Mr. Bush, Give us a Break!

Comment #29

dragon — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:54:21 GMT

You make a good point. Don't you think if you were an Iraqi citizen, no matter how you looked at it and how it ACTUALLY happened, the 30,000 people that died this year in Iraq are 10 : 1 those that died in 9/11. You're going to blame America -- justified or not. You're going to spread negative propaganda throughout the Arab world against this country, and you're therefore fueling the first bin Laden is stoking. 

 

I really would not want to travel abroad right now, and certainly n... [ More ]

Comment #28

Babel — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 17:13:49 GMT

Yes Saddam killed many people. However we are the ones that put him in power. We supported him. We armed him. We gave him those chemical weapons he used on his citizens. And yes war is terrible and there are always innocent casulties. I'm just confused though on how we can cry out at 3000 US deaths on 9/11 and shrug our shoulders at 5x that number in Iraq. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the Iraqis. They think it's significant and they blame us. They blame us for the hell that their li... [ More ]

Comment #27

whodeani — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 15:10:08 GMT

I forgot to mention about the "only an idiot fights a war on two fronts" comment. I guess Franklin Roosevelt was an idiot too then. During WWII we were fighting the Nazis in Europe and fighting the Japanese in the Pacific. We won that war because fighting on both fronts was necessary just as fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are necessary in this war.

Comment #26

whodeani — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 14:33:07 GMT

Comment #25

dragon — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:13:28 GMT

We could start by leveling the UN building in NY. That would send the message that the war on terrorism is on.

Comment #24

Babel — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:34:39 GMT

Heh. We'd have to invade Canada too. That's where my job went, after one of my coworkers went there to train our replacements.

Comment #23

hypersoniq — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:23:53 GMT

<br

Comment #22

dragon — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 08:14:12 GMT

We need to invade Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea quickly. All have ties to terrorism, proven and documented. Two of them have nuclear weapons (weapons of mass destruction), two of them have lots of oil. Let's take them while we can.

Comment #21

Babel — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 06:39:09 GMT

According to www.iraqbodycount.com there have been between 12,000 and 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq as a direct result of our invasion. The new health ministry in Iraq has set this figure at something like 38,000 (quoting that figure from the news recently, I don't have an exact source). By the way the US military has refused to bother trying to count civilian deaths. 

 

We took what was a brutal but orderly country and turned it into chaos. Chaos that reigns to this day some 15 m... [ More ]

Comment #20

whodeani — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:47:06 GMT

And yes we needed to go into Iraq. No there wasn't a link between 9/11 and Iraq but that doesn't mean Iraq and Al Quida were working together at other things. It is the President's job to protect the American people and after 9/11 and he can not take any chances with Saddam Hussein giving terrorists chemical or biological and using them on our own soil. Had we not done nothing with Saddam and something like this did happen people like you would be the first wringing your hands all over th... [ More ]

Comment #19

Babel — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:46:38 GMT

It's basic statistics... what I think I will do is get a life and stop arguing with stupid people like yourself.

Comment #18

Todd — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:10:12 GMT

Dude, it is NOT within the statistical margin. Will you PLEASE GET A LIFE and stop perpetuating your stupid argument!

Comment #17

Babel — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:54:13 GMT

A 5 point lead is down from where he was which as I recall was a double digit lead. 5 points is also within the margin of error of most statistical polls. That's what we call a close race, far from the landslide you claim will happen.

Comment #16

Todd — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:46:57 GMT

You can't take a single poll and say it's correct, you look at them all and see a trend. The trend clearly says Bush is approximately 5 points ahead of Kerry overall since the debate. It also says that Bush is much further ahead when you break out the internals. 

 

You must have a lot of free time to keep digging up URLs to try to prove a faulty assumption.

Comment #15

Babel — Wed, 06 Oct 2004 01:19:41 GMT

If you look about half way down there is a nice little chart about who would be elected had the election been held now. And right there at the end it shows Kerry ahead. 

 

Todd please stop attacking everyone and just saying they are wrong. You can say it all you want but it's not going to make it so and it ruins your position. You don't seem to want to back up your statements with any facts or discussion and simply attack anyone that shows an opinion that differs from yours.... [ More ]

Comment #14

Todd — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 23:29:32 GMT

No, Bush is ahead. Wrong again. And again, and again, and again.

Comment #13

DoctorEw220 — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:54:14 GMT

i think i'm gonna stay out of this argument.

Comment #12

Babel — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:01:46 GMT

Actually if you look at the most recent polls they show that Kerry and the president are tied or very, very close. Furthermore polls show that out of the issues of Iraq, the economy, health care, and terrorism people believe Kerry would be more suited to handle them with the sole exception of terrorism.

Comment #11

Todd — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:00:47 GMT

The majority of Americans support this position, check the polls dude. It will be a landslide, or at least a large plurality, on election day -- for George Bush.

Comment #10

dragon — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:43:07 GMT

I really think that you're calling the majority of people in this country "wrong" and "Bush haters." I think you're in the minority, and it will be obvious come November. 

 

Now, I would be beating a different drum if I had the choice to vote for Colin Powell for president. Now there is a man I could get excited about. But history, and Powell himself, has not allowed that.

Comment #9

Todd — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:53:29 GMT

We may be attacked again, but I strongly believe that if Bush was not in charge, we would have been attacked already. We are keeping the terrorsists off-tilt by attacking them where they live. Kerry would fight them on our home soil. 

 

I didn't call you a terrorist lover, but I do call you a Bush-hater. And I do think you're wrong with your approach.

Comment #8

dragon — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:36:21 GMT

But please, do not call me a "terrorist lover" or "Bush hater." I am neither. I am a peaceful person who is voting for the lesser evil this time around.

Comment #7

Todd — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:30:57 GMT

Wrong, George. Democrat talking points, nothing of substance. Bush-hating nonsense. The only thing you didn't mention is Haliburton. Blah, blah, blah.

Comment #6

Sedertree — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:39:59 GMT

We were attacked by Al Quida, mastermined by Osama Bin Laden. But we overthrew Saddam Hussein because??? Thats like attacking Mexico for the attack on Pearl Harbor. 

Let's not forget that this president has failed to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. Remember that before we attacked Iraq, Osama Bin Laden and Al Quida loathed Saddam Hussein. 

When the troops pulled into Iraq. Do you want to know the ONLY building was that they defended? The OIL MINISTRY.... 

 

"You're e... [ More ]

Comment #5

Todd — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:29:58 GMT

If you want John Kerry for president, you're basically saying that we will only apply our military pressure AFTER the USA is attacked again. That's one of his statements; look it up. 

 

If you want George Bush for president, you're basically saying that anyone who harbors, supports, or supplies terrorists is our enemy, and we will take the battle to them before they take it to us. 

 

You're free to choose whatever approach makes sense to you, but I have no doubts that Geor... [ More ]

Comment #4

Babel — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 02:25:53 GMT

I don't understand this idea that leaders who try to work with the nations of the world are wrong. I don't see why the UN is such a bad idea. We are all citizens of this planet. We all have to live together. America is supposed to be based on ideas of personal freedom and that all ideas are valid. That should extend to other nations. America can be a great hope for people. Don't like the reality of living in your nation? Come to America (legally). We will take you in. Lead by acceptance, n... [ More ]

Comment #3

dragon — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:59:46 GMT

Where did I say that I hate Bush? 

 

There is a big difference between a "peacenick" country and an aggressor nation. Right now, I hate to say it, we are an aggressor nation, and the entire world feels threatened, and our country is not as safe today as it was 5 years ago. Americans traveling abroad are in more danger than they have been in decades. 

 

Sorry, I don't hate Mr. Bush. I simply don't agree with his policies of leading our country into a reputation of an aggr... [ More ]

Comment #2

ONEDAY — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:42:01 GMT

America is the leader of the free world and has a duty to bring freedom to other nations.if kerry is elected the UN will rule the world..and we all know the un is great at bringing peace..right!

Comment #1

Todd — Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:03:56 GMT

Bush is defending our country; I'm sorry if you are unable to see that.

Original Blog Entry: Mr. Bush, Give us a Break!

dragon — Mon, 04 Oct 2004 22:55:28 GMT