Funny thing about all this is that I want to see Bush voted out of office, but I support the war in Iraq. I think that it was a good thing to get Hussein sacked, and I think that it is a good thing to try to bring a stable secular democracy into the Middle East. However, I loathe Bush's atrocious attitude towards the environment, towards non-Christians, towards people who aren't wealthy, etc.

Sasha,

I agree with you . . . I just hope you don't look down on me because I live in America.

I think oil had a lot to do with it. I also think he was just showing off to his Daddy in finishing the job his father never finished. At least in 1990, the war actually made sense, where as this one was simply about selfish power and politics.

Believe me my friend, there are a lot of Americans who do not agree with what has transpired, and I'm one of them. I have never liked Bush since the time he was elected, or should I say, "the election he stole." The guy is a liar, a cheat and I certainly do not agree with the way he has handled the situation with Iraq. There are many of us here in the US that still feel that Bin Laden was, and is, the bigger threat, yet we hardly hear anything about the progress in finding the Fn rat!

Maybe in the long run we will all see it was a good thing to take Sadam out of power. As for me, I will never forget 9/11, and in my opinion, Bush has completely missed the target by not nailing the true terroists of 9/11. It's just simply bad intelligence and bad leadership on his part. The man has done nothing but let us down and completely tarnished our relationship with the rest of the world.

Josh:
I am going to appologize in adavance for the way my statement will come out.

You don´t think that going to war with Iraq was a bad decision? Going to war unileterally on such shaky grounds and such thin evidence was stupid, irresponsible, and downright immature. It was cruel and it was cocky.

Yes, the world is better off without Saddam. But there is still no proof that he presented any real and immediate danger. Blix and his team did not find the WMDs for one of the two reasons: they are either nonexistant, or inspectors did not have enough time to find them. If the weapons were indeed moved across the board, to Syria as some believe, there is no way CIA would have missed that. And how can you not see Bush covering his a. when the man starts shifting from immediate danger to helping out the folks? The point is that a lot of countries would be better off without their autoritarian leaders, but no single nation should be allowed to police the world. There are international authorities for that. Do you realize how low America sank in the public oppinion of the most of Eurpoeans and in the eyes of all Arab nations as a result of this war? That is why Moore was rewarded so highly in Cannes.

And yes, there are no clean wars. But an Army with that kind of equipment and that strong a leadership should not be making that much mess. And somebody, please, tell Bush to stop saying it was not about oil. Kosovo was not about oil. Afghanistan was not about oil. Iraq is only about oil. I believe in goodness of human character as well. I believe Lincoln was a great man. I believe Churchill was an honest man. I believe all the Ghandis were fabulous. I believe Powell is a strong and honest public figure. I believe G.W. Bush is a liar and a manipulator. Get the man out of the office before he has a chance to fuel more terrorism and spend more money on his dumbo projects.

Sasha

Sasha,

Don't apologize for your opinion. As many of us have stated before, we all (for the most part) respect one another, and that's what keeps us all coming back to DVD Town.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on President Bush. It's easy to criticize someone when you're not in the their position under the circumstances and pressure of the moment. Had President Bush not acted, who knows what other atrocities Sadam would have committed at this point. Iraq would be no closer to being a free country. Oppression, sadism, mass homicide, torture, and who knows how many sick chemical and biological tests would still be carried out today. It was announced today that "AT LEAST ONE MILLION" people are missing as a result of Sadam's regime! ONE MILLION!! Think about one million people in your own country being kidnapped and never heard from or seen again! So we all should have just sat on our hands and debated the situation for another couple of years, making new NATO laws for Sadam to ignore? All the while Sadam moving his weapons where ever he needed to in his own back yard, tortureing, killing, raping and testing weapons of mass destruction on his own people. That makes no sense to me. By the way, if you saw a report on the news about police entering the house of a suspected mass homicidal killer, (that liked to use guns as his murder weapon of choice) and the police found TONS of material used for reloading ammunition for the specific weapons, gun racks, weapons cleaning materials, etc. would you think to yourself... "naaah, he couldn't be the guy"? There were 11 (count them) 11 resolutions Sadam was ordered to adhere to by NATO. NONE of them over the last decade were complied with. Did we all suddenly forget about this? Residue of the suspected chemicals, and biological agents, not to mention the equipment used to do so WERE FOUND!! And we're all supposed to turn a blind eye because we couldn't find the "smoking gun"?!! Excuse me for saying so, but to me that's ludicrous! Having the material and recently used equipment used for creating chemical and biological weapons, not to mention the bodies they were tested on is proof enough for me that he was "a clear and present danger".

I think you give the CIA more credit than they're due. While yes they have some of the best, if not THE best technology in the world when it comes to intelligence gathering, it is still invented, created, and monitored by Humans... and in that, is foulable. It's not "likely" WMD could slip past the CIA, it's also not impossible. Especially when you're the leader of a VERY rich country!

The reason we "shifted" from "neutralize the threat", to "protect the people", is we recognized that Sadam was using his own people as human shields to protect his army. Only cowards hide their armed soldiers in schools, religious temples, and hospitals! The US as well as many other countries adhere to the "Geneva Convention"! (or the rules of war) We recognize that the Iraqi people are not the threat, and President Bush has ALWAYS made that distinction! We provided humanitarian aide, even while the war was being fought!

No "one nation" does police the world. That's why NATO was established. Part of being a good leader however is making the hard decisions that AREN'T going to be popular. Making those decisions that you know are going to have a negative effect on your country's image, sometimes need to be made. When a nation's lives and freedom are on the line, popularity should NEVER play a part in the decision making process!

Think what you will of President Bush, but I think he's done quite well in the circumstances he's been placed. In America's time of need during and after September 11th, President Bush was the rock we all needed to cling to. He was our assurance that this wouldn't happen again, and the perpetrators would be made accountable. So far, he's made good on those promises. Kudo's also to Prime Minister Tony Blair in sticking by his friends in the face of adversity. His actions show that he's got real character, loyalty, and integrity, and reflect greatly upon himself and the United Kingdom.

No offense Sasha, but Terrorism was on the rise when President Ronald Reagan was in office! That's 3 presidents ago! Let's not lay blame on one man for the current state of affairs in the world. Terrorists are attacking many countries around the world, not just US targets, and not to mention "Spain's worst terrorist attack in history" (CNN.com) on the train in Madrid! Terrorists are a plague on the world that need to be systematically hunted down and erased from existance. Countries quibbling amongst eachother instead of working together to innoculate the world of the terrorist disease, only serves the terroist purpose. Sadam had been connected to terrorist aide, and ties with Osama Binladen. If that's not enough reason to "act" for you, then I'd say continue to side with Michael Moore, and sit on the sidelines and do nothing. As Eddie has mentioned, Moore doesn't provide ideas or solutions to the problems in the world. He just sits back and whines and complains about the things he doesn't like, or he's not happy with. There's an old saying that goes "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". Moore chooses to be part of the problem while manipulating people into thinking he's part of the solution.

As always, no offense is meant by my opinions, and I hope I didn't offend anyone reading my posts. As a lot of you are probably aware, I am a patriot, and believe in standing behind your country, and what you believe in. While I'll be the first to admit we're not perfect, nor do we have a perfect system, I do think it's the best system out there. I feel very strongly about these issues. I tend to stay away from these types of discussions however, for the mere fact that 9 times out of 10 they become arguements, then bickering, and very little if anything positive comes as a result of them. I'm proud to be an American, and while I may not agree with every decision our presidents make, I will back them up, because we elect them to make those decisions, and as I mentioned before, I believe people are generally good, and make the best decision they can make in the position they're in, with the best of intentions at heart.

- Josh

Well, Eddie, it’s a higher perspective than what you’re seeing. This war was no different from what we saw with Vietnam. We all were hoaxed into some cause that only burdens us tax payers and it is a price many of us young will pay for years to come.

Countries of great power should lead by example and show compassion along with good will towards others. Bush, being a Christian man himself, should know these values but yet he chose to ignore them just to make us think that Sadam was a terrorist. Sadam, obviously, was no terrorist; just a sick individual that led by the worst example possible. In the end, I will probably see that it was a good thing to rid him of the world but it does not alleviate the fact that our President aggressively missed the target of 9/11.

My concern, along with many Americans, is “where the hell is Bin Laden?”!!! Then again, let’s look at North Korea who is a true threat amongst anyone in the world as of now . . . why the hell does any country stand for their development of nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons were part of what we went to Iraq for, but yet we haven’t found anything tangible to constitute a war. North Korea, however, is developing nuclear weapons, which in my book, is far worse than anything on this earth is. Yeah buddy, go figure?

In the mean time, you and I pay taxes towards the bullshit we have been dealt. No matter if any of us agree or disagree, money is taken out of our pockets. . . .And for what? Business? Oil? Keep the rich wealthy? Take your pick my friend but face the fact that life is unfair and tough! Well, needless to say, get out there and vote this jerk out of office for the sake oh humanity!!!

Sean,

Don't get me wrong. It's not that President Bush can do no wrong in my eyes. I don't agree with a lot of things he's done in office. I just get irritated when people only concentrate on the negative things he's done. He's done a lot of positive things for our country, and some how when President Bush has a "human moment", all of the good things he's done for our country get washed away. What about the slip up in his State Of The Union address, that one of his advisors wrote into the speach, and President Bush stepped up like a man, and took responsibility for it, instead of passing the buck, and saying something like "that individual is not employed with the Bush Administration any longer". People are very quick to portray President Bush as a dishonerable person. It's easy to understand this when scandal (no matter if it's true or not) is what sells in the media, and the positive and good things that can be verified factually are glossed over, and given as little air time as possible. I find it a little comical that we're becoming a cynical nation, but we have our news media to blame. Well... that and the mindless morons out there spreading disinformation on topics they don't know anything about, and haven't investigated for themselves, but rather regurgitate "buzz words" they hear on the news or from friends gossiping "around the water cooler". The dictionary has a word for that, and it doesn't hold up in courts of law either... it's called "hearsay".

As far as Guantanamo goes, I don't know the facts on that, so I can't comment one way or another. What exactly did the military sidestep with semantics?

Patriotism... I know it's good to qestion things, and not to take everything at face value. However, there is such a thing as being a "rebel without a clue". When you "question everything" just for the sake of questioning it, you've lost more than you've gained by questioning. And there are things you should take at face value... lest we all become "chicken little's". We've become a nation that questions everything, even things we shouldn't question, like "weather or not we should remove Sadam from power, because he has just as much right to defend his country with WMD's as we do" (not an exact quote from Tim Robins, but it was something to that effect) . When we start tolerating the intolerable, I think we need to take time to evaluate ourselves as a nation.

As for WMD's... having been in the military in a combat MOS, and having trained in vast land scapes of Germany, Kentucky, Southern California, and Utah... I know how incredibly easy it would be for Sadam to have hidden his WMD's where ever he wanted. As I mentioned before, we shouldn't need a smoking gun, when we found the evidence we did. In any case, enough of that.

Well, I've said more than I ever intended posting on this topic. I don't know about you, but I think we should probably let this can of worms die Sean.

See you on the other topics.

- Josh :)

Said I wouldn't come back, but the topic has gone to the war specifically, so you all are out of luck!

As always, the following is my peronal viewpoint posted with the utmost respect for others and their opinions:

Nowadays, the term patriot is bandied about without a second thought, but we seem to have come back to the incorrect rationalization that patriot = nationalist. Nationalism is blind support of a nation no matter what that nation does or says. The individual does not question that nation's actions or its motives for said actions. Nationalism deals in misinformation and information control. It manipulates the populace's feelings of loyalty. Nationalism is what has lead to Nazism, Facism, and yes, Saddam's own totalitarianism.

This country was founded on the basic principles of checks and balances for our government, particularly from the general public who would not have fear of retribution for speaking their minds freely. If we are to truly be "patriots" in the Unites States of America, then we have the duty to take to task any and every leader in office if we feel and determine that their motives were either unclear or dead wrong in their decisions. More recently, these are the people who have been looked down upon as unpatriotic for not supporting Bush's every move.

Let's not confuse patriotism with liking the fact that our guy is in office. Was everyone who is claiming to be so "patriotic" now that we are in this war just as supportive of Clinton's bombings of Iraq or our involvement in Bosnia? Were they as gung-ho about dropping Clinton's indiscretions in office as they are with dropping the whole Gitmo and Abu-Ghraib issues with Bush? Let's be real here.

Let's look at Bush's "War on Terrorism." When we couldn't find Bin Laden, and support for that "War" waned, we found "ties" that Saddam had with Al-Qaeda. "Ties" that, mind you, have yet to be proved to the public aside from Bush and Cheney saying they exist. These "ties" have lead to the war in Iraq. We supposedly went to war with Iraq because of the WMD issue. Again, this WMD issue has yet to be proved, so our focus went from incursive to humanitarian in a sense.

Here's the deal. Saddam's always been a bad dude. Is it good that he's out of power? Yes. Am I happy that he's out of power? Yes. Do I feel like America in general was duped into a war that Bush felt would bolster his popularity? Yes.

Look, if you want to go in there and say, "Saddam's bad, and we need to take him out," great. You've got my support. But don't crap in my hand and tell me it's roses with this whole WMD thing. Be up front with me. Bush wanted to take Saddam out, and it could have been beneficial to his career as well as the world in general. It could have helped his public rating and a bad guy would be out of the picture, but where would he possibly get the support knowing that he had not yet gotten Bin Laden? WMDs, baby!

It basically comes down to how the war was presented to the people of the US. Bush wanted to win a war in office, and in order to start that war he had to have an excuse. Unfortunately for him, it all blew up in his face, and he's having to deal with blowback from his lack of good judgement.

You know, this country expected an answer and apology from Clinton for his moral indiscretions in office, to the point of bringing up charges for impeachment. I think it's pretty reasonable for people to want the same kinds of answers and apologies from Bush for his own indiscrections that have lead and continue to lead to the capture, torture, and death of many Americans as well as the innocent citizens of other nations.

As for America following the Geneva Conventions, let's not forget Guantanamo, where the US has conveniently sidestepped these basic rights through semantics.

Do I like Bush? I'd have to say that if I sat down with him for a conversation that, though I may not agree with him, I think we'd get along pretty well. It's certainly not that I don't like Bush, I don't like what he has done.

If that makes me less of a patriot, then it escapes me what would.

Sean (...maybe WMD actually stands for W's Middle-East Diversion...)

Josh,

On the Gitmo thing, though detainees there were taken during our "War on Terrorism," the US refuses to label them prisoners of war; therefore the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

As for not questioning everything, I think that we do need to question things, albiet intelligently. My reference was specifically geared toward those instances where we "feel and determine that their motives were either unclear or dead wrong in their decisions." Simply saying you question something because the news media or a political party tells you to is not sufficient. Questioning should come from one's own research, not from the regurgitated ramblings on TV, radio, or in the newspaper.

On WMDs: I don't mean to imply they don't exist, I simply mean to point out that Bush has repeatedly changed his tactics when his actions did not pan out the way he thought or hoped. Rather than saying that we haven't found any WMDs, he simply declares without basis that said WMDs exist. It doesn't have as much to do with the WMDs as with the feeling I get that he thinks he can tell me anything without a shred of proof and expect me to believe it.

I'm not looking for a smoking gun, but when your basis for sending thousands of soldiers into war, hundreds dying and countless numbers more injured is simply that you believe something, but cannot prove it, I feel that a definite credibility gap exists. Now whether that line rhetoric is coming from Bush or those around him may be debatable, but Bush is the one gladly refusing to budge or even offer precious insight.

Once again, our opinions differ, but thanks for the great discussion! But I don't agree with killing the can of worms. Let's keep 'em alive and go fishing!

Sean (...got an extra pole right here!...) ;)

Tim,

True, the war in Iraq is burning tax dollars, but that's not as bad as petrochemical companies "burning" the environment. Remember, you and I and everyone else now will all die, but we have to think of the generations of future humans who will come after us. Besides, money can be generated relatively easily when compared to maintaining a healthy world.

Eddie

Sean,

I agree with you 100% on inquisition.

As far as President Bush not giving the reasons behind certain issues, (I believe) has to do with National Security. Being the #1 nation on the planet when it comes to technology, and intelligence gathering, means keeping it secret. There's no way to give the public evidence or "proof" that certain things exist without giving away secrets about our technology. Little things like knowing what we can or can't see can mean the difference between "battlefield advantage". In war, ANY advantage you have over your enemies is paramount! This may sound like a "convenient excuse" to you, but in reality, it's how the ball game is played. This reasoning is precisely why I believe President Bush on the WMD issue. Just because the public can't be shown "how" we know WMD's are there, doesn't mean that they aren't, or that there's a "cover up". Besides which, Congress could intervene at ANY time, and would be privy to such information. So, the fact that Congress backed President Bush, as well as the UK joined forces with us, lends even more credence to factual intelligence on WMD's actually being there. There are MANY MANY things we as the general public don't have access to for reasons of National Security. While ideally we should have some sort of way the public can definitively know the who, what, when, where, why, and how of every little detail going on in our government, it won't happen. This is why I was saying I back our President on what he says is true. We elect these officials to their positions of immense responsibility, which (by casting our votes as a "majority rules") means we "trust" those individuals to make honest decisions in our best interests as a country and in our stead. That doesn't mean we should just "swallow" anything the President "feeds" us. Quite the contrary, but in this particular issue, it requires faith. If the way this is set up no longer works, then we as a country need to push for change in policy and procedure concerning "the right to know", and protection of National Security.

Something I forgot to mention in a previous post.... someone mentioned civilian casualties in the Iraq war. I'd just like to point out that because of our technology, and efforts to minimize as greatly as possible civilian deaths or collateral damage, this war has the LEAST amount of civilian casualties in the history of warfare! Not to make light of the civilians that were injured or killed... I will agree that ANY civilian casualty is too many, but those things largely depend on both sides adhereing to the "Geneva Convention". It is against the Geneva convention to post soldiers in ANY hospital, civilian building, school, or religious structure. Sadam did this because he knew it was not only his ONLY advantage, but because he knew he'd get the "sympathy vote" through the press, and give the U.S. a bad name in the process.

One thing that really get's on my nerves is when people in our country think that we can exist as a country without sacrifice, and by doing a "hands across America" and singing cumbaya! I'm sorry, but ANY country wishing to live free, will ALWAYS require the "ultimate sacrifice" of many of their citizens at some point. Those people that say "even one death of our soldiers is too many" completely dishonor EVERY person both civilian and military that have ever given their lives for our country. I think if everyone were required to serve at least 2 years in our military, they would better understand this country, our constitution, what we stand for, and why we need our military. When you swear into the military, you speak these words: "I, ___________________________________, do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." . Dictionary.com defines a "citizen" as "A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation" Now it says as a citizen you're entitled to the protection of your state or nation... and people ALWAYS remember that part, but they seem to convenienty forget the first part... "A person OWING loyalty to" said state or nation. The door swings both ways.

A great number of people in our country seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that our military forces are the only reason this great country is still around today! As well as the fact that this country has and always will require people willing to give their lives for our way of life here. Those people that swear in to the military are FULLY aware of the decision they're making, the risks involved, and do so with great enthusiasm, and heart felt love for this nation. That's the true definition of a patriot to me. Someone that's not afraid to die for not only their individual beliefs, but the right of others to believe as they see fit as well.

- Josh

(you get a line, and I'll get a pole... we'll go fishin' at the crawdad hole...) ;) :)