You misunderstand. I am not calling you "names". I am stating an opinion that with each passing post from you comes closer to fact.
Calling me a crazy fucker is not name calling? OK, whatever you say. Whatever you say. Of course I would love to see you back that statement up with facts. Ooops, my bad, you can't do that. You never back up anything with facts. I've looked through all your posts on this board and you have never made one fact or even one positive statement. Are you really that unhappy and that miserable. I mean I know it can't be easy with your tax and spend liberal belief system you have. Try reading different news sources, you might learn something and make yourself happier in the process.
You know what's worse then a crazy fucker? A card carrying Michael Dukakis worshipping Walter Mondale wannabe liberal. That is much worse. At least I can sleep with myself at night. I don't know how your Hillary Clinton ideal system can. Well, hey, we all have our obstacles to overcome. And yours is the fact that you still remember that you supported Jimmy Carter.
allow me to elaborate. it is not your views/politics that are crazy - it's just you. apparently no one else has the balls to tell you
The financial Industry used to be hugely conservative. Its changed, or maybe its the ages of the Traders that are generations x 'ers. But there are a few conservatives on this board too. Maybe we should start a conservatives only board. But here is my answer to a email I received from a friend in Switzerland today on Iraq, you might enjoy reading it. Dear Friend, Thanks for the note of explanation. Go to www.freerepublic.com and do a search, Key Word Iraq and start reading. But my point of view is this: IRAQ is a huge success and Europe is a safer place because of the actions of many nations in support of the Invasion of IRAQ. Bush has now won back the UN, with the rebuild resolution. The UN essentially admitted the need for the Invasion and occupation, although the newspaper in Europe may not think so. Getting back to the political differences, between FRANCE (what some Europeans equate as UN Authority) and the US with the real allies, like the UK, Australia, Japan, Poland, Norway, Denmark, and all the Eastern Nations of Europe. FRANCE can no longer Protect Saddam with a UN Veto. So when you talk about the UN objecting to our invasion of IRAQ, it was one country that objected, France, and only at the last proposed resolution, because force was approved before by the UN in the previous resolution to comply or face consequences. France alone, threatened veto for the selfish interests of FRANCE- and for good reason, exposure and economic disaster for France, and that has come to pass. So France acted in self interest and disregarded the interests of the World fight on terror. France is now reaping the crops of greed that they sowed for years, doing business with Saddam. European newspapers suppress the truth of the situation and have twisted this around, somehow, to the United States being greedy for Middleast Oil. So yes the United States disregarded France's sole opinion on IRAQ, France is alone in that opinion, most of Europe and the United Nations, has moved on, supporting the US on the rebuilding plan, contrary to what the Euro Press writes. France's very transparent reason for objecting to the coalition invasion was based on Billions in contracts with Saddam. France's reason veto was solely for the selfish interests of France, it was about Money and OIL, France is guilty of greed for an IRAQI OIL and Money, not the US. We have exposed France's flagrant violations of UN sanctions in Iraq , ie., the most flagrant being the weapons systems France sold to (Roland missiles) Saddam just months prior to the war. France's hidden agenda to sign Billion dollar development contracts with Saddam, was stopped, and US tourism to France has stopped. The UN is finally coming around to the US point of view, with the rebuild resolution passed, again the US leads the UN in the right direction, the UN has endorsed the need to occupy and rebuild Iraq. President Bush and his Policy has been wildly successful in taking back the UN and kicking France out of the process of helping saddam steal billions from IRAQ. Sorry this was not a unilateral action by any definition. 80 other countries supported the invasion, and thats about all of the Free Nations that had the capability to support it. The UN cannot take action, it's always the US, that leads the UN to take action, like the vote to fund rebuilding of IRAQ. France and some of old Europe is asleep and will not wake up until (read your history of early stages of WWII), it is massively attacked by terrorists. We hope that has been prevented, now that Saddam controls nothing. If I were a Terrorist I would focus on keeping the US and Europe at odds, its better for their cause, and that's exactly whats happening in the Press and newspapers of Europe, name one Newspaper in Europe that strongly supports the occupation of IRAQ? Most countries in Europe have no way to DEFEND themselves and spend less than 1% of their GDP on Defense. Europe Depends on the US for its defense. The United States is the only country in the World that can defend the right of other countries to stay free. We rebuilt Europe after the War, heavily financed Germany, France and others and a lot of that money has not be repaid. We finance NATO, and supply most the Transport Aircraft and Air Force for NATO. Your opinion about IRAQ being a War for Oil is true, but not in the way the Greens of Europe think, the War was about TAKING AWAY the billions in Oil revenue controlled by a father and his two sons, that are capable of mass murder, that was what the IRAQ War was about. The RISK of not taking action, staying out of IRAQ, was that Saddam could easily transport Bio Weapons out of his country to anywhere in the world, AND he had a TRACK RECORD of killing people with such weapons, President BUSH, took action to stop that from ever happening, along with a approval of 80% of the nations that are members of the UN. Saddam had the capability to manufacture a shoe box full of anthrax, give it to a terrorist organization and dump it in the middle of a Paris Subway station and kill 150,000 people, he was just that crazy or stupid. Those resources are easily hidden, hell Saddam himself could probably hide for years in IRAQ Saddam dearly wanted to have a Missile that could hit Isreal with a Nuclear or Bio warhead. And now we are returning that OIL to its rightful owners the people of IRAQ, and in a few years I believe, IRAQ will be a great place to live, and the only place in the middle east where Arabs will live in freedom and make a decent living, will probably be either Iraq or Isreal. The car bombers are going strong right now, but that will pass. The Iraqi's will take control and build a great country now that Saddam is not in power to steal the billions in Oil Revenue. The Arabs fighting in IRAQ are not from IRAQ, which is good because if they weren't focused on IRAQ they would be up to mischief somewhere here in the US. The terrorists from Syria have the silly notion that we will leave, its not going to happen, we are there until IRAQ is stable. Plus the money we are giving to rebuild IRAQ is a GIFT, just like we gave to Japan and Germany to rebuild after WWII. Please tell me how the US gets a benefit from paying MARKET PRICE for OIL, plus 87 BILLION to rebuild IRAQ? American again is paying for the Freedom of others, and we are asking other countries to pitch in. How much is Switzerland going to put in the hat? The benefit is to the whole world, in a more stable middleast, no more Saddam Money to pay families that support terrorist bombs. Sure there will be more bombings but the money is not coming from Oil revenues of IRAQ. So please don't be taken in by the argument that we are after resources of other nations to colonize and get rich, if that were true we would OWN FRANCE, JAPAN, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and GERMANY. FRANCE had great trade benefits from Saddam and wanted to block the US and the 80 others countries and the UN from taking action. This is all old news. Everything that has happened in IRAQ has been for the good and things are getting better everyday. We're not pulling out in the middle like the Liberals and Democrats want. The casualties are small, about the same as when there would be in a military exercise, so yes soldiers are dying for a great cause to free 24 million people, its the lowest cost war as far as lives that has ever been fought. Thousands and thousands of civilians have been saved. Saddam will be caught, IRAQ will form a government, and press will soon have nothing more to talk about. It looks bad now because car bombs sell papers, but its pin pricks. Europe benefits from what we have done there, there will be no tin horn dictator, with huge resources from Oil to develop Nuclear, Chemical, or Bio Weapons. British Intelligence believed that Saddam was trying to buy nuclear materials from Nigeria, I prefer to believe that source. Of course you would never hear that in a Euro Newspaper. The whole of Europe should thank their lucky stars that the US is guarding against terror and that we have forces on the ground in IRAQ and we are not going to stop until we have stabilized the situation. Read online the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, and the London Daily Telegraph, its gives you a little clearer view on what is really happening. So now you are the most informed person in Switzerland on the situation and reason our troops are on the ground in IRAQ. Print this letter and send it to your local newspaper to publish. Best regards, Agin
agree and disagree.......Although you can say for certain he had control over wether or not to go to WAR.....and wether or not our resources from here on out are used to secure our borders or to pump some black gold out of the middle east....
someone has to take the blame for 9/11, and i am tired of clinton getting it. i'm just getting increasingly frustrated with the fact that saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and that W just used it as an excuse to push his own agenda of finishing off iraq. again, there was no need to invade iraq when "we" did. the "reconstruction" of afghanistan, and the final extermination of al-queda should have been accomplished first. now there are too many tax dollars chasing too many loose ends for any solid change to occur in afghanistan or the middle east. i agree that iraq cannot be abandoned at this point, but i still think that the situation in iraq is testament to an ineffective administration.
Hmmm. That Saddam's regime stopped researching and developing WMD in accordance with the bevy of UN resolutions will come as news to the rest of the world. If you honestly believe this was the extent of the "threat" Iraq posed, then you require lessons in recent history and geopolitics. Hilarious!