Bush's planned invasion of Iraq is a ruse meant to distract the public from the real issues, those issues being the following:

1. The number of people unemployed since he "took" office has risen by 35%.

2. We had a federal SURPLUS of $281 billion when he was inaugurated; today we have a DEFICIT of $157 billion.

3. TWO MILLION jobs have been eliminated since Bush began his occupation of the Oval Office.

4. The stock market is down 34% since January of 2001.

5. Another 1.4 million people now have NO health insurance, making it a total of over 41 million Americans who can't afford to get sick.

6. Only 13 corporate crooks out of HUNDREDS have been indicted, and none of them have been the close personal friends of Mr. Bush.

THOSE are the real issues facing us, not some phony excuse for a war.

Bush is lying through his smirk when he says Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction."
He has not offered one shred of evidence to prove this. Not one!
He is lying when he says that there is a "connection" between Saddam and bin Laden. Even members of his own administration have admitted that is not true. It's just one lie after another.

3 congressmen went to Iraq this week and told it like it is -- and demanded that the sanctions which have already killed a half-million Iraqi children be ended.

Sen. Trent Lott said "they should come home and keep their mouths shut."

FUCK THIS SHIT!!!

(thanks Michael Moore!)

You obviously cannot actually believe that Bush is responsible for the figures that you quoted in your post... can you?

EDIT: I don't agree with the war idea either and I think that we should focus on fixing the items mentioned, by the way.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 1 12:48:52 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

WillieThePimp said:

I suppose you conveniently missed the Reuters story the other day that said Saddam has ordered his troops to use said weapons in case of an attack by the US/UN/whoever.

That he's ordered them to be used isn't proof enough for you that he's got them?

Hmmm.

Here we go AGAIN...

and again...



and again...




and again...



and again...



[This message was edited Tue Oct 1 12:50:18 PDT 2002 by CarrieLee]

AaronForever said:

Good point Aaron! I am not for war, in fact I am damned scared for the younger generation of men!

all wars are b.s., man.

PlastikLuvAffair said:

Is that avatar ever cute! You can just sense the artist in you Newby, Dansa, Hands!

AaronForever said:

no duh...sure he has weapons but...who doesnt? bush is implying that Iraq was involved with the Al Quida and assisted in Sept 11th...however, Congressman (both Republican and Democrates) who are privy to the same classified information as Bush said that was stretching the reports enormously...and UK (our only allie in this matter agreed)...

now bush is back peddling and saying it has more to do with a nuclear threat...which many have said would only be a threat to Iraq (and wouldnt be able to reach the US)...

so...while i dont think Bush is doing this for campaign reason..he sure as hell hasnt come up with valid reasons to start crap...

I agree

I'm not a bright thang when it comes to policy nor do I want to, but I sho nuff know a wrong thang when I see one.

Since 9/11, Bush been blaming and pointing his finger on everybody(He doesn't know jack about his country nor the Arab Wolrd. What a leader). Would you mind telling me what did this mofo gained from bombing Afghanistan??? Lemme say it [Mountains and helpless poor families(Women-oldfolks-CHILDREN)]. His porblem is he's so sure about everything, yeah well my momma said over-confidence will break ya neck. He said he will get Bin Laden(Call me stupid or crazy but I still don't believe that he was behind this) and he didn't get him. He was repeating the same ol' tired melody about getting after IRAQ(4 supporting Al-Qaida, WTF?? Ok how do we know if this is true??? We have the right to know ) seems to me that there's sumthin behind the scences and he doesn't wanna reveal/share it with his good ol' American fellows.

Now, he want to cover his failure by attacking Iraq as if they're the ENEMY.

Bush Jr. is simply carrying out his father's dreams of conquering Iraq.

And what better way to justify that, and justify killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, than to murder 3,500 Americans and two monumental buildings??? Let's make America so shaken up, so incredibly changed by this tragedy, that I'll get high approval ratings and the green light for a war.

That f-cking bastard will burn in hell along with the devils.

Why is he 'trying' to clean everybody's dirty laundry when he already got the DIRTIEST one??

SkletonKee said:

the point is he isn't living up to what he agreed to at his surrender in 1991. the longer this goes on, the less credibility the US and the UN have. and the more danger we're in. and if you think that a nuclear explosion in Iraq would only affect Iraq, i can't help you.

Harlepolis said:

well, you were right about one thing at least... kudos.

AaronForever said:

you my friend would make a better president...if bush had done this from the get go...im sure the world would have supported him...instead, he went into this whole "pre-emptive" attacking issue...what bush did was kill the diplomatic momentum...why? because he is stupid...should have kept his mouth shut and allowed Powell to do his job..instead he wanted to rile America up in REVENGE mood...and the rest of the world looks at us like we :farted: ...

CarrieLee said:

im sorry dear...but, this is the single most importand issue that faces our world right now...there are soo many facets to this problem that cant be addressed in *one* thread...

it frustrates me when people complain about the ongoing discussion...Stupid dumb chick Kelly Ripa complained that "this is not the time for us to be debating"...Bush's admin says "Gore is irrelevant and should shut up"...PLEASE!!! this is the american way...we discuss, we debate...and grow.

Skleton, you've been awfully sensitive lately...what gives? Sheesh!

SkletonKee said:

i agree. but to be fair, he did go to the UN and say this. too late, but he did say it.

CarrieLee said:

no...im just tired of people complaining about this dialog...after all, whats more important...discussing which is the best prince album or discussing world peace?

i think Mrs. Universe contestants agree with me on this, world peace.


okay...maybe my jobs been stressing me out...i need a massage...



massage the edit!!!
[This message was edited Tue Oct 1 13:48:49 PDT 2002 by SkletonKee]

SkletonKee said:

on Prince.org? hmmm, that's a tough one

AaronForever said:

why not here? if they can talk about it during the Ms Universe Pageant we can talk about it here...




world peace...

WillieThePimp said:

While i agree that a war with Iraq is complete bullshit, Ice9 is right. The economy was slipping even before Bush came into the White House. I don't think his $10 trillion tax cut will help matters--but that still doesn't mean he can take all the blame for the nation's economy. After 8 or 9 yrs of prosperity, it was bound to go flat.

Now that said, the economy does weigh heavily on elections and i would definitely agree Iraq is a smoke screen away from the issues.
Hopefully, the American public are smart enough to see that OR even vote at all in November...but that's another issue unto itself.

WillieThePimp, citing his sources!

You go Pimpy!

Fact: Dealing with Saddam & terrorism in general is necessary.

However I also believe that the republican party is using the issue of war to deflect from other issues such as the corporate scandals. It's very likely that they are just about as guilty as all these crooks, being that they wouldn't step in to stop Enron and other energy companies from cheating California out of millions. It was only when the issue (corporate inpropriety) became nationwide that they even started to care.

Willie, you show your ignorance by blaming these things solely on one man, and your posts are getting boring because of it. Surely you're smarter than this? And yes this is only one of those rumours of war -- "terrorism" has become an excuse to enact many things.

SkletonKee said:

oh, i didn't say it shouldn't be discussed here. but you asked what was more important, and on a site called "prince.org" i think it's fairly obvious that a more important topic of discussion would be the best Prince album.

2the9s said:

WillieThePimp said:

I couldn't agree more.Since Bush has been President,look at how bad things have become in the U.S.

wow , why do i always feel moved ... to comment on political hot potatoes ... whew .. did i spell potato right !!??

well , first ... i am a very moderate .. republican ... as i type that ... i also have to say ... very liberal democrats that read anything by me ... will say i am a conservative right wing republican ass hole ...lol

but ... i happen to believe that mr clinton did a fair job when he was in office ... could have been a great job if it were not for monica ... but that s a whole other topic.

to blame bush for the economic destress , i believe ... is just throwing up one's hands and showing (and playing ) partison politics ... ANYONE ... who has taken government and economic classes ... realize that the economy is very cyclical ... AND .. that the fiscal yr starts sometime in october ... (now!!?? ) in short , we were heading to a slowdown .. when bush took office ...

not to take anything against clinton ... as far as the economy goes ... i still think clinton benefitted more from the Reagan victory over communism (thus freeing up alot of money that was being spent on defense) but that is partially a republican tilt ... and i accept that ...

i believe the war on terror is real ... i think it will be fought for years ... i believe that clinton was partially to blame ... because he did nothing but lob a couple of tomahawk missiles while osama bombed the embassys ... the world trade center the first time ... and the USS cole ... lets be honest ... slick willy was gettin head from a 21 yr old intern ... i am sooo proud of that ... (and i love pussy as much as the next guy ... but just the thought ... i have a daughter ... and i cannot believe any parent would say things like ... 'oh he was just horny and not getting it from hilary ' ... lol .. )

having said that ... i am not a huge Bush supporter (notice the great well-written flow from pussy to Bush)

I believe he looks like a wimp ... on sept 11, i believe he wasnt a great leader ... he looked scared and was running all over kansas and texas when he shoulda stood up and said ... here i am ... the country is ok ...

I believe the time to get tough with these countrys that harbor our "enemies " is now ... I also believe that with Iraq there is alot more there ... than meets the eye ... as far as the CIA creating him ... and him runnin around without a leash on ... in the years ahead ... we will find some stuff out ... but ... if he bombed his own people ... and is ruthless ... and is supporting terror ... we should take him out .. nonetheless ...

what alternative s do u propose ...just do as clinton did ... just wave a finger .. and sit back and wait ... for the next one ... worse ... killing more people ...

just my opinion ... (trying to tie this into prince ) ...
"if a bomb falls, will anyone see the dawn" ...

Republicans are funny.

Everytime the spectacular economy of the mid to late 90s comes up they say Clinton benefitted from something Reagan did. Anyone notice how the elder George Bush never benefitted from Reagan's 8 year brilliance while in office, but Clinton supposedly did?

Everytime the dismal economy since the turn of the century of the Dubya years they claim it's not his fault, it's 'cyclical', or that the turn for the worst was going on before Dubya took office and was going to happen anyway, i.e. under Clinton's watch.

Everytime the great economy under Clinton's administration is talked about it was never anything that had anything to do with his administration, it's all because of Ronald Reagan. Funny how that recession during Reagan's AND the elder Bush's administration couldn't benefit from Reagan's god-like abilities.

Reagan


Blah, blah, yada, blahhh...


Politics in general

well... good points... and well ... put out ... props...

I was never a Bush-huge supporter... I think George Bush Sr. was not a great politician... i do think he was a good man ... and the economy was rolling along .. til he said the famous "no new taxes " ... and made a terrible error in judgement ... and raised taxes (largely because the democratic controlled congress was pushing for spending spending spending ... and... i believe that is what caused the ecomomy to slow down ... and allow for clinton to get elected ... ) ... many people would also say that Perot being on the ticket did not help... but as i said before ... i give some props to clinton ... while he is not my "God" as u refer to Reagan ... he did do some good - some good that Reagan was not able to pass ... prior ... namely the welfare-reform which was passed ... spending was largely kept in check during the Clinton years ... due .. in large part ... to a Republican controlled congress that held clinton to keeping the spending low ... politics is an interesting bag ... i dont take anything against clinton ... and ... i have to say ... many large stock holders benefitted greatly during clinton (and reagans ...) tenure ... only my take on things ... IMO .