the way for a very lucrative deal for French oil companies in developing Iraq's No. 1 export – besides terrorism, that is. Those oil companies negotiated a 23 percent stake in Iraqi oil.

Shortly thereafter, Saddam Hussein visited Chirac in Paris – the first and last time he visited a Western nation.

Chirac approved the construction of Iraq's first nuclear reactor. Remember that one? In 1981, the Israeli air force had the good sense to destroy it before it ever went online. Where would we be today – 23 years later – if Iraq had been able to reprocess the plutonium in that plant and turn it into a nuclear bomb factory?

All this friendship and goodwill between Saddam Hussein and Jacque Chirac led to a mutually beneficial relationship for the two countries. France sold some $20 billion worth of weapons to Iraq. France became Iraq's No. 2 trading partner – second only to Russia.

Now let's bring the story up to date.

William Safire, writing in his New York Times column last week, pointed out that even today France is permitting its businesses to serve as a conduit to Iraq for materials needed for the building of long-range missiles.

These are not the short-range SCUDS or the Al Samoud 2 missiles we're hearing about in the news. These would be much bigger, much more powerful missiles that could easily carry weapons of mass destruction to distant countries. French businesses are involved in supplying materials to Iraq to develop these weapons despite the United Nations embargo against them.

Not only is the French government winking as French businesses help China and Syria smuggle these illicit materials to Iraq, but some are actually producing components of advanced missile systems under contract to Iraq.

Clearly France is protecting some very old, very deep relationships it has cultivated in Iraq. These are very lucrative relationships. And they are very dangerous and destructive relationships for the rest of the world.

Ironically, it is these compromising business and personal relationships that are causing the French today to be the major international roadblock to the liberation by British and U.S. troops of the Iraqi people from a Nazi disciple named Saddam Hussein.

What does France hope to achieve? Chirac thinks he can persuade Saddam Hussein to step aside – not in a way that will free the Iraqi people from tyranny, but to transition to a new generation of tyranny, one that will maintain the free flow of oil revenues to France, one that will maintain and even increase France's influence in the region, one that will keep Iraqi markets open to French goods, especially arms.

Chirac actually thinks Saddam Hussein's youngest son, Qusay, might be the right person to lead a transition government that will change the world's perception about Iraq, if not the reality of the dangers it poses to the world.

The lesson for the future in all this? The next time France is invaded, let them call the Iraqis for help.

Worldnet Daily

[BAWLEX94]

Why are you trying to act like we gave any country an option? We told them to go to war or else. The other countries were willing to work through this problem diplomatically. Inspectors were in Iraq, doing what they were told. GET THIS.....THEY WERE ACTUALLY FINDING WEAPONS....HAHA.... amazing......when they decided not to engage in warfare in the time frame we wanted, then we said SCREW YOU! Thats when we told them to butt out. But now, we want their help. Im amazed at how you can not see the irony in this. We tell them piss off, and now we ask them for help. Im actually glad the administration wised up and realized THAT NO.....WE CANT DO THIS ALONE.;... why can't you realize that that's why this is happeneing now?Go back and read the two articles i posted earlier in this thread. They blatantly say that the Bush administration is finally seeking help after formally refusing any role for the U.N. to in the war or reconstruction


btw....don't suggest that im some elementary school child by telling me to research. I've been watching all of this for quite some time. I know what's happening. Even though i have my own opinions about your knowledge in this subject, im not gonna be condescending by telling you to study up or research.

[bitkahuna]

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
The United States is the country that has refused to allow other countries to have any role in this war.

That is incorrect. The U.S. wants help, but it is not willing to cede control to the U.N. to get the help. Because it knows that if the U.N. runs things, then no one is really in charge and it WILL be chaos.

[BAWLEX94]

.

That is incorrect. The U.S. wants help, but it is not willing to cede control to the U.N. to get the help. Because it knows that if the U.N. runs things, then no one is really in charge and it WILL be chaos.

The United States wants other countries troops, but does not want to allot them any political or military authority whatsoever. Thus the reason for Frances and Germany's rejection of the new resolution.

BtW......what do you consider Iraq to be now. A cake walk??... i'd call it chaos.

[2Lexus430s]

Originally posted by BAWLEX94
.

The United States wants other countries troops, but does not want to allot them any political or military authority whatsoever. Thus the reason for Frances and Germany's rejection of the new resolution.

BtW......what do you consider Iraq to be now. A cake walk??... i'd call it chaos.

wrong again. First off, there is no new resolution, the US is trying to Call for one.

second, the French stipulation is that they get FULL Unbound control of Iraq's oil for a indefinite amount of time. I wouldn't let that happen either.

You must be young. I can't see any other reason for such reasoning other than you don't know the facts because you are stuck in one frame of mind..

its hard to believe that with all this new information you didn't know, you are still defending them... crazy stuff..

[BAWLEX94]

Explanation from the Washinton Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Sep3.html

Passages from article:

The Bush administration's hopes of getting more foreign troops in Iraq depend not only on winning over the United Nations – the White House also confronts vocal opposition in the key countries that it hopes will supply the soldiers



Skepticism Greets Bush's Multilateral Move

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff
Wednesday, September 3, 2003; 1:12 PM


The Bush administration's hopes of getting more foreign troops in Iraq depend not only on winning over the United Nations – the White House also confronts vocal opposition in the key countries that it hopes will supply the soldiers.




Bush officials now seek what they once disdained: a Security Council resolution granting the world body greater control over peacekeeping and the formation of a new Iraqi government. U.S. policymakers hope this will persuade other nations to relieve U.S. troops stretched thin by hit-and-run attacks, heat and hatred. The Post suggests that the U.S. is especially keen to enlist nations whose armed forces include Muslim soldiers, namely Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Turkey.

But commentary in the English-language online media in those countries suggests the hazards of Washington's new multilateral message. Most pundits express little enthusiasm and lots of resistance to the idea of an international force under U.S. military command.

A U.N. force under U.S. command is "an absurdity," writes Shireen M. Mazari, in the News International, a leading daily in Pakistan.

"The whole idea of bringing in a U.N.-mandated force is to allow them to do the job the U.S. is not being able to do because of a lack of credibility and trust," Mazari writes. "To simply replace U.S. soldiers with foreign soldiers but to retain U.S. command would hardly serve the purpose, unless the intent is to simply use the foreign soldiers as cannon fodder."

Mazari, director of a security think tank in Islamabad, favors rejection of the Bush overture.

"Unless the U.S. is prepared to truly concede some political authority to the U.N., it would be disastrous for the U.N. to agree to a U.N. peacekeeping force for Iraq. And the command must also be non-American and British if the force is to have credibility with the Iraqi people," she writes.

"All in all, as September 11 nears once again, it is a tragic irony that the spirit of multilateralism that the 9/11 terrorist attacks created has over two years dissipated, thanks to the U.S. assertion of unilateralist pre-emption. And the world is the poorer and destabilised as a result. "

[BAWLEX94]

second, the French stipulation is that they get FULL Unbound control of Iraq's oil for a indefinite amount of time. I wouldn't let that happen either.

wheres your proof pal??? do you just blindly ramble off statements with nothing to back them up?? When has France EVER made this claim.

btw...im aware that no resolution has been passed...it was typing mistake ...now that i've posted the article...tell me where im wrong please

[2Lexus430s]

the Washington Post is probably one of the most liberal papers out their..

[BAWLEX94]

hahaha....excellent rebuttle..

those sources you cited earlier are probably some the most right wing fundamentalist sources around as well......