US' recent history has been twisted by the madness and caprice of a few prez.
 

In 1963, John Kennedy ordered the coup d'etat and assassination of the former Republic of South Vietnam's first president Diem Ngo Dinh, thus entangling South Vietnam in constant upheavals and power struggles between generals for the next 12 years, until 1975 when the North Vietnam communists successfully invaded the South Vietnam. 3 days after John Kennedy ordered the coup d'etat and assassination, he paid for what he did!

During the 1980's, Ronald Reagan gave the Afghan
Mujahadeen guerrillas (and Osama Bin Laden) $250 million in covert U.S. aid in in their fight against Soviet troops, and supported Saddam Hussein in a futile effort to hamper the potential tsunami of Iranian Islamic Revolution in the Middle East. In 1991, older Bush refused to annihilate that animal when the best opportunity to kill him presented itself. 12 years later, younger Bush thought he was a God who could do anything at his will, so he ordered the invasion of Iraq, spent $75B + $87 = US$162 Billion (and much more to come in the near future), as well as put the life of hundred thousands of our young soldiers at extreme risk. And now that animal is nowhere to be found, and many of our young soldiers are being killed every single day. The struggle between Israel and Palestinian Jihad is an endless war with no future, so is the struggle between Americans and Iraqi rebels. Older and younger Bush forced America into a tunnel without light at the end. They may go to church every Sunday, pray every night and morning (and at every Cabinet meeting?), but they will go to hell instead of heaven. I abhor religious hypocrites.

The Principle of Causality applies so well for the madness of American presidents. If a thing occurs, one should be able to give a reason for its occurrence.

I'm not a religious person at all, but my heart, my soul and my sympathy go to the families of our young soldiers. Their life must not be tossed around by a Texan cowboy.

You think only a dozen of US soldiers have been killed each day in IRAQ? Do you know the actual numbers of soldiers getting injured everyday??? The numbers will make you completely dizzy!




Also, here's an excerpt from one of the link below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, while the Bush administration is able to point to a relatively modest number of US fatalities in Iraq _ yesterday the total stood at 396 (+ 17 today), and _ there is a HUGE number of severely wounded soldiers whose injuries and fate go largely unreportedMr Bush has ordered that the media should not be allowed to photograph coffins containing the bodies of those killed in Iraq, and the return of injured US troops also goes largely unpublicised. This is no coincidence. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont told the Senate last month: "The wounded are brought back after midnight, making sure the press does not see the planes coming in with the wounded."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



17 US soldiers died today (Nov 15, 2003)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/15/sprj.irq.crash/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands more are injured, and nobody seems to talk about them? The hidden cost of Bush's war:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=463502

As I said before.. Bush is one dumb #%$. I don't think Texas has ever produced a good President. Now that I put myself in a position to take fire from the Bush-nuts, I will sit back quietly and read the entertaining responces. Have fun!:D :cool:

Snibble, I won't even bother...I'm used to your endearing youthful cluelessness by now....

Eric.... I don't even know where to BEGIN listing the many ways that you are wrong...I'm sure several others will deconstruct the verbal house of cards you just built, so I'm going to put down the keyboard for the night and go have some beers.

Mike

Shoot yeah. Lets emancipate Texas. Buncha F**kin' losers.

A Democrat takes exception to a Republican ("Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont told the Senate last month..."). Wow, I'm so surprised.

Here's a Democrat that I could support, Leiberman. He thinks Saddam should've gone long before the current president took control. I agree with that. He takes exception to Bush's handling of subsequent events. I have no particular problem with that.

A Leiberman plus is that he's the only candidate of any party that can say anything contra-Israel without being called an anti-Semite. The man is a practicing Orthodox Jew. Solving the problem with Israel & Palestine (arabian Christians and Muslims) would pretty much gut Al Queda's major gripe. I hope the Democrats wise-up and realize he's their best bet as a candidate.

The rest of the Demos are opportunistic munchkins.

Bush reminds me of my brother who had a Dodge Challenger (4-cyl) back in the '80's. He worked his butt and wallet into the ground on that car and put it at the very edge of the performance envelope. Two Weber carbs. Cam, bored, etc. Then he street-raced a guy who did the same with a 8 cyl Camero.

My brother, bless his heart, blew the engine racing a man who's car was designed for street racing.

Bush, bless his heart, is doing the best he can with what he's got. He's a hell of a lot better than most of the field, but some folks just have horsepower to spare.

Botnst

I am sorry, I guess I should learn from the genius drummer of a barely known group:rolleyes:

Yea, why not?:D
I agree with that. I am surpised though that Lieberman being an Orthodox Jew is really trying to help the Palestinians. However, as with all politicians... you can never trust them.

...I'll help ya Mike, and I already have beers at the ready.
...Reagan knew a thing or two about nation-building. He stood on the White House lawn with leaders of the Mujahadeen and declared them to be the "moral equvalent of our nation's founding fathers". Those 'founding fathers' went on to become the Taliban...pretty cool huh?
The number now stands at approximately 9000--thank goodness we're winning!
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1114-12.htm

There Mike, I think I put Eric in his place..he he he. Always willing to help out a fellow vacationer...

Snibble, that's not the point.

The only American during his time who could possibly enter into a diplomatic relationship with Communist China was Richard Nixon. His anti-Communist credentials were impeccable. Thus, his state visit to China was unquestioned. If some apologist for communist totalitarianism had attempted Nixon's feat, he'd have been cut-off at the knees.

Leiberman, Orthodox Jew, can take-on the Israeli lobby with near impunity. Whereas any secular or Christian president would have to build his credentials, as Nixon did, over many years of involvement.

The key to solving the whole damned mess in the Middleast, and a solution that will address the concerns of a billion Muslims, is justice for the Arab Palestinians. I believe that only an American Jew can find a solution acceptible to the Palestinian Arabs and palatable to Israel. Leiberman is a brilliant man who loves his country and his religion. If he can just survive the tedium of political darwinism, I think he's our best hope for a way out of this hellish mess.

Botnst

I agree that Bush is doing the best he can with what he has. The American people decided to place a man of average intellect in the White House, so let's not harp on it now (at least he's not Dan Quayle). The fact is that 9/11 was a Godsend for Bush. It provided him with direction and a comfort zone of sorts. Without this conflict, he'd be in so far over his head that he may have drowned by now.

Lieberman has a problem that I don't think he can overcome. He seems bright, capable and affable, but he comes across as weak. It's his body language, his voice, his demeanor, his frail appearance -- he seems kind of whiny. And I don't know how well he would do with the Jewish vote. I have several Jewish friends and not one among them would vote for him under any circumstance.

Ron
http://germanstar.net

Botnst, I sincerely hope you've got a 'plan B' choice at the ready...the majority of grassroots D's find him to be a self-righteous ass--I concur. I don't think Holy-Joe could possibly stand up to the AIPAC, let alone Israel itself.

I've got to say, you're a mighty peculiar political animal--at least you get points for originality.

My "Plan B" is status quo. The remainder of the Demo-pack is vying for the position of greatest anti-Bush. That's a leadership position, to be "Not" something? That is an accomplishment of underwhelmingly miniscule proportion.

Why vote for a candidate whose greatest accomplishment is that he's better than a dim bulb? Hell, I'll take the dim bulb, at least that's original.

Z, I know that there are lots of other issues, over which you and I will cut each other's hearts out.

But do we have agreement that to emasculate Al Queda and solve the current war with Islam we must find justice for Palestinians? Whom better than Leiberman for that task?

...you're ...uh, speaking figuratively--right?
...Al Qaeda will be rendered irrelevant when justice is brought to the Middle East--yes. U.S. hegemony is not the righteously appropriate vehicle for promoting justice. The U.S. is not a fair and even-handed broker in the Middle East (or elsewhere). The U.S. government needs to deal with the Palestinian question by taking on its 'allies' the Israelis and the Saudis, while dealing with the Palestinian people in a way that isn't condescending and self-defeating.

I wish I could agree with you on this point Botnst, but I firmly believe Lieberman is a neo-con imperialist, and no, I'm not being glib. He's signed off on their agenda, so that makes him part of the problem, not the solution in my book. This problem is going to be best resolved through butter, not guns (thought guns do serve a purpose).

I agree with your Nixon analogy, that a Jew would be the best political figure to change U.S./Israel policy, but the official strategy of the AIPAC and ADL is to label anyone criticizing Israel as either a self-loathing Jew or an anti-Semite--that's a pretty steep hurdle to overcome. I don't think Joe Censorship is the guy to mount a challenge to this orthodoxy.

I think it would be the in our longterm strategic interest to divest ourselves from our related addictions to both oil and Israel. I don't see any candidate (currently) running that would do that, except maybe the ultra-longshot Kucinich.

So Botnst, we agree on the key points you raised, but differ on how to achieve a suitabale resolution to the problems inherent to those points. No real surprises there...

Ol' Joe may not be the ideal for everybody. Who could be? I can't think of a time I've ever thought anything he's said did was particulalr wonderful. Probably his best performance was during the recent presidential election. In contrast to Dubyah "Deer-in-headlights" Bush vs Al "Internet" Gore, Cheney and Leiberman had a quiet conversation about government. I didn't learn a dang thing from Gore-Bush debates other than Dubyah looked vacant and Gore harrumphed like a raging rabbit.

None of the candidates have a vision with which to inspire us. Okay, so what do they offer? Basically, Dubyah offers more of what he's doing and the Democrats offer less of what he's doing.

Sorry, I missed the part where you explained how our occupations have anything to do with this issue..... :rolleyes:

Mike

Nice try Z....but I think Botnst is doing a lot better so far. :p

Mike