Anti Bush, Anti War

If you haven't grasped that concept by now, you are either extremely slow-witted (which, in your case, I know isn't the case) or ignoring the
situation in which the U.S. finds herself.

I mean what is your opinion on why we should attack iraq, what are your reasons?

The entire world is against this war (I do not mean the governments of countries I mean the actual citizens are anti-war), There are too many things happening at home to invade a country for oil, if we are invading because of WMDs, Israel has them, Pakistan has them, India has them, Britan has them, France has them, Russia has them, China has them, We have thousands and millions of them, N. Korea most likely has them (they admit to it, they threaten to use them, and we ignore them?) I mean whats the deal? Why are we going into a country that cannot defend itself, has no way of attacking other countries without being mutilated, and is overflowing in oil? Oh... Why do we need this oil so badly? we have alternatives ready and working, why are we still messing around with this pollutant? What is with this infatuation with Oil?

By invading iraq we could spark WWIII. It goes like this: We attack iraq, while we're in Iraq screwing around, N. Korea will do whatever it wants to S. Korea, China will massacre Taiwan, India and Pakistan will turn Kashmere into a nuclear wasteland, Africa will find some bomb and blow the S/-/*t out of itself, Russia will turn Chenya into a mass grave, who knows what will happen in europe, afganistan will do something, S. America and C. America will probably degenerate into chaos, Communists and facists fighting, and Fidel will smuggle cigars. D@mn, what has happened to the world, if we dont get our act together we'll all die.

I had an intresting discussion with my teacher in drama today, she talked about how this isnt going to be a one month war, this is going to take at least a decade to clear up, with all of our global problems coming to a head while our backs are turned.The economy will zig zag and who knows how many untold millions will die in the coming war. A decade to clear up, thats what experts say, a decade, that will put us somewhere around 2013, does that date ring a bell, 2012, 2013, isnt something supposed to happen around then?

I leave you at that.

xaos

joehayner says....

"What exactly do all of you Anti-war/Anti-Bush people propose we do? All I've heard is "Oh! We need to keep inspections going".

How about stop playing these 'Axis of Evil' countries in THE game, and stop selling them the bloody weapons in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"if we are invading because of WMDs, Israel has them, Pakistan has them, India has them, Britan has them, France has them, Russia has them, China has them, We have thousands and millions of them, N. Korea most likely has them (they admit to it, they threaten to use them, and we ignore them?)"

Here's why.... NONE of them, as part of de-facto terms of surrender (a nice phrase, borrowed from Winston---wouldn't want him to go all Tyler on me, hehe...), AGREED to destroy WOMD to remain in power. THIS is the simple fact that most anti-war advocates are forgetting. It isn't about them having them in the first place, the issue is that they A) Lost the War, B) Agreed to certain terms to remain in power, and C) Have not lived up to a single one of those terms in 12 years!

war is neccasary even if taking Xaos' comments in to context????? Cause if you feel that "just because" is enough reason to go to war then have fun dying. I hope you get drafted. I hope everyone who promotes war gets drafted. Then I hope you will come back with the same ideas that all our WWII heros have. What are those ideas???? PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They fought that war so we could live in peace and look what you so-called 'patroits' are doing to it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The men who fought and died for this country will be disgraced the more and more we conceed to violence. Wake up America, the rest of the World is at your doors and they want in. You See??????????????/

Would you rather have our men who chose to serve our country now go to war to fight and die for their nation, or wait and see American civilians die in 10-15 years?

Originally posted by AF1
Would you rather have our men who chose to serve our country now go to war to fight and die for their nation, or wait and see American civilians die in 10-15 years?

1. Cheap pathetics. Who told that USA have only two options? Why civilians die in 15 years?

How could it be that the same satanic Iraq had not struck USA in 2002, 2001 ... never! It is USA who fought Iraq, right? So why USA decided to sue Iraq?

Ok, I heard that 1) Sep-11-2001 act was implemented by arabs (muslims, vakhhabits, saudians); it was Al-Quaeda; 2) Saddam Hussein linked to Quaeda; 3) So war with him in the first place is inevitable.

All three statements made me smile. Just like "Hitler was white and killed many people so lets war all white people. At least all germanic." Why its wrong? Because white people are different. And Germans, has lot of different viewpoints and even states (Austria, for ex.)

What I see is that USA people do not like neigher to look nor see the difference in muslims/arabs. Yes, it is much easier to ignore and be ignorant. But not clever and... dangerous. You can beat wrong (innocent) guy.

Let's consider points. 1) I have not seen yet the proof of guilt. Usama speeches do not convince me, he can deceive arabs to gain popularity and recruit. Let me see the proofs, if any.
2) Complete ignorance. Al-Quaeda is islamistic movement, and Hussein is arab nationalist (and even socialist in some sense, like West Europe is). Islamists, willing return of old customs, are constantly fought with nationalists, who want to apply european modernisation program. Remember Iran revolution? Remember Iraq-Iran war? So why nationalist Hussein would support islamic Quaeda? To bring islamic revolution against himself?

Ok, you will tell that when facing common enemy (USA), they will unite. Sure. Then USA should not be a facing enemy of Iraq.

3) Let's consider this scenario. USA people protests, govt understands it was wrong, replaced with the next one that brings excuses to misperceptions and withdraw its military forces and plans from Iraq. But warns about harsh response to possible future threats. Breaks blocade, allows Iraq people to use matches, paper, light batteries etc.
What would happen next? Ok, Iraq will have WMD. So what? Will he instantly apply this now? Why now, not year or two before?
Ok, he will wait until... say, reason will appear. How can it strike USA? Ah, secret submarines... Near the Cuba...

The bottom line of war reasons is: NO REAL REASONS.

2. And do you remember why USA fought Iraq? See yourself: www.nonviolence.org...
This man is arab, but he looks like very loyal to USA. How do you perceive this actions?

Firstly, USA make Iraq to war with Iran, during 10 years. Supported the same "king of terror" Saddam Hussein. Supplied arms for him. Approved use of WMD, jihad, kamikaze. Were USA blind? Ignorant? What has changed?

Then, after war, USA supported thieving Kuwait. Democracy? Lives of opposition? Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia) is monarchy; opposition is killed, too.
Excuse me, who is the first USA should overthrow? Why this silence about Saudi/Kuwait social order and state of democracy? Oh, petrol. I see.
So, USA 'stormed in desert' and won. Poor country, just after war. Made it a blocade. Let's Iraq children die, otherwise they make our civilians die.

Now, after such a blocade, USA claims that after-10year-war, half-destroyed, hunger-suffering Iraq wants war. Desperately needs. No exit but war with USA. This is such a new method to restore economics and feed the people.

The bottom line of perception is: USA is lier and agressor, sorry.

3. Stop, but USA are perfect country, reached the top in everuthing between the modern countries and who else can lead the rest of world to full happiness and triumph of democracy? So USA can do whatever they want sake the freedom and it will always be right.

Ok then. But doesn't freedom means that INSIDE the country, people can set any order it wants? No-no, somebody will say, all countries should have legislation that will make people 'free'. Despite their will, by iron hand. But then, what is called 'totalitarism'?

The bottom line: fighting 'evil' countries by USA does not mean supporting freedom.

"Ok then. But doesn't freedom means that INSIDE the country, people can set any order it wants?"

YES, It does. Do you feel that this is the current state of affairs in Iraq??? Or, do you feel that the populace, who must put verified names and addresses on the ballot itself, and fear even mentioning Saddam's name in a bad light, as it will likely lead to being dipped in an acid vat, really CHOOSE Saddam as their leader???

I seriously hope not...

Originally posted by Gazrok
"Ok then. But doesn't freedom means that INSIDE the country, people can set any order it wants?"

YES, It does.

1. Hitler cause. I personally perceive that it was lawful and right application of democracy. Human rights are violation of democracy (in greek sense of the word).
2. So what the case with post-war Japan? Why recent USA involvement in South America countries?

Do you feel that this is the current state of affairs in Iraq???

Or, do you feel that the populace, who must put verified names and addresses on the ballot itself, and fear even mentioning Saddam's name in a bad light, as it will likely lead to being dipped in an acid vat, really CHOOSE Saddam as their leader???

I seriously hope not...

I feel that every people has to deal with the powers by himself. For example, would you allow (and be glad) North Korea, Iraq, Mongolia, Bulgaria inspectors to count votes of Bush and/or Gore elections? And in the same time, USA elections are more important for the world due to importance of USA economics. So foreign control over US elections would be right thing, and there would be no controversy about counting.

Considering a) source of powers of Saddam and b) elections procedures and c) threats.

Acid bath never brought anyone to power and did not help in holding it. Usually, any society has the leaders to trust them and nation leader is such who could get the support of most leaders. Leaders are aristocrats in medieval Europe, or businessmen, journalists and beaurocrats in modern USA, or clan heads in Iraq. So just as you elect the president based on your leaders suggestions, people in Iraq would vote for whom their clad head tells.

Would Saddam (or G.W.Bush) be regarded as opposing to interests of leaders, he would be overthrown in a week. (Who killed JFK, BTW?)

Yes, there can be measures similar to Orwell's 1984. But such country cannot exist without people who understand whole truth -- otherwise it would loss in war with neighbours. Such people will be the leaders whose sympathy dictator will seek. And leaders can oppress the usual people, but not in nationalistic country. Iraq is a nationalistic country, not monarchy like Kuwait or aristocracy like old europeans. So, leaders and people do not have contradicted interests.

Election procedures. You are arguing that there should not be open one, because of possible death. I hardly believe in this, because of possible errors, because of another way of solving the problems in traditional societies, because of high price of such unity and because of low efficiency in governing the country when applying this procedure. Such order would die quickly.

Yes, some percent of executions of dissidents can still exist. But if this percent would be big, it would hurt economics etc. So this percent is rather small, and brings feel of unity. And sometimes, on the dawn of nation, this would be right price to pay.

What if, for example, some more developed country like Spain took part in US Civil war, on progressive north side? What would you feel the right price -- to have LESS people die from Spaniards (sake the freedom, of course; though, expenses paid for the help), or have people die from their brothers?

get all of THAT out of one paragraph???

I'm assuming that you are also answering other posts, even though I am the only one cited, for I did not argue over election procedures of the US. You're going off in too many directions at once here, and I fail to see what any of it has to do with the price of tea in China...sorry.

Ok, I'm going to try to reply the best I can to you 'antiwarites'.

wwk...I can tell you are from another country because of the frequent misspellings, bad grammer,(I'm not saying I'm the best speller in the world) and anti-USA sentiment. I'm not trying to 'rag' on your country, but...What have they been teaching you?

wwk
Acid bath never brought anyone to power and did not help in holding it.

Umm...yeah it did...how do you think Saddam or Hitler got into power in the first place? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't through lawful election. They killed people who opposed them until nobody who opposed them would speak out against them.

wwk
Would Saddam (or G.W.Bush) be regarded as opposing to interests of leaders, he would be overthrown in a week.

I don't think so. G.W. Bush is going against what most people want him to do, he's still president. I'm sure that there are people in the country that have that much power, but if it was you, would you take him out of power at such a crucial moment and risk being seen?

As for your comments about the Iraqi voting system, as far as I know, I've never heard of a dictator allowing people to vote. I doubt Saddam is any different.

Our reasons for war:
1) Disarmerment-The total disarming of weapons of mass destruction to ensure the saftey of the peoples of the world.

2) War on Terrorism-Saddam has been using Iraq as a training grounds for terrorists.

3) Freedom-The Iraqi people are being tortured daily, and are being used as test dummies for chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Originally posted by joehayner
wwk...I can tell you are from another country ... and anti-USA sentiment. ...What have they been teaching you?

What my statements are anti-USA? Anti-war ones? That reminds about USA support of terrorists? But this is truth. Yes, this is anti-USA truth UNTIL YOU ACCEPT USA DEEDS FULLY. After accepting these deeds, this truth will not be anti-USA. Yes, we did this, and we proud by our deeds, despite someone consider them as bad or dishonest ones. This is not our problems.

wwk
Acid bath never brought anyone to power and did not help in holding it.

Umm...yeah it did...how do you think Saddam or Hitler got into power in the first place? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't through lawful election. They killed people who opposed them until nobody who opposed them would speak out against them.

History is not consent with you. I cannot speak of Saddam -- maybe he used murders to get power. But Hitler won lawful elections, by propaganda. He was a experienced and trainer speaker. And problems he arose were very actual and sore in that moment in Germany.
Would Hitler beaten ALL his opponents, who he sued after he got to power?

wwk
Would Saddam (or G.W.Bush) be regarded as opposing to interests of leaders, he would be overthrown in a week.

I don't think so. G.W. Bush is going against what most people want him to do, he's still president. I'm sure that there are people in the country that have that much power, but if it was you, would you take him out of power at such a crucial moment and risk being seen?

I see you've got the clue: real USA leaders do not see interests of Bush as opposing ones. 'Most people' means nothing, it's journalists-leaders who organize public opinion.

As for your comments about the Iraqi voting system, as far as I know, I've never heard of a dictator allowing people to vote. I doubt Saddam is any different.

No, you are wrong. Hussein had elections ro poll recently, he has support of 95%. Stalin had 100% (not 99.9%, but 100%) approval as his agent did. Yes, this was a cheat.

Our reasons for war:
1) Disarmerment-The total disarming of weapons of mass destruction to ensure the saftey of the peoples of the world.

Ok. Why USA do not start from Russia, UK, France, Israel, India then? When Pakistan is planned for disarmement?

2) War on Terrorism-Saddam has been using Iraq as a training grounds for terrorists.

Really? Dont you know what happens in Macedonia? Albanian terrorists were trained in Bosnia. And still are. Drugs, you know. Turkey supports Chechen terrorists. How Bosnia and Turkey is considered then? Bot all muslims are enemies?

3) Freedom-The Iraqi people are being tortured daily, and are being used as test dummies for chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Yes, this is the case (except for testing WMD -- otherwise, why inspectors do not catch this?). But isn't method to prevent murders -- war -- will cause more deaths than these tortures? Let me check your numbers.

Also, about tortures. Are they innocent people who are being tortured? If not, how do you consider position of US prisoners?

wwk
What my statements are anti-USA? Anti-war ones? That reminds about USA support of terrorists? But this is truth. Yes, this is anti-USA truth UNTIL YOU ACCEPT USA DEEDS FULLY. After accepting these deeds, this truth will not be anti-USA. Yes, we did this, and we proud by our deeds, despite someone consider them as bad or dishonest ones. This is not our problems.

I know the the USA supports terrorism, but not directly. It's not like we are meeting up with terrorists monthly and cutting them a big check from our government. I know America has done some pretty 'evil' things in its past, but I didn't do them, so why should I have to pay for them?

wwk
History is not consent with you. I cannot speak of Saddam -- maybe he used murders to get power. But Hitler won lawful elections, by propaganda. He was a experienced and trainer speaker. And problems he arose were very actual and sore in that moment in Germany.

Yes Hitler won a lawful election, but afterward he killed his opposition. That way there was no one to oppose him, no way for any future elections to change. He was a good speaker, charismatic, and influential as they come. He struck raw nerves with his speeches, sided with the public, then twisted their views into his aspirations.

I see you've got the clue: real USA leaders do not see interests of Bush as opposing ones. 'Most people' means nothing, it's journalists-leaders who organize public opinion.

wwk
Yup, and if you knew anything about America at this moment, you would know that 'most' of the journalists and media are anti war. I think that most people who are against forceful disarmerment of Iraq are ill informed on the subject.

wwk

No, you are wrong. Hussein had elections ro poll recently, he has support of 95%.

Pfft! Those last five percent were not very smart to vote against Saddam, eventhough it's a miniscule number, their probably already dead, imprisoned, or being tortured. Anyway, I never even hear he had a poll. Don't see what good it'd do in a dictatorship anyway.

wwl
Ok. Why USA do not start from Russia, UK, France, Israel, India then? When Pakistan is planned for disarmement?

I assume you are trying to say, 'why doesn't America start disarming somwhere else'. The answer is that Saddam has threatened to use his WMD against America, which would kill thousands, if not millions, of innocent people. Would you take a gun away from a murderer or a model citizen first?

wwk
Really? Dont you know what happens in Macedonia? Albanian terrorists were trained in Bosnia. And still are. Drugs, you know. Turkey supports Chechen terrorists. How Bosnia and Turkey is considered then? Bot all muslims are enemies?

I never said muslims were the enemy. Terrorists are the enemy. Iraq is the danger at the moment, why should we just turn our faces from them and go off somwhere else?

wwk
Yes, this is the case (except for testing WMD -- otherwise, why inspectors do not catch this?). But isn't method to prevent murders -- war -- will cause more deaths than these tortures? Let me check your numbers.

Also, about tortures. Are they innocent people who are being tortured? If not, how do you consider position of US prisoners?

The inspectors are not there to look for weapons, they are there to watch Saddam destroy weapons. And what do you mean war will cause more deaths than tortures??? How can you justify that as a reason not to go to war?
"Sure let people die of torture, not war, war is bad, torture obviously isn't." Gahhh, somtimes I just wonder if Americas education rating is wrong and we're higher on the list.
US prisoners are a different matter, we don't torture them. They are supposed to be there for rehabilitation.

Originally posted by joehayner

I know the the USA supports terrorism, but not directly.
It's not like we are meeting up with terrorists monthly and cutting them a big check from our government.

Bank system exists for this thing. Actually, USA were transferring money to accounts of Usama Ladensson and Al-Quaeda. Directly.

I know America has done some pretty 'evil' things in its past, but I didn't do them, so why should I have to pay for them?

Because in civil society, elections make you an accessory of your state. You had your voice, and was free to fight. Moreover, there is such things as Human Rights, and USA took liabilities to follow them. So when you support Bush, you support every deed he does, and take all the responsibilities (guilt) of his diplomacy.

In dictatorship, you can easily say 'I was forced to do this misdeed', and be innocent.

Yes Hitler won a lawful election, but afterward he killed his opposition. That way there was no one to oppose him, no way for any future elections to change.

Naive thinking. Do you remember attempts to kill Hitler? Opposition, you know, may appear in the same people who just supported ---.

So, bottom line is: If Hitler's followers were responsible for his crimes, so Bush's followers should. Because such is a nature of democracy, you know. There are no such things as a free lunches. And be prepared for this.

I see you've got the clue: real USA leaders do not see interests of Bush as opposing ones. 'Most people' means nothing, it's journalists-leaders who organize public opinion.

wwk
Yup, and if you knew anything about America at this moment, you would know that 'most' of the journalists and media are anti war.

Well, I dont like to watch TV (~20 min a week) etc, so I can just speak of Paula Zahn and her colleague. Seems they dont do much propaganda against the war.
But I was speaking about real leaders -- bankers, CEOs, state tops that are making decisions, not media chatterboxes. They could stop Bush in a week.

I assume you are trying to say, 'why doesn't America start disarming somwhere else'.

No, I was trying to say, dont talk `They supported terrorists' or `They have WMD' nonsense. Because you personally dont consider THESE criterions as excuses to start wars -- see yourself using other words to explain why Iraqi is particularly the first in the list.

The answer is that Saddam has threatened to use his WMD against America, which would kill thousands, if not millions, of innocent people.

Can I see this words somewhere? I really bad-informed about this.

The inspectors are not there to look for weapons, they are there to watch Saddam destroy weapons.

Saddam reports: 'everything is destroyed'. Should he buy more WMD again to show its destruction to inspectors? Will inspectors consider THIS as sufficient? If not, how Saddam can honestly prove he did what was told?

And what do you mean war will cause more deaths than tortures??? How can you justify that as a reason not to go to war?

This is classic case of two evil things: either to kill many people (guilty in being born in Iraqi) and free the rest, or to allow horrible things to few people and not to kill others.
Certainly tortures are bad things. But you prefer killing MANY people and causing torturing and disgusting poverty to others???

US prisoners are a different matter, we don't torture them. They are supposed to be there for rehabilitation.

8-) Do you believe in rehabilitation? Can show me impressively small recidivation percentage numbers?

Well, 'we dont'. (Ok, let's forget about care of rights of terrorists at Cuba, Guantanamo). So why 'they do'? YOU measure by YOUR mark. WE consider this as tortures. But is this the reason WE should do harm to THEM?

People, Saddam tortures and kills his people, that is a reason.

He is a nut with WMD's, that is a reason.

He supports terrorism, that is a reason.

Guess what? Reason we want him to disarm and say, not England, is because England
is a civilized country, while Iraq is a bunch of nuts!

Originally posted by James the Lesser
People, Saddam tortures and kills his people, that is a reason.

He is a nut with WMD's, that is a reason.

He supports terrorism, that is a reason.

Guess what? Reason we want him to disarm and say, not England, is because England
is a civilized country, while Iraq is a bunch of nuts!

I mean, they too, have WMDs, they admit it while Iraq denies that they have possesion of WMDs.
North Korea has said that they will use their nukes, they support terrorists, they send missles to the middle east.
What does Iraq do? Well it has no ties to Al-Qaeda, thats tantamount to war, I quess.
Now please explain to me why we do not invade N. Korea, I still have not recieved a valid explanation for it...

XAS

I agree with Xaos, at least to a point...
Yes IMO, N.Korea is a begger threat than Sodamn Insane because they're *advertising* the very same things that Iraq is denying. They should be higher on "the list" (You can pretty much bet your sweet bippy, Xaos, that N.Korea *is* on Bush's "list") than Iraq. The only other big difference between them is that N.Korea has no oil for us...But since they've *threatened* to use their weaponry on th US, that's what *put* them on his list.

Originally posted by Theyre Here
(I also believe that an "abstain" vote from a registered voter should count somehow... anyway...)

Basically, that only says that your vote is a "non-vote"...I've found that a stronger vote for "No confidence" says more than "abstain". This is and always will be (unless there's a *very* drastic turnaround in the government's methods of operation) my one & only reply to whatever happens in Washington D.C.

Originally posted by wwk Because in civil society, elections make you an accessory of your state. You had your voice, and was free to fight. Moreover, there is such things as Human Rights, and USA took liabilities to follow them. So when you support Bush, you support every deed he does, and take all the responsibilities (guilt) of his diplomacy.

This is *precisely* why I don't support Bush, I *never* supported Bush (or his daddy either, for that matter) & unless the Bush family gets itself straightened out I probably will *never* support any Bush. The constant & continuous is why I've chosen to vote "No Confidence".

Originally posted by Abraham Virtue
Thomas is right about the bickering.

As I've already said in these forums and, considering how little it seems people actually *read* it I'll probably be saying it numerous more times...
For the past 50 years (at least) it hasn't mattered *who* won the elections races...The People have *always* wound up losing. The bi-partisan bickering is a *tool* for the politicians to use *against the Citizens* to keep us divided so they can conquer us.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
People, Saddam tortures and kills his people, that is a reason.

Nope.
USA kills his people, too -- by electric chair etc. Those who were guilty by law. So how about Saddam's laws? Dura lex, sed lex.

USA kills US soldiers by sending troops to Iraqi. Is this a reason for Europe to invade USA?

Ah, tortures. I have heard that in Cuba, USA MAY maltreat Al-Quaeda members. And that for terrorists, it would be right measure. To save peace and lives. So how can you criticize Saddam? Maybe his opponents are terrorists, too? So he used tortures because he had to protect peaceful people from the cruel civil war?

He is a nut with WMD's, that is a reason.

USA are nut's, also. Hiroshima, you know, depleted uranium at Iraqi etc. And USA has it.

What are proofs that Saddam has it, not speaking about destroying? We all saw that he started destroying this. Now, USA stops disarmement. What we want from Iraqi?

He supports terrorism, that is a reason.

Nope. He is not. USA was.

...Reason we want him to disarm and say, not England, is because England
is a civilized country, while Iraq is a bunch of nuts!

Oh man, dont make me laugh so loud. 8-)

For Hitler, Russia was uncivilized country, and gypsies and jews were bunch of nuts. So why USA fought Hitler, really?


----

I have to repeat my question.

How, by what mean, Iraqi could cause harm to USA? Do they have rockets to carry bombs over? Do they have aircarrier ships? Do they have submarines? How they can pass an ocean?

You may as well say that they can bring bacteria, or strong poison, or small nuclear devices to USA. Yes. With nuclear, this can be controlled by border services. With bacteria, this cannot be prevented, just made more difficult. Poison can be made just at the USA territory, by any professional, so war only brings greater risks of this. So, these are not options.

Can you tell me by what weapon Iraqi could strike US? Thanks.

I don't mean to get personal, but what country are you from wwk? Why do you hate America badly enought to MAKE UP LIES about us. Most every word I see, that you have typed, has been an insult to America. You call us 'terrorist supporters', you say that we follow a tyrant. And yet I've seen no proof in any of your accusations. I think you have been horribly misled.

If you have any questions or doubts about the US or the war the I support, ask them one at a time, and I (or any other poster) will try to answer them for you to the best of my knowledge. Ask away, I want to understand you better.

Originally posted by joehayner
That's it, I've heard enough of your whining.

What exactly do all of you Anti-war/Anti-Bush people propose we do?

NESARA!

Sorry to waste a perfectly good post, but what does NESARA mean? What does it have to do with my comment, which by the way has not been answered yet.