If Saddam was labeled a "brutal dictator" who's enemies were tortured, what is Bush?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

Let's hear what YOU would do.

Simple, go after Bin Laden, you know the guy who apparently planned the 9/11 attack. Richard Clarke said that there were more police officers in Manhattan than soldiers in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden. If any country needs to be invaded it's Saudi Arabia.

You may "believe" that Saddam was funding terrorism world wide, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

How do you keep your tongue so soft and supple?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Stick with the question...what would you and liberal labia do about Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism RIGHT NOW.

I would cut a power sharing arrangement with the insurgents and bring them into the 'Iraqi Gov't' and try to end the Iraqi War (similiar to what has happened in Angola and El Salvador).

[DrMaddVibe]

C'mon...you can do it...stay on topic...what would you and liberal labia do about Iraq/Afghanistan and the war on terrorism RIGHT NOW.

No more funny pictures or namecalling. Open that skull and share your problem solving skills in regards to the matter.

[Nickdfresh]

Check previous post. Does Howard Dean make more sense now?

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Simple, go after Bin Laden, you know the guy who apparently planned the 9/11 attack. Richard Clarke said that there were more police officers in Manhattan than soldiers in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden. If any country needs to be invaded it's Saudi Arabia.

You may "believe" that Saddam was funding terrorism world wide, but the evidence speaks otherwise.

How do you keep your tongue so soft and supple?

You're implying that we're not still after Bin Laden?

I wouldn't utter Clarke's name in regards to the war on terrorism. He's kinda like Kerry on this one. He'll be whatever he wants to be and then forget the lies he's told.

I agree with the Saudi statement. You don't think we're letting them "dangle" for Bin Laden to exact his "revenge" on the royal family?

These aren't exactly new ideas. I was expecting so much more, what with the constant complaining going on.

[DrMaddVibe]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Check previous post. Does Howard Dean make more sense now?

Notice the time...we posted the same time...kinda hard to take turns on this BB when the timestamp states you were there nanoseconds before my last post!

Dean isn't a soloution. He'd bend faster than Carter ever did!

so now..."I would cut a power sharing arrangement with the insurgents and bring them into the 'Iraqi Gov't' and try to end the Iraqi War (similiar to what has happened in Angola and El Salvador)."

You'd deal with terrorists? I wouldn't. They cannot be trusted. They're terrorists! Freedom + Democracy doesn't = terrorism.

You think Angola and El Salvador are calm nice regions to bring up a family? You really believe that the hostilities are resolved there?

After hearing from both of you on what you'd do...I'd shut the fuck up and quit the whining like a little bitch when it comes to the way we're handling the war on terrorism. Your ideas reek of playground mentalities but you both never overcame the "bully".

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
You're implying that we're not still after Bin Laden?

I wouldn't utter Clarke's name in regards to the war on terrorism. He's kinda like Kerry on this one. He'll be whatever he wants to be and then forget the lies he's told.

I agree with the Saudi statement. You don't think we're letting them "dangle" for Bin Laden to exact his "revenge" on the royal family?

These aren't exactly new ideas. I was expecting so much more, what with the constant complaining going on.

Bush said "I truly am not that concerned about him" in reference to Bin Laden.

How can you just dismiss Richard Clarke? He was there in the thick of it while you were just suckling my tasty balls. You dismiss him because you have been told to by the "liberal" media.

No, Saudi royals are close personal freinds of the Bush family. BONUS QUESTION: Bin Laden is a member of which royal family?

You asked what I would do. It's really that simple. Are you looking for manna from heaven? Some magic James Bond type shit?

Whay are you so obsessed with my balls?

[DrMaddVibe]

I can dismiss Clarke because of his recanted testimony compared to what he's gone on the record stating, Clinton's statements, Clinton's Administration statements regarding Clarke. The actions that they(Clinton) took regarding 8 years of Clarke being on the job and the fact that Clarke felt the compelling urge to distort his record to puff up his résumé for a Bush cabinet appointment and a book deal.

Bin Laden is so much closer to the royal family than your jaded opinon lets on. Why would they pay extortion money to him? Why haven't the royal family sided with the coalition if they're in Bush's back pocket and chummy chummy?

I asked what you would do because it's apparent that despite the best effort the globe has had to restore world peace in that region you go out of your way to make it some Republican "agenda"! So on your playground where you scream and whine these world problems only popped out because a Republican is in the White House? Bin Laden could give one shit less about who's in the White House prior to 9-11, he was going to carry out his diabolical plan regardless. Clinton "slept" for 8 years and only dealt with global terrorism when he needed a diversion from his impeachment scandal! You should be more pissed off at Clarke for not screaming then after what happened on 9-11 than Bush now for dealing with it!

You way of dealing with them isn't "dealing" with them at all. You like to hear the sound of your own voice when it comes to matters you think you can comprehend, you and people with beliefs like yours feel that the louder they yell the more credible they become. It only points out how silly you really are if you believe you can "deal" with terrorists.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

so now..."I would cut a power sharing arrangement with the insurgents and bring them into the 'Iraqi Gov't' and try to end the Iraqi War (similiar to what has happened in Angola and El Salvador)."

You'd deal with terrorists? I wouldn't. They cannot be trusted. They're terrorists! Freedom + Democracy doesn't = terrorism.

You think Angola and El Salvador are calm nice regions to bring up a family? You really believe that the hostilities are resolved there?

We invaded their country Assvibe! They did not attack us...ever. Just because they form resistance groups, and decide not to fight us on OUR terms of mobile armored warfare, doesn't necessarily give us the right to lable them 'terrorists.' They are fighting a guerilla war, do they use terrorism YES. Is our bombing the shit out of people a form of terror...YES!

And what solution do you propose, more of the same, news flash...It isn't working.

And the people you voted for a paralyzed because any change in policy would mean that we made a mistake! And No! We could never, ever admit that eh, LBJ..er...Dubya?

[DrMaddVibe]

Did we not tell them we were? Did we not give them conditions? Did we not go before the UN and secure one more sanction vote?

How many more decades were you going to devote to Saddam changing? How many more Iraqi's were you willing to let sit in his prisons and mass graves?

We're not talking about a nice guy here. DON'T defend him! Bush stated quite clearly that the war on terror would take many fronts and wouldn't be resolved quickly. You missed that one obviously.

The Iraqi's themselves have stated multiple times that the insurgency is loaded with people from other countries. You yourself posted a thread about some raghead from Lebanon!

Until they hold elections how in the world can you whine about it NOT working! They haven't even been ELECTED!

I'm not stating that no mistakes were ever made, but given the intel we had from Tenet and Clarke we acted upon it. Don't shoot the "piano player" if you don't like the music!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Why haven't the royal family sided with the coalition if they're in Bush's back pocket and chummy chummy?

This shows a lack of understanding of Saudi politics. Those kings are hanging on by a fingernail. Same reason why moderate Bashir Assad can't stop our enemies in Syria.

[DrMaddVibe]

Oh believe me I'm well aware of what's going on in the "kingdom". My answer was in retort to some aparent jab that they're "poodles" for Bush.

You share that opinion as well?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Oh believe me I'm well aware of what's going on in the "kingdom". My answer was in retort to some aparent jab that they're "poodles" for Bush.

You share that opinion as well?

It's a symbiotic relationship between the House of Saud and the House of Bush. F911 was good at demonstrating the interconnected web of investment. There's too much going on and I'm out of work now so I'll save it. My worthless ass will probably be logging on at home shortly...

[Nickdfresh]

Old Hat! We've Been over this!

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Did we not tell them we were? Did we not give them conditions? Did we not go before the UN and secure one more sanction vote?

How many more decades were you going to devote to Saddam changing? How many more Iraqi's were you willing to let sit in his prisons and mass graves?

Great! We over threw Saddam to liberate the Iraqis! Wh's Next?


The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

By David Wallechinsky
Published: February 22, 2004

Last year, PARADE Contributing Editor David Wallechinsky selected “The 10 Worst Living Dictators.” We asked him to make a new assessment for 2004. To compile this year’s list, Wallechinsky consulted (as in 2003) independent human-rights organizations willing to expose both left- and right-wing regimes, including Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders.

Most dictators marshal various arguments to justify their repressive actions to their people and the world, Wallechinsky notes. The most common are: 1) “The human-rights situation in my country is better than it used to be.” 2) “Western versions of democracy and human rights are not compatible with my nation’s traditions.” 3) “Strict measures are necessary because an outside force is threatening our society.” We offer this list to provide some perspective on world events and to stimulate reflection on our freedoms at home.

1. Kim Jong Il, North Korea.
Age 63. In power since 1994.
Last year’s rank: 1.

All the discussion about Kim’s development of nuclear weapons has deflected attention from the fact that his government represses its own people more completely than any other in the world. Each year, the human-rights group Freedom House ranks every country according to its level of political rights and civil liberties. North Korea is the only nation to earn the worst possible score for 31 straight years. It also ranks in last place in the international index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders. An estimated 150,000 Koreans perform forced labor in prison camps created to punish alleged political dissidents, their family members and North Koreans who fled to China but were forced back by the Chinese government.

2. Than Shwe, Burma.
Age 71. In power since 1992.
Last year’s rank: 5.

General Than Shwe has survived a power struggle to emerge as the sole leader of Burma’s military dictatorship. Because Than Shwe represents the hard-line faction, his rise has turned an already dreadful human-rights situation even worse. Burma has more child soldiers than any other nation, and the Burmese regime continues to kidnap ordinary citizens and force them to serve as porters for the military in various conflicts against non-Burmese ethnic groups.

In 1990, the party of Nobel Peace Prize-winner Aung San Suu Kyi won 80% of the vote in an open election. The military regime canceled the results. The popular Suu Kyi spent much of the ensuing years, off and on, under house arrest. On May 30, 2003, hired thugs attacked Suu Kyi’s motorcade, killing several of her supporters and arresting others. Suu Kyi has been returned to house arrest. Unlike most dictators, General Than Shwe prefers to work behind the scenes. Even the Burmese people know little about him. He has promised new elections—in four or five years.

3. Hu Jintao, China.
Age 61. In power since 2002.
Last year’s rank: Dishonorable mention.

Hu spent 38 years moving up the Communist Party hierarchy, proving himself efficient and willing to do whatever was necessary to advance himself. Now, as president and general secretary of the party, Hu is the leader of an unusually repressive regime. Apologists point to China’s economic liberalization and say its human-rights situation “is better than it used to be.” However, the party still controls all media and uses 30,000 “Internet security agents” to monitor online use. More than 300,000 Chinese are serving “re-education” sentences in labor camps. China carries out in excess of 4000 executions a year, more than all other nations combined.

The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

We're not talking about a nice guy here. DON'T defend him! Bush stated quite clearly that the war on terror would take many fronts and wouldn't be resolved quickly. You missed that one obviously.

Who's defending him! Read "Imperial Hubris" and tell me all about the War on Terror on many fronts!

The Iraqi's themselves have stated multiple times that the insurgency is loaded with people from other countries. You yourself posted a thread about some raghead from Lebanon!

And if you read the article closely, you'll find it stated that even the U.S. Military knows very few of these guys are "Foriegn Fighters" and it also noted how hard and expensive it is for these guys to get to Iraq.

Until they hold elections how in the world can you whine about it NOT working! They haven't even been ELECTED!

Assuming all the polling stations aren't blown up.

I'm not stating that no mistakes were ever made, but given the intel we had from Tenet and Clarke we acted upon it. Don't shoot the "piano player" if you don't like the music!

Maybe, but we didn't have to 'act' by invading Iraq while al-Qaida remains strong and active.

[DrMaddVibe]

But when confronted with what you would do...you'd "deal" with terrorists. You've become more of a gnat on an elephant's ass in regards to the way your side "deals" with issues.

Don't hate the "playa"!