Posts made by DarthMaximus

Oh, you’re talking about that one CD game.

I don’t remember exactly, but did you try marching some units onto it?

That may do it, otherwise, I can’t remember. I haven’t played that version in a long time. I was a bit disappointed in it.

Not sure if this was the same article:

From AP (on Yahoo):

_Iran Leader calls for Destruction of Israel

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran’s hard-line president called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

“There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world,” Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called “The World without Zionism.”

“Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury, (while) any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world,” Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

“As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,” said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August and replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated international dialogue and tried to improve Iran’s relations with the West.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel’s recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a “trick,” saying Gaza was already a part of Palestinian lands and the pullout was designed to win acknowledgment of Israel by Islamic states.

“The fighting in Palestine is a war between the (whole) Islamic nation and the world of arrogance,” Ahmadinejad said, using Tehran’s propaganda epithet for the United States and Israel. “Today, Palestinians are representing the Islamic nation against arrogance.”

Iran does not recognize the existence of Israel and has often called for its destruction.

Israel has been at the forefront of nations calling and end to Iran’s nuclear program, which the United States and many others in the West say is aimed at acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Iran says the program is for generating electricity.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Ahmadinejad’s comment “reconfirms what we have been saying about the regime in Iran. It underscores the concerns we have about Iran’s nuclear intentions.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Baptiste Mattei condemned Ahmadinejad’s remarks “with the utmost firmness.”

Harsh words for Israel are common in Iran, especially at this time of year, the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. In Iran, this Friday — the last Muslim day of prayer in the Ramadan holiday — has been declared Quds Day, or Jerusalem Day. Rallies were slated in support of Palestinians — and against Israel’s occupation of parts of the city and other Palestinian lands.

Other Iranian politicians also have issued anti-Israeli statements, in attempts to whip up support for Friday’s nationwide Quds Day demonstrations.

But Ahmadinejad’s strident anti-Israeli statements on the eve of the demonstration were harsher than those issued during the term of the reformist Khatami and harkened back to Khomeini’s fiery speeches. Ahmadinejad was a longtime member of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, which even operates a division dubbed the Quds Division, a rhetorical reference to Tehran’s hopes of one day ending Israel’s domination of Islam’s third-holiest city.

After his election, Ahmadinejad received the support of the powerful hard-line Revolutionary Guards, who report directly to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Last year, a senior member of the guards attended a meeting that called for and accepted applications for suicide bombers to target U.S. troops and Israelis.

Iran announced earlier this year that it had fully developed solid fuel technology for missiles, a major breakthrough that increases their accuracy.

The Shahab-3, with a range of 810 miles to 1,200 miles, is capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East._

I didn’t want to post the link because the yahoo links are too long and then I have to scroll too much to read the MB. I’m far too lazy to scroll.
It’s front page on Yahoo, shouldn’t be hard to find.

Very true Linkon.

They could have been assassinated, waited out, and a billion other scenarios. This is terrible justification for invasion of a country.

I didn’t use it as a justification for war, it was an added benefit, “a dividend” of results of the war.

MAYBE Saddam would have been a good little boy if we never invaded, but then again his sons were equally as ruthless. With that family running the country they were going to be a problem for another 30-40 years at least.

provided by your friendly neighbourhood Canadians/French/German/Belgian etc. troops. Your welcome.

I never criticized the help of other nations in regards to Afghan. I never criticised nations that help us in Iraq. I’m weary of a few that were against the war (oil-for-food payoffs???), but NEVER criticised those that help and continue to help in Afghan.

Why was it that when Greece, Chile, etc. have “Elections” and the people choose a sociallist gov’t, the US gov’t feels that this was not appropriate and needs to instigate a bloody coup to undo the elections they supposedly promote? I really don’t buy this as being a reason. Not unless Iraqi’s elect a communist gov’t and the US supports it.

They don’t support the blowing up of civilians while they are going to church, school, or the market.

You want to elect a Socialist or Communist gov’t fine go ahead, I don’t care. But don’t threaten the US, call us the Infidels and start killing our civilians with suicide bombs or airplanes or truck bombs.

Israel pulled out of Gaza as a result of its allies invading Iraq? The US couldn’t have just said “please”? Well, i guess if they need the destruction of >1% of the civilian population of some other country to do the right thing, then i guess it was necessary

Yes, Israel can take comfort in the fact that Iraq will not be a threat to them. Thus a preceived sign of weakness (pulling out) will not be capitalized on by thug dictactor who uses it to say “hey keep bombing Israel they will continue to retreat”. Saddam funded Hamas and suicide bombers against Israel.

Having 100,000 US troops in the region is certainly comforting to Israel IMO.

how is this related?

It resonates with the people all across the region.
Imagine if you’re an Egyptian,
You see elections in Afghan and Iraq (held by muslims, run by muslims, with muslims winning as a result of the people)
How long before you say, “hey why can’t we have elections”?

I think the rest all fall under Iraq is part of the war on terror, not seperate from it.
You believe it could have been handled diplomatically (at least in Iraq)
I just don’t think we would have gotten anything more than lip service.
From the end of the First gulf war till 2003 Saddam played games, now Iran and NK are playing the same games.
I can’t understand why people would want to trust Saddam to “finally” live up to his end. I fail to see why all of a sudden his “I’ll let in unfettered inspections” is credible.
You can’t threaten “serious consequences” and not back it up, otherwise that makes things much much much worse in not only that country but several other countries. IE the US and UN become a paper tiger, all talk no action, etc.
Saddam had his chances.

He chose…poorly.

@Mary:

In your post, you fail to grasp the concept of cost/benefit analysis. You use familiy photos as an example of something whose value cannot be measured. This is wrong. YOU may consider family photos “without value”, but if it came down to a choice between saving a photo album or an uninsured briefcase full of $1,000,000, a tough decision would have to be made, and I think most would pick the cash.

Everything has a measured value, every action has a cost and benefit associated with it. Until you understand this, we can’t really talk about whether Iraq was “worth it”.

LOL! :lol:
Pathetic. You are so out of your league.
Just cause someone isn’t going to let you get away with your propaganda.

I nuked your entire argument and you go an quit. Don’t make posts if you can’t defend your position.

I listed about ten things (that you demanded to see) that already showed why the war in Iraq is worth it, and you focus on a hypothetical about photos.
I can’t imagine any moron having $1,000,000 in a briefcase in their house. Maybe mobsters or drug dealers. Lol!!!
Way to post something of value. :roll:

Why even respond to me if “I can’t reach your almightly level of thinking”.
You posted that as a shot at me, and a way to try and back out of a thread you created where you are are getting owned.
No, you need to try and save some face.

Fine, focus on stupid hypotheticals, that is the last baston of Liberals. When you are destroyed by the facts, you pick out a few lines of something that is relatively meaningless in my overall point and try to bow out. Hahahahhahaha!

Fine, I’ll even remove that from my post. I’ll even say you’re right if that makes you happy. Hey everyone Mary is right. WooHoo!
But that doesn’t change a thing.

There are still tons of dividends, even more than I already listed.

Shall I go on…

(List con’t)
Reforms in SA
Strategic position against Iran
Greater experience in urban warfare
Women rights gradually improving in several areas where they were treated as second class citizens. (not perfect, but getting better, and will continue to get better)
Arab countries actually not threatenening Israel (not perfect yet but getting better with better possible diplomatic relations)
Arab countries actually speaking out PUBLICALLY against terrorism
Arab countries helping to round up terrorists
2/3 of Al Qeda killed or captured
UBL marginalized
When we say “serious consequences” we mean “serious consequences”
Etc.

Oh, but I’m sure you’ll focus on some speeling error or something, and say “until you spell everything right, I’m not going to respond…”

LOL!

Even if Iraq succceds in five years, it may fail utterly in ten (e.g., backslide into civil war, draw us into a war vs. Iran, etc.).

But any failure in the future would not have been the fault of the US.

IE, was it the fault of France or whoever that we had our Civil War? No we had our ouwn issues to deal. BUT that doesn’t suggest our Revoluion wasn’t worth it.

Everything has a value, even human life. Elementary economics. This is why we don’t spend $100 billion researching a cure for a disease 5 people have, while we DO spend billions resarching cures for AIDS and treatments for various cancers. When you have a scarcity of resources, like we do on this planet, EVERYTHING has a cost/benefit analysis assosciated with it.

You misunderstood what I was saying.
You can’t place a value on somethings because some things are “invaluable”.
Photos of your family are worthless, yet family photo albums are the first things people save in fires. Why??? They have no “market value”. It is because they hold meaning to the owners.
You can not put a price on that, and you can’t put a price on freedom. You also can not put a price on right and wrong.
There are MANY things you cannot put a value on.

But back to the point at hand, How much is too much?

There is no price for doing the right thing.

I will submit, probably without argument, that if we KNEW it would take ten years, 50,000 casualties and 4 trillion dollars to “win” in Iraq, the public would demand an immediate pullout. There’s no way we’re going to bankrupt ourselves for some country in the Middle East.

Wrong.
You fail to acknowledge the big picture. I’ll get to this later.

So you would spend a billion a person in your pursuit of freedom? Do you see the absurdity of this?

PRICELESS. Not everything is dollars and cents. :D An that comes from a Republican. :D

Obviuisly, less than what you think it is. We don’t have unlimited resources to change every govt in the world that is mean to its people.

Then why bother to even try and help the poor??? We can’t feed everyone. Why should the gov spend money on Education??? we can’t educate everyone. Why try to even Cure diseases??? we cant cure everyone, Etc.

You do what you can and everyone pitches in.

Come on!!! I thought Liberals were the compasionate ones.

Okay, now to get back to the other topic, the big picture.

You fail to see that this war has been coming for a long time, and that Iraq is a battle in the War on Terror. If we weren’t in Iraq, we’d be fighting these thugs in Afghan or some other place.

They declared war on us (the West) in the 90’s. They weren’t going to just give up on their own.

Terrorists can always come up with some bogus reason to kill. Remember Sept 11 happened before we removed Saddam, same with the Cole, same with the Marine barracks in the early 80’s. what about the 1972 Munich games???

This is WW3. They wish to establish an Islamic Fascist Empire from the Med all the way to SE Asia and we must do whatever we have to to stop them.

This was explicitly stated in a Zarwahi (sp???) letter. Surely you must have seen this.

You seperate Iraq from the War on Terror, where in reality it is essential to it and just the most recent front.

What are these dividends?

Removal of Saddam
Removal of his Sons
Elections in Afghan
Elections in Iraq
Elections in Palastine
Israel out of Gaza
Elections in Egy
Libya gives up its WMD program
Syria out of Lebenon
Pakistan has become a good ally on terror
Several head terror leaders have been killed or captured
Etc,

EDIT:

I didn’t want to delete it, but to help out Mary I put everything in Red that Mary can feel free to ignore as I don’t see it is really significant to my point yet something she focused on. I’m not writer so, sometimes stuff may not come across right. But the Stuff in Red is “striken from the record.” :D

This is a stupid question to begin with.

Was the American Revolution worth it? Think of all the money and lives that cost. Without the help of the French we may not have won that.
That’s no different then US helping the Iraqis.

Was WW2 worth it? Think of all the destruction that caused.

You can’t place “value” on some things. It’s absurd.

221B is right on.

At this point, I think we’ve passed the point of no return. Even if it all works out, it was too much to spend, and too many people had to die to make it work.

So, what’s your price for the chance to be free?
$1.50? $10? 1 Million??? 1 billion???

Or what is the going rate now a days to help people???

It is clear you’ve already made up your mind, you were/are against the war so obviously nothing can be done in your mind to accept it. You flat out said you already think it wasn’t worth it.

The truth is this war already was worth it and has paid huge dividends it the war on terror, but your hatred for Bush has blinded you.

We are clearly winning and crushing these terrorists.

Gee, what a shocker the terrorists are NOW killing Sunni’s as well becasue a deal was reached on the Constitution, and trying to intimidate them.
So much for only attacking the Shiites in hopes of starting a Civil War. the terrorists are desperate cause they are getting their asses kicked.

Free/Even a remotely Democratic Iraq you bet your ass it was worth it.

Germany will have no ships after UK 1, so worrying about UK or US is futile.

You must claim what you can in Afr early on (rds 1-3), without sacrificing too much from Europe, so you can keep constant pressure on Russia early.

You can’t realistically take a shot at the US till mid-game.

Here’s why.

J1 (Pearl assualt and taking of HI).

US 1 - buy 10 inf place on WUS.

J2 - what are you going to do assualt Mex, or Pan, or Ala???

US 2 - move 10 inf to W can, buy 10 inf place on WUS.

J3 - now what???

US 3 - buy trans and inf. Trans to EUS.

The US can still assault WE on Rd 4 (to back up the brits)
and Japan will never ever be able to get beyond owning Ala or Hi.

You have to wait till the US fleet has left the Pac and they have commited to Ger. (after rd 4 or 5).

In the meantime on J1-J5, you must take Chi, Sin, Ind, SFE, and be in position to take/trade Kaz, Eve, and Novo.

Now if you want to take a shot a Hi, Ala, and maybe sneak someone to Mex or Pan, maybe you can catch the US napping, but any attempt to early, and you could be inviting trouble.

I thought he (Gore) was, but it may have been before 88. I know he ran for Pres but lost to Dukakis that year. Maybe he switched, or maybe that is why he didn’t get the nod???

Him being from TN, it wouldn’t surprise me and Tipper was all about getting warning labels on Music. Very “Pro Family” if you will.

So, I could be wrong about Gore specifically but I know back in the 80’s maybe even early 90’s, the Dems didn’t seem so fanatic about having to be “Pro-Choice”, so I know there are some current Dems who had been Pro-Life in the past, but are now Pro-Choice.

I would guess if there were Pro-Life Dems in the 80’s early 90’s that they would be from the South Ya know the “Southern Dems” or “Reagan Dems”.

@Mary:

She donated $1000 to Gore’s campaign. I can’t see a pro-lifer doing that.

I can. I believe Gore used to be Pro-Life. So did Joe Libermann, among others.

This was back in 1988. Many “Southern Democrats” were Pro-Life. It was never a political death sentence to be a Pro-Life Dem till 90’s.

Obviously there were more Pro Choice Dems then Pro-Life but it was never a political death sentence till more recently.

Liebermann was Pro-Life up till 2000. I believe Zell Miller is Pro-Life as well.

Personally I think Miers is Pro-Life and could turn out to be very conservative. Bush has known her for a long time and I don’t think he would have nominated her if he didn’t know she was a strict Constructionist.

Very true Falk.

And the fact the Bush has known her for so long, I’m sure she is pro-life.

The concern (from some conservative groups) is she hasn’t ruled on anything that gives “proof” that she would be pro-life or that she is “conservative enough” etc…

Conservatives have been “burned” before, ie both Reagan and Bush 41 pick Justices who they thought were conservative but didn’t have a paper trail of rulings and it turns out they are more liberal then many supporters would like.

From what I read/saw yesterday Miers seems like she’d be a good Judge.
I haven’t heard anything that would disqualify her. She wouldn’t have been my first pick but you really can’t tell what kind of a Supreme Court Judge someone is until they are sitting on the Bench and making rulings for a few years.

I saw that.

Luckily Mondays rule for TV, esp tonight.

UFC live event on Spike, plus a 3 hr Raw on USA, and of course Monday Night Football.

I was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown.

I don’t know a lot about his Meirs, although I believe she was a Dem at one point.

From the brief snippits I read, it looks like she is probably “pro-life”. I saw something where she wanted to revist the abortion ruling or something. I didn’t have time to read the article though.

shrugs

i like the way you suggested that the president “learned” after Iraq to go by the letter of the law

I liked that one too. :D

We could not have predicted what would have happened if SH remained in power, however i am fairly certain that it would have been a much more stable environment, and likely more docile.

I think he would’ve played similar games to what he did in the past and what NK and Iran are doing now. One day inspectors can come in the next day they can’t.

I think you missed my point.
If a few USamerican groups say that GWB should be removed … is that a valid context for … say the chinese … to invade the US ?
If it is not there, then it was not for SH and Iraq.

Oh.

Sure. But why would the Chinese not just wait for Bush’s term to be up?
They’d get a new leader with no blood shed.

That is a big difference. Worst case you live with a Pres for 8 years, Dictators are in for life. Since you can’t vote them out, sometimes that only leaves military action.

China (or someother country) could very much listen to some far out people and declare Bush a war criminal and try to forcible remove him. BUT…are you willing to accept the US counter strike, or are you willing to bite your tongue and hope a more favorable leader gets elected?
With the US you have over 200 years of Presidents leaving office and having elections. With Iraq that was simply not an option. And the failed attempt at removing Saddam after the First Gulf War was a sad reminder that Saddam would not share power or step down gracefully.

No, but here the state of emergency was proclaimed in advance. … something that could have been done for Katrina as well.

But it was declared before Katrina hit. I believe 2 days prior. This was done precisely to give the Gov “extra powers” in a time of emergency. The Gov failed to act as forcefully as she probably should have.

In hindsight, yes the Pres should have pushed the issue more, but at the time the Govenor had all the authority and ability to do whatever the heck she wanted (due to the State of Emergency).

We still have your troops

Yes, well sometimes rebuilding can take 60 years. :D
So judging Iraq on 2 years isn’t really fair. :D

You notice how funny the other side of that sword is?
What if one these “liberal - commie - whatever” groups claims it would be good to have GWB removed … ?

Yes, true.
Which is why, the Pres can’t simply tell Govenors what to do. There are laws, which Bush followed for the Katrina response.
You (I don’t mean you personally) must seperate Iraq from Katrina response. You simply can’t say “hey bush invaded Iraq, now do the same in NO”.
I believe he was justified in Iraq, now even if it wasn’t (in other opinions) that is not a valid reason to say what about NO. Maybe he learned his lesson, “hey you can’t go around flaunting laws, looked how pissed people got about Iraq. I better follow this Katrina thing by the letter of the Law”.

First, it was only a tradition. A tradition has not the power of a law (in my legal system, i know yours is different, giving traditions more power, yet still less than laws i would presume).
Second, breaking traditions is not always “bad”.
Third, breaking a tradition in extra-ordinary times is more justified than to break it for the fun of it.

Again, true. But I was just trying to point out, not all Pres will see things the same way. Some people like what FDR did, others did not.

After 9/11 you can that was extra ordinary, BUT people still get mad about the Patriot Act.

I’m only trying to point out it you have to very careful about letting the Pres (or any leader) get away with saying we must do this because of these extreme circumstances.

While it may have been a good Idea for Bush to take power of LA to help out Katrina. What about now with Rita (another Cat 5 Hurricane). Now Bush takes control of Texas as well??? Both Katrina and Rita hit FL, should Bush have taken power from his brother???

You must see how this could develop into a slippery slope. Every Hurricane season the Pres could send “aid” (read troops) to the effected area, for the greater good of course. Yet what if they don’t want to leave??? What do they say about absolute power curropting absolutely.
That is why Bush (and any Pres), must go through the red tape.

That is why I’m against bigger gov’t, cut out the red tape and burearcracy give the state/local officials the ability to immediately react, etc…

The anwser isn’t to just ignore the red tape and do what you want in “extreme circumstances”, but to fix the process and eliminate the red tape legally by streamlining the response.

Again, look at the preperation for Rita. To mean it seems like it is working right now. Perhaps the bugs in the system where shown the light in Katrina and they are fixing them.

“Common” DM - this is kind of an ignorant statement.

I mean - i prolly could reasonably argue that removing SH from power was not good, but no one has stated this.
Our argument was that the good of removing SH no where equals the bad from the invasion and mass slayings of Iraqi civilians, soldiers and US soldiers, trampling on Iraqi rights, and blowing up much of its infrastructure (never mind the $200 B cost of the war which if applied to social programs in the US would have IMO made the US an even greater nation).

Fair enough.

But I think it removing Saddam (don’t forget his sons as well) easily out weighs having left the status quo as is.

I don’t agree with the Social Program spending either of course. :D

I think you guys are judging things too quickly.

The US first try at Democracy failed (Articles of Confederation), our Capital was burned to the ground in a later war, and we even had a Civil War, etc.

You are judging the results before the process is done. IMO, that is like saying a football game is over in the 1st quarter.

I think you’ll appreciate this CC, Say you have have a patient that has cancer. The answer, they need surgery.
They don’t feel any pain but untreated they will die.
So they have surgery. Now how do they feel a day or a week after surgery? They feel like crap. Now how about after 6 months to a year of radiation and Chemo? Still like crap.
But hey after 2 years they are getting back to normal and are cured. They feel better, and can appreciate the hellish process they went through, since the final results were good.

But again what would that patient have said if you asked them how they feel imediately after surgery, with IV’s plugged in, tubes up their nose, etc.?

You have to let the process play out. Now if Iraq is the same as it is now in 5-10 years from now then you may have a case, but they just had their first elections and are voting on a Constitution in a month. Ya gotta give it a little more time before declaring that it wasn’t worth it, IMO.

Sometimes, it’s just obvious. Like ending slavery or preserving the union. The only times a president should exceed his authority (ala Lincoln), is when the country is on the verge of disintigration. The “threat” from Iraq doesn’t qualify.

Then this wouldn’t apply to NO as well. The country wasn’t on the verge of collapse. Thus no need for the Pres to usurp the Gov’s power.

I didn’t know that many words could fit in my mouth. How many times have I referenced Lincoln? Did Lincoln execute people without trial? Is your agrument devoid of any reason? Readers can decide.

You can’t throw around terms like “greater good” and expect to get away with it. While Lincoln was an Honorable man and did the right thing, Would you trust every Pres to do the right thing? Just because Lincoln did? I certainly wouldn’t. And I know you wouldn’t based on what you’ve said about Bush.
No Pres served more than two terms until FDR broke the 150 yr tradition.
Why would you assume that since Lincoln really knew what the “great good” was that some Pres 150-200 yrs later would?

Yes, only to be relied upon when someone with an IQ +100 is in office. Were you in favor of Truman dropping the bomb on Japan? Of course you were. Hmm, wonder if “greater good” applies there

You can pick out examples all you want, I got the Lincoln reference. My only point is that “greater good” is subjective.
Do those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki think the bombing was for the greater good?

I believe the Iraq action is in the greater good, you do not. This is the problem with throwing around those terms. It is a matter of opinion.

Sometimes it is obvious, but sometimes I guess it isn’t. To me it is obvious that removing Saddam from power was good, to you it is not.

The “threat” from Iraq doesn’t qualify.

That is your opinion.

To me, it isn’t unrealistic to see the way NK and Iran are acting and to see Saddam acting the same way if he were still there. They agree to inspections then they don’t.
Heck, yesterday NK agreed to a deal, and today they are already trash talking again and going back on the deal.
Something must be done about this.
I can’t believe you’d think we’d be better off with Saddam entering in that little race.
It was bad enough with India and Pakistan in a nuke race, now imagine Iran and Saddam’s Iraq in a nuke race.

Because of our actions in Afgahn and Iraq, Libya has given up its program, elections in Palastine, Syria has pulled out of Lebenon, Israel has moved out of Gaza, not to mention the elections in Iraq and Afgahn themselves, etc.

Oh, and the Gov had the National Guard in the SuperDome before the refugees began arriving

Then what the heck does she need the Feds for, she obviously had everything under control. :roll:

Maybe if thousands of them (and their equipment) hadn’t been in Iraq the situation would have been controllable

Maybe if the Democratic Leadership in LA wasn’t so incompetent they actually would have evacuated the populace.

(see Hurricane Rita preperation)

The Dems can mobilize buses to get people to vote, but apparently they can’t mobilise people to get out of dodge.

I think what gets the Dems so mad is that NO was such a bastion of Liberalism, that this hurricane stripped away all the walls and showed the world what an utter failure Liberalism is. NO has been run by Dems for 60 years, yet it many of its people were poor and left behind by the very Democrats that they elected into office.

I have no problem with presidents exceeding their authority… WHEN IT’S FOR A GREATER GOOD.

Yikes!

I have a REAL big problem with that.

Who determines “the greater good”?

That only justifies Bush’s actions more. In the best interest of the US we are going to go around locking people with with no trial then execute them.

Hey, it’s for the greater good.

You, me and most other citizens would be against this - which you even stated, yet you’re willing to allow a Pres to do this power for a so called “greater good”.

For the good of the country we should just execute the poor, that would certainly end the poverty problem. We should also get rid of the handicapped as well…for the greater good of course.

“The Greater Good”, that is an awfully powerful statement and extremely subjective.

Oh, and I like your logic: if we can help a group of people, we should invade a country? What exactly is this magic percentage? If 10% want us there? 20%? 30%?

I like may logic too. :D
But that is what you were saying we should do in NO. Forget that about 70-80% of the people left NO. Lets only focus on the people taht couldn’t get out or that ignored the mandatory evacuation order and critsize Bush for not helping 10, 20, 30% or whatever it was.

What is the magical % for the Pres to usurp the Gov Authority, to save 5%, 10%, 20%…?

But really, there are two reasons to despise Bush for what happened: He picked Brown to run FEMA, and he stripped the Guard of their ability to effectively mobilize. I notice you didn’t talk much about either of those points because they are irrefutable- Brown was a f**k-up, and the Guard was called up even before Katrina hit.

I didn’t think there was anything worth refuting. But now that you mention it, I think I will, or better yet I’ll let you refute yourself:

And the Congress that approved him.

If he was clearly a really a poor choice how did he get approved?
And for #2
Why did the Gov not deploy the NG they? Why did she waiver so much?
Incompetence.
[Warning: Joke coming]
Obviously she needs a strong man to tell her what to do. :D

Oh, and this is Bush we’re talking about. This guy needs to ask permission before deploying troops?

Yes!

Did he ask the people of Iraq if they wanted to be invaded or did he just sort of assume they did?

You have to be very careful about that statement.
Several Iraqi groups DID want us to invade and remove Saddam. Infact, much of our intelligence came from Iraqi defectors. Whether the information was sound or not is now irrelevent according to you, since there were Iraqi people that wanted help, we did the right thing.
I’m sure the Kurds and Shiites are glad we invaded. They will benefit the most.

Why couldn’t Bush just assume the dying people in Orleans wanted help? Who’s gonna impeach him? Republican controlled Congress?

So you are for ignoring the Law. Gotcha.
They why do you care about Iraq, thinking it is illegal etc.
You support breaking the law as you see fit. You should be praising Bush then. He rode in with the cavalry.

You argue in circles, this is why the Dems have trouble. You have no core positions. Simply because it is Bush you are against it.

Bush could have come out looking like a hero (send in the cavalry, to hell with red-tape!). Instead he fell into “My Pet Goat” mode.

OR…he would have looked like a egotistical man flaunting his power and taking over for a weak little woman who is too powerless and inept to run her own State. Poor helpless Women. I guess the feminist movement hasn’t come far enough. I suppose you’re right, women shouldn’t really be governors anyway, that should be at home…

I don’t agree with that, but that is essentailly what your are saying.

Do you really think a Strong woman (like Hillary for example), woulde EVER be caught looking weak like that? They why would you expect the LA Gov to reliquish her power?

(send in the cavalry, to hell with red-tape!).

YES YES YES!!!

Great Mary just endorsed the Invasion of Iraq, Iran, NK, Syria, etc.

To Hell with the UN and all the security Council Red tape! We have starving people to help in China and NK! Lets invade!

What do you buy?

I usually go 3 trns, 4 inf.

But I do like this sometimes - 1 ftr, 2 trns, 2 inf save 2.

And sometimes I go AC, if I didn’t with UK.