Iraq Leader Thanks United States

Originally posted by mrmulder
I have to respectfully disagree with you Politrix. The people of this country are still wondering about Bin Laden. Dead? Alive? Captured? At large? IMO if Bush waits until the election to announce it than people are going to get suspicious calling it a "coiencidence."

I agree but the outcome of this war is more important than who ends up in office. I think Bush knows that and i think he puts the countries saftey before his party. I know i am going to hear some s*** on that but thats the way i see it. All these people slamming Bush over anything they can think of. I heard it about Clinton and now i hear it about Bush. IMO President Bush doesn't have to tell anyone who they have caught. When they tell us who they caught they tell the enemy, damn technology.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
I think Bush knows that and i think he puts the countries saftey before his party.

Which country are you referring to? Is it Corporate America including big oil and big weapons? Or is it the American people, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet? I can't remember the last time we were so divided over the path our leaders are taking us down.

They are trying so hard to mislead us. And for the most part, it is working brilliantly.

Originally posted by Belgarath
Is it Corporate America including big oil and big weapons? Or is it the American people, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet?

I think it's both

I can't remember the last time we were so divided over the path our leaders are taking us down.

I agree Belgrath. I'm more concerned about my job and health than terrorism right now. I'm barely making ends meet and here's the government taking more out of my pocket saying "Trust us. Let us manage your money to protect you." Frankly, I'd rather protect myself than relying on the government.

They are trying so hard to mislead us. And for the most part, it is working brilliantly.

I think you're 100% right.

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm more concerned about my job and health than terrorism right now.

Thats because we have not been attacked again...yet.

I'm barely making ends meet and here's the government taking more out of my pocket saying "Trust us. Let us manage your money to protect you." Frankly, I'd rather protect myself than relying on the government.

This is why i am voting Bush, he gives us tax cut while the Democrates complain and say the Government should spend the American people's money. How is it going to be if Kerry wins and the tax cuts go out the window. Atleast Bush gives us the option to save or spend.

They are trying so hard to mislead us. And for the most part, it is working brilliantly.

I do not agree, the main party trying to mislead the people is the Democratic Party. Like or not, Bush tells it how it is and sticks to it.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix
This is why i am voting Bush, he gives us tax cut while the Democrates complain and say the Government should spend the American people's money.

Actually, I do not agree that we need a tax break right now even though I would like one. We have a major budget deficiet and our national debt is already in the trillions. Now how do you excpect America to pay that off and get out of that? War is no excuse IMO.

Like or not, Bush tells it how it is and sticks to it.

Sorry. I disagree.

[edit on 24-9-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

This is why i am voting Bush, he gives us tax cut while the Democrates complain and say the Government should spend the American people's money.

In other news, US national debt is now 7.5 Trillion dollars. Your individual share? A mere 44,000. The national debt weakens the US dollar, and China and Japan essentially own half of the US bearer bonds on which we pay the debt's interest. Financial analysts say that if the US had no national debt, personal income tax could be eliminated forever.

Back to you, Skip.

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

They are trying so hard to mislead us. And for the most part, it is working brilliantly.

I do not agree, the main party trying to mislead the people is the Democratic Party. Like or not, Bush tells it how it is and sticks to it.

Both parties are trying like heck to mislead us. It's not simply a matter of one of our two parties screwing us. Our entire system of government has been corrupted beyond repair.

At its most basic level, they hook up the rich and the big corporations and work very very hard at making it look like they're looking out for us.

Look at the only two choices we have running to lead our country. I would actually consider voting for Bush if he were to ditch Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Rove. Nothing less will do. Up until a few weeks ago, I was going to vote for Kerry, but I do not trust him any more than I trust Bush.

It's a travesty that these are our only two 'real' choices.

Originally posted by mrmulder
I do not agree that we need a tax break right now

Ok, but how can you say this...

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm barely making ends meet and here's the government taking more out of my pocket saying "Trust us. Let us manage your money to protect you.".

I am confused, if you don't want the government taking more money out of your pocket and you don't think a tax cut is a good idea what do you think we should do?

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by mrmulder
I do not agree that we need a tax break right now

Ok, but how can you say this...

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm barely making ends meet and here's the government taking more out of my pocket saying "Trust us. Let us manage your money to protect you.".

I am confused, if you don't want the government taking more money out of your pocket and you don't think a tax cut is a good idea what do you think we should do?

I think you misunderstood. I agree we need a tax break but right now is not a good time. Yes I'm barely making ends meet but Bush tax breaks will not help me. His tax breaks since he took have never helped me. His tax breaks are for the rich, not the middle class.

There needs needs to be a flat tax accross the board or one where taxes are given to the middle class. Not the rich. The rich don't need a tax break anyways. They make more than enough money.

[edit on 24-9-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by mrmulder
I do not agree that we need a tax break right now

Ok, but how can you say this...

Originally posted by mrmulder
I'm barely making ends meet and here's the government taking more out of my pocket saying "Trust us. Let us manage your money to protect you.".

I am confused, if you don't want the government taking more money out of your pocket and you don't think a tax cut is a good idea what do you think we should do?

What I got from mrmulder's post is that HE is barely making ends meet but agrees that WE as a country do not need a tax break because of the massive deficit. HE is willing to do with less so that OUR country can pick itself back up.

That's just my interpretation though.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
In other news, US national debt is now 7.5 Trillion dollars. Your individual share? A mere 44,000. The national debt weakens the US dollar, and China and Japan essentially own half of the US bearer bonds on which we pay the debt's interest. Financial analysts say that if the US had no national debt, personal income tax could be eliminated forever.

Everyone would love everyone, there would be no more violence in the world, cancer would just go away, the UV rays from the sun would turn to gold in our hands and we would all be happy as a frog with six legs.

Originally posted by Belgarath
What I got from mrmulder's post is that HE is barely making ends meet but agrees that WE as a country do not need a tax break because of the massive deficit. HE is willing to do with less so that OUR country can pick itself back up.

And this is Bush's fault because....

*Terrorist attacked us on Sept. 11th
*Bush decided to go after terrorist before they can attack again
*It cost money to fight terrorism
*The system was screwed up BEFORE Bush took office

It is not Bush's fault for all the problem we have today. That is what i have a problem with. Yall complain about the government spending our tax money but then we get a tax cut and you complain about that. How about you complain about other contries not paying their debts, lets add that up and see how much money is owed to the US. Remember, America first.

Originally posted by Belgarath
What I got from mrmulder's post is that HE is barely making ends meet but agrees that WE as a country do not need a tax break because of the massive deficit. HE is willing to do with less so that OUR country can pick itself back up.

That's just my interpretation though.

Thank you Belgrath. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Fox

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

And this is Bush's fault because....

*Terrorist attacked us on Sept. 11th
*Bush decided to go after terrorist before they can attack again
*It cost money to fight terrorism

Excuses, excuses, excuses... Just because those events happened does not mean we should be this far in debt. Bush doesn't even have a plan for getting out of debt. Why is "The War on Terrorism" always an excuse? I'm so sick of hearing that. What about us? Or have we just ignored everything in this country except for our saftey?

*The system was screwed up BEFORE Bush took office

Uh, no. We had a surplus of 4 trillion when Clinton left office. Is that the system you're talking about?

[edit on 24-9-2004 by mrmulder]

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by taibunsuu
In other news, US national debt is now 7.5 Trillion dollars. Your individual share? A mere 44,000. The national debt weakens the US dollar, and China and Japan essentially own half of the US bearer bonds on which we pay the debt's interest. Financial analysts say that if the US had no national debt, personal income tax could be eliminated forever.

Everyone would love everyone, there would be no more violence in the world, cancer would just go away, the UV rays from the sun would turn to gold in our hands and we would all be happy as a frog with six legs.

Not quite, but it would be sound fiscal policy. The strength of the dollar is very important, and wouldn't you like long-term tax benefits or do you prefer to close your eyes and repeat 'defecits don't matter' until you're convinced they don't?

Why do you think we're in a war right now to secure the best source of the world's most valued commodity for which demand will be on the rise globally as far as economists predict?

Originally posted by AntiPolitrix

Originally posted by lmgnyc
And while we are talking about dictators, let's just look at who Bush invites out to the ole' ranch in Crawford and to the White House, shall we?

The President of China, Jiang Zemin has been invited down to Crawford for BBQ with GWB...

Did the UN pass a resolution on China or Saudia for their Human Rights Violations? I know they did in Iraq but what about these others?

Saudi Arabia has never faced U.N. sanctions regarding human rights.

China was not sanctioned. The U.S. sponsored a weak motion to impose sanctions in April 2004, but China avoided the charges by using a "no action motion" on itself, which is essentially a procedural mechanism that allows members to take violations against themselves off the table. The U.S. knew that this would happen and the proposal was really just a token to appease the rising concern at home.
hrw.org...

The point is that Bush's current reason for removing Saddam doesn't hold water. If he is so appalled at what Saddam did to the Iraqis, how could he stand to look Jiang Zemin in the face (much less dine on catfish with him) knowing that the man is as brutal a dictator as Saddam? And a communist dictator with nuclear weapons--in the summer White House!!

What I'm saying is that Bush doesn't really care one way or another about the Iraqi people--just as he doesn't really care about the Chinese who are being murdered on a daily basis. All of this talk of bringing freedom to the Iraqi people and saving them from torture is all rhetoric. If it really was a government priority, something real would be done about it. This is all about making money for U.S. military contractors and securing oil. Period. Perhaps there is some payback thrown in for trying to blow up Bush Sr., but Iraq has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11 and nothing to do with terrorism.

The Bushies have been looking for reasons to take Saddam out and 9/11 conveniently happened and they seized the opportunity. When attempts to link Saddam to the event wore suspiciously thin, Bush started in with the human rights violations, but is this really a cause to go to war? If so, what about all of the other persecution that is happening in the world?

Americans need to wake up and cut through all the BS that has been shoveled on us and see the war in Iraq for what it is.

Saddam=not responsible for 9/11
Brutal dictator, yes. Terrorist attempting to blow up U.S. cities, no.
Where are the terrorists responsible for 9/11? Alive and well and still plotting to blow up/contaminate/otherwise destroy U.S. cities.

Why are these terrorists still alive and well and still plotting to blow up U.S. cities? Because Bush & Co. failed in their "War on Terror" by not actually reducing global terrorism.

Originally posted by lmgnyc

Did the UN pass a resolution on China or Saudia for their Human Rights Violations? I know they did in Iraq but what about these others?

Saudi Arabia has never faced U.N. sanctions regarding human rights.

China was not sanctioned. The U.S. sponsored a weak motion to impose sanctions in April 2004,

It's all about the Benjamins.

Look at the amount of business we do with China. As far as oil-producing nations go, they can do whatever they want to their citizenry and the US Government isn't going to say anything as long as we have umitigated access to their sweet, sweet crude.

We had a surplus of 4 trillion when Clinton left office

Surely you jest. We might have had a balanced budget for a year or two, but we never eliminated the federal deficit. And if you remember, it was Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America" congress that dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget.

Those of you criticizing Bush's ties with China, it seems like Clinton was pretty close with the Chinese too.

As for Allawi being Bush's puppet, you do realize that the UN security council voted 15-0 to recognize that administration as the legitimate administration in Iraq. If Kerry wants to "go it alone" and say they are not legitimate, I think he is going to find it hard to build a coalition with anyone.

Ever notice how when you ask the right question, all the traitors and enemies of the US come barking? It's like stink on do-do.


[edit on 04/9/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Ever notice how when you ask the right question, all the traitors and enemies of the US come barking? It's like stink on do-do.


[edit on 04/9/25 by GradyPhilpott]

What question are you talking about?

Is the US a great nation? Yes.

Does the US government sometimes make mistakes that its citizens are free to comment on? Yes.

Is free public discourse part of what makes the country great? Yes.

Does the act of a citizen commenting on percieved mistakes of the government, whom they pay for the act of a 'traitor?' No.