Is Hillary and Obama the Best the Demo(commies) Could Get?

[gixxerbill]

I am really freaking out on this election. I mena obama or hillary really could be running our country. Scares the crap out of me. Were they the best the demos could bring to the table? Seems like our country is going to be totally socialistic if they get elected. I mean when you think about it that is what democrats are is socialism in sheep's cloathing. Our country proves that Banditos song in right on the money when it says "everybody know that the world is full of stupid people" I guess they were talking about the democratic party.

[Fuzzy018]

Calm down dude.

We're not gonna turn into china overnight.

[ArturoC]

Calm down dude.

We're not gonna turn into china overnight.


+1

[cogs69]

Calm down dude.

We're not gonna turn into china overnight.

it should at least take 6 months. :keke:

[gixxerbill]

it should at least take 6 months. :keke:

I don't know Hillary could be busy little camper and do it quicker.

[Candy]

Nope the ticket will be Obama/Edwards in the end of the day

[cogs69]

You know its a sad day when you have to start voting for the lesser of the evils versus who you actually feel is capable of the job. This election and politics in general are starting to get sickening.

[abelrob]

Maybe time to start building your fallout shelter. :keke:

[gixxerbill]

Maybe time to start building your fallout shelter. :keke:

What's really funny is you could be right on the money. Can you see Hilary or Obama standing up to terrorist or that pat looking *** from N. Korea?

You can't say (f)ag here you have got to be kidding.

[dbuck]

What's really funny is you could be right on the money. Can you see Hilary or Obama standing up to terrorist or that pat looking *** from N. Korea?

You can't say (f)ag here you have got to be kidding.

you'd step all over Azylum's toes if we could say (f)ag:supergay:

[cogs69]

What's really funny is you could be right on the money. Can you see Hilary or Obama standing up to terrorist or that pat looking *** from N. Korea?

You can't say (f)ag here you have got to be kidding.

I've said it before, I feel if Hilary becomes president, we are going to see another 9/11 size attack very soon. I hope not, but I truly think someone is going to see it as a prime time for weakness. I know Faylaricia is going to flame me, but just a sick feeling I got in the bottom of my stomach. Wrong time, wrong person.

[Whorenet]

haHAHAHAHHAHA and yeah it looks like were fuct, m&g in canada this summer?

we'll all file for residency at the same time?

[BigComfy]

Bush has done a great job so far.

[cogs69]

Bush has done a great job so far.

With the way things are going, are you sarcastic or serious?

IMO, I don't think Bush has done as bad as everyone says. It seems that at the end of EVERY presidency, there is lots of talk about how bad that president has done, and how much they have lacked. By no means has he done enough, but I don't think he has done bad. No president can fix everything, and no president is going to be perfect, or set everything straight. I like how he is all for going after the terrorists, maybe he was misguided, maybe he could have gone about it better I dunno.

I think the economy issue is a little mis-guided. For him to take presidency in '00, and for the economy to hit hard due 9/11, enron, and many other scandals, and during his presidency the Dow and such have hit record highs, I don't know how we can say he was at fault. But it is always used. Again, I don't think he did a BAD job, and I can't say ANY president in my time has done a GREAT job and everything they should have.

[gixxerbill]

I've said it before, I feel if Hilary becomes president, we are going to see another 9/11 size attack very soon. I hope not, but I truly think someone is going to see it as a prime time for weakness. I know Faylaricia is going to flame me, but just a sick feeling I got in the bottom of my stomach. Wrong time, wrong person.

Yea, and if Obama gets Elected he will be one of them flying Air Force 1 into the Senate. (did I just say that oh I am bad today) :keke:

[abelrob]

+1 to cogs69

[Whorenet]

With the way things are going, are you sarcastic or serious?
.

its like saying clinton was a bad president, so he tagged monica in the whitehouse? thats all anyone remembers him for, bush it will be iraq.....or maybe the fact that he can't pronounce nuclear....:keke:

[Fuzzy018]

Yea, and if Obama gets Elected he will be one of them flying Air Force 1 into the Senate. (did I just say that oh I am bad today) :keke:


One again,

Your ignorance makes me wanna :puke:

[Whorenet]

One again,

Your ignorance makes me wanna :puke:

differing opinions do not = ignorance, people are intitled to their opinions.

im thinking there was a hint of sarcasm to his statement as well........

[cogs69]

One again,

Your ignorance makes me wanna :puke:

Pretty much Obama scares the crap out of him, and he feels that some how, Obama is goign to allow some kind of similar attack in. Not that he is personally going to fly the plane. Come on Fuzzy, tell me you could figure that out. I think you just personally don't like his posts and feel a need to attack them. :nod:

[gixxerbill]

Pretty much Obama scares the crap out of him, and he feels that some how, Obama is goign to allow some kind of similar attack in. Not that he is personally going to fly the plane. Come on Fuzzy, tell me you could figure that out. I think you just personally don't like his posts and feel a need to attack them. :nod:

Thanks cogs but don't worry about me fuzzy is just another bleeding heart liberal that has no sense of satire and sarcasm humor. Plus if it helps one person not vote for Obama I would post it all over the net.

[BigComfy]

With the way things are going, are you sarcastic or serious?

IMO, I don't think Bush has done as bad as everyone says. It seems that at the end of EVERY presidency, there is lots of talk about how bad that president has done, and how much they have lacked. By no means has he done enough, but I don't think he has done bad. No president can fix everything, and no president is going to be perfect, or set everything straight. I like how he is all for going after the terrorists, maybe he was misguided, maybe he could have gone about it better I dunno.

I think the economy issue is a little mis-guided. For him to take presidency in '00, and for the economy to hit hard due 9/11, enron, and many other scandals, and during his presidency the Dow and such have hit record highs, I don't know how we can say he was at fault. But it is always used. Again, I don't think he did a BAD job, and I can't say ANY president in my time has done a GREAT job and everything they should have.


Bush had the entire world behind him after 9/11 and what did he do? He shit it all away by going to Iraq. Thats the down fall of his presidency not at the end of his presidency as you mentioned. The economy being in the situation is in is due to our dollar going to crap b/c of many things but especially his spendings on the "war" in Iraq.

[D_UNIT]

Bush has done a great job so far.


Ya bush has made a big improvement on his public speaking skills. Give him another 8 and who knows what he'll do to the countries debt. Rack up another trillion.

Its pretty bad when bush has to take out a loan from china to found his war. I say give hillary then Obama a chance: our gov't controls everything else why not get some free health care?

[Whorenet]

our gov't controls everything else why not get some free health care?

worst idea ever!

you wanna get taxed to pay for scumbag deadbeats health care?


no thanks buddy.........

[cogs69]

Bush had the entire world behind him after 9/11 and what did he do? He shit it all away by going to Iraq. Thats the down fall of his presidency not at the end of his presidency as you mentioned. The economy being in the situation is in is due to our dollar going to crap b/c of many things but especially his spendings on the "war" in Iraq.

I call B/S on the war. Since the media has painted this picture on the war about how it has "FAILED" in their eyes, everyone blames the economy on the war. Did we fall out economically when Bush SR went to war? I think the only reason everyone thinks that is the reason for economical downfall is because everyone wants to think it was for oil not terrorism. Honestly I think it was both, but its funny how economically we have failure due to the war, not because of sub-prime lending, and not because of oil issues in the US and hurricane Katrina etc. etc. I love how Dow hit record highs, while the housing market fell out, and the economy failure is all because of the war. Honestly I think everyone has become sheep and eats up whatever the media feeds you.

Yea in the last 30 days the stocks have hit low, but that has to do with a lot more things than the war. How can Bush have economically screwed us and set record stocks all at the same time? Real estate drives our market so much, that I don't think Bush caused sub prime lending to get out of hand. I think everyone that says we shouldnt have gone to war are blind and are probably the same ones that were demanding he take action against terrorism to whatever means possible back in '00 and '01. I call them hypocrites. I would rather see him take action to this level than sit on his hands and have a pitty party on our soils.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I call B/S on the war. Since the media has painted this picture on the war about how it has "FAILED" in their eyes, everyone blames the economy on the war. Did we fall out economically when Bush SR went to war? I think the only reason everyone thinks that is the reason for economical downfall is because everyone wants to think it was for oil not terrorism. Honestly I think it was both, but its funny how economically we have failure due to the war, not because of sub-prime lending, and not because of oil issues in the US and hurricane Katrina etc. etc. I love how Dow hit record highs, while the housing market fell out, and the economy failure is all because of the war. Honestly I think everyone has become sheep and eats up whatever the media feeds you.

Yea in the last 30 days the stocks have hit low, but that has to do with a lot more things than the war. How can Bush have economically screwed us and set record stocks all at the same time? Real estate drives our market so much, that I don't think Bush caused sub prime lending to get out of hand. I think everyone that says we shouldnt have gone to war are blind and are probably the same ones that were demanding he take action against terrorism to whatever means possible back in '00 and '01. I call them hypocrites. I would rather see him take action to this level than sit on his hands and have a pitty party on our soils.

1) Bush isn't wholly responsible for the economic fallout, neither is any other president. They are not directly influential to the economy.

2) The war has caused massive deficits and therefore IS a factor to the current economic situation but not the sole factor

3) Sub-prime lending IS major reason we are having the problems we are having today and actually was outside of Bush's realm of control. Blame that on the mortgage companies, brokers and financial institutions

4) The war in Iraq was INDEPENDENT of the war on terrorism as Saddam though a dictator WAS NOT an Islamic Terrorist NOR did he have anything to do with 9/11. For the above stated reasons, as well as others, it was the wrong war (I've said it from the beginning and will continue to do so). Note: Afghanistan was part of the war on terrorism and should have for that reason been better funded and used as the "focal point" of the war. Sadly many have forgotten about it- including the politicians because they have failed to pay proper attention and the Taliban have since increased their terrorist activities in the area.

5) Bush has done good things but the question I pose is: Does the good outweigh the bad? If not, then it was a negative (arguably failed) presidency.

[BigComfy]

I call B/S on the war. Since the media has painted this picture on the war about how it has "FAILED" in their eyes, everyone blames the economy on the war.
Screw the media. Has Iraq been a success? + according to bush a while back "mission accomplished"
Did we fall out economically when Bush SR went to war?
No b/c Sr. Had enough sense not to remain in Iraq. Jr. on the other hand....
I think the only reason everyone thinks that is the reason for economical downfall is because everyone wants to think it was for oil not terrorism. Honestly I think it was both, but its funny how economically we have failure due to the war, not because of sub-prime lending, and not because of oil issues in the US and hurricane Katrina etc. etc. The cost of these are minimal compared to the cost of Jr's Iraq project(I can't say war b/c it's not officially a war)
I love how Dow hit record highs, while the housing market fell out, and the economy failure is all because of the war. Markets behave erratically. they have since 1998/2000. I was refering to the state of our economy not the state of the markets. Honestly I think everyone has become sheep and eats up whatever the media feeds you. Please refer to my 1st answer.



I think everyone that says we shouldnt have gone to war are blind and are probably the same ones that were demanding he take action against terrorism to whatever means possible back in '00 and '01. I call them hypocrites.

I did not support him going to Iraq. I've always thought that he should of finished what he started in afganistan before taking any actions in Iraq or anywhere else.

I would rather see him take action to this level than sit on his hands and have a pitty party on our soils.


Hey anyone hear about Osama lately???? Hows that guy doing? We found him? Still looking? hummm.

[Gixxer Geezer]

Your next President....."BILLARY Clinton"... yikes.

[Candy]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[gixxerbill]

Your next President....."BILLARY Clinton"... yikes.

LOL I wish you could type "(F)AG" even more.

[mathews]

Am I the only one who just wants the govt to leave me alone.I dont want them running health care,taxing everything I own,etc.Show me one succesfully run govt entity

[gixxerbill]

Am I the only one who just wants the govt to leave me alone.I dont want them running health care,taxing everything I own,etc.Show me one succesfully run govt entity

Exactly. It's almost like members of the democratic party say,"I'm too stupid to be accountable for my life and money I need the govt to do it for me."

[cogs69]

4) The war in Iraq was INDEPENDENT of the war on terrorism as Saddam though a dictator WAS NOT an Islamic Terrorist NOR did he have anything to do with 9/11. For the above stated reasons, as well as others, it was the wrong war (I've said it from the beginning and will continue to do so). Note: Afghanistan was part of the war on terrorism and should have for that reason been better funded and used as the "focal point" of the war. Sadly many have forgotten about it- including the politicians because they have failed to pay proper attention and the Taliban have since increased their terrorist activities in the area.


5) Bush has done good things but the question I pose is: Does the good outweigh the bad? If not, then it was a negative (arguably failed) presidency.

We seem to agree to a certain extent until you get to #4. Just because Iraq wasn't directly tied to 9/11, I still don't see it seperate from the war on terrorism. Whether the terorrism was against us, or other countries, he WAS in fact proven a terorrist. Were we next? Who knows, did he have weapons of mass destruction? I bet he did and was able to move them to another country, but it isn't proven. He IS a terrorist, just ask the couple hundred thousand bodies that were found in mass graves. Remember Hitler? Resemble much? We would have been pulled in again eventually. Should he have focused on Afganistan first, probably. But it is what it is, and I think he did the right thing. And by HE, remember, HE was not a sole deciding factor. On #5, I don't think his presidency was a Positive or Negative. I find it neutral. He got us by.

Screw the media. Has Iraq been a success? + according to bush a while back "mission accomplished"

You say screw the media? Your comments sound just like them.... coincidence? What do you call "mission accomplished"? I think the original mission was to overthrow the dictator. That was accomplished. Is there more work to do? Well yea, if we want to make sure the people of that government have a democracy. We could have easily pulled out and let the most ruthless guy with the most power step back in there.

No b/c Sr. Had enough sense not to remain in Iraq. Jr. on the other hand....
The cost of these are minimal compared to the cost of Jr's Iraq project(I can't say war b/c it's not officially a war)
Markets behave erratically. they have since 1998/2000. I was refering to the state of our economy not the state of the markets. Please refer to my 1st answer.

It wasn't about the sense to get out, he was pursuaded to pull out by the UN, and they all felt that the "Point" had gotten across to straighten up his act. JR felt he didn't learn that lesson, as did his advisors and informants, and how many chances do you give someone like that? What is the state of Markets? Isn't that a direct reflection of our economy? I guess I didn't pay enough attention in economy, that or my teachers taught me wrong.



I did not support him going to Iraq. I've always thought that he should of finished what he started in afganistan before taking any actions in Iraq or anywhere else.

I can agree with that. Maybe he should have. His informants and advisors thought otherwise. They felt he was "moving" weapons of mass destruction and that they were going to hit the US while we were down. We will never know the truth on that. Bush may never even know the truth on that. But I don't completely disagree with you.

Hey anyone hear about Osama lately???? Hows that guy doing? We found him? Still looking? hummm.

Something was on at lunch about him but I couldn't catch what they said.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

We seem to agree to a certain extent until you get to #4. Just because Iraq wasn't directly tied to 9/11, I still don't see it seperate from the war on terrorism. Whether the terorrism was against us, or other countries, he WAS in fact proven a terorrist. Were we next? Who knows, did he have weapons of mass destruction? I bet he did and was able to move them to another country, but it isn't proven. He IS a terrorist, just ask the couple hundred thousand bodies that were found in mass graves. Remember Hitler? Resemble much? We would have been pulled in again eventually. Should he have focused on Afganistan first, probably. But it is what it is, and I think he did the right thing. And by HE, remember, HE was not a sole deciding factor. On #5, I don't think his presidency was a Positive or Negative. I find it neutral. He got us by.

I agree, he was a terrorist but so are many, many other leaders of nations. We can look to Africa, Korea and various other nations for evidence of as much. Is it a reasonable endeavor to work to remove them all? I think not. Why then would we disrupt an entire nation to remove Saddam? Sure he may have been evil and whatever other negatively connotated words you would like to add but one thing he did have was control. There weren't terrorists' running rampant and killing civilians of Iraq at the rate of which we can observe today. Besides the above, we screwed up the balance of power in the region. There were far more things at play when you removed Saddam than simply removing one of many of the world dictator's, you also acted to remove a check to Iran's power and influence in the region, BAD MOVE. Now the Iraqi Shia Muslim majority are not only going to exact revenge from the years of Sunni Muslim rule under Saddam but they are looking to Iran for guidance, NOT the US. So essentially we are funding their punkasses but they couldn't give two sh!ts about what is best for the US. Unquestionably we should have capped the situation in Afghanistan before we took on Iraq, particularly since there was no immediate threat. This is a basic rule of life, you don't go trying to fix someone's elses leaking boat while you haven't completely resolved your own. As far as the presidency, that is a matter of opinion but based on the current problems facing our country, I'm not likely to believe that his presidency will be seen as anything but a failure. Afghanistan, IRAQ, No Child Left Behind, Immigration, he didn't do SHIZZ for social security, etc...

[Whorenet]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a270/houstonaftermidnight3/thunderquote69.jpg

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Remember Hitler? Resemble much? We would have been pulled in again eventually.

p.s.
He and Hitler were two TOTALLY different animals. They share a few characteristics but were far from being comparable. Comparing him to Hitler is like comparing a wild cat (that is a cat that is wild) to a lion. Both are part of the same family, species but differ heavily in the amount of damage they could've caused respectively...

[cogs69]

p.s.
He and Hitler were two TOTALLY different animals. They share a few characteristics but were far from being comparable. Comparing him to Hitler is like comparing a wild cat (that is a cat that is wild) to a lion. Both are part of the same family, species but differ heavily in the amount of damage they could've caused respectively...

Funny, as soon as I read this, I googled "Saddam Mass Murder Graves" and this popped up. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mgrass.htm

I was curious how many people it was and it came to 400,000 by '04 counted. Yea Hitler was trying to wipe out a race, but I think there are great similarities. Saddam is no better than Hitler. Hitler just did it in a time when media and world affairs weren't as easily meddled in. The US didn't feel a need to be big brother of the world back then so it got allowed to go further than today.

[gixxerbill]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a270/houstonaftermidnight3/thunderquote69.jpg

Did Barbara Bush really say that? :eek3:

[cogs69]

Jim Prince is president of the Democracy Council, which promotes democratic institutions in the developing world, and has worked in Iraq. He tells Insight about his experiences at the mass graves of Iraq, describing the scenes of chaos and pain as families uncovered the dead.

"It was horrible," Prince says. "Right after the uprising in northern Iraq a lot of relatives who heard about the mass graves ... would go [to the sites] and start digging with their hands and become a mess. You'd have bones and clothing everywhere and people screaming." Prince continued, "The first time I went it was very windy and we were getting people's hair in our mouths and eyes. In the open fields they were just pawing at the earth to try and match up bones and pictures. ... It's not something that leaves you quickly."

Prince also visited the torture chambers with victims, and remembers: "To me it became intensely personal. I was looking at somebody that experienced this."

He says it changed his mind about the war in Iraq. Prior to seeing Saddam's legacy of brutality firsthand, he thought a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis had been possible, but after seeing the evidence he had a change of heart. He describes why:

"You come away from these fields and torture chambers – the senselessness of it – having seen pure evil and knowing that to do nothing in the face of such evil is to perpetuate it. It's not a question of weapons of mass destruction, it's a question of evil, and if you let it continue, you have to take responsibility for what's happening. You can't just turn a blind eye."

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Funny, as soon as I read this, I googled "Saddam Mass Murder Graves" and this popped up. http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/mgrass.htm

I was curious how many people it was and it came to 400,000 by '04 counted. Yea Hitler was trying to wipe out a race, but I think there are great similarities. Saddam is no better than Hitler. Hitler just did it in a time when media and world affairs weren't as easily meddled in. The US didn't feel a need to be big brother of the world back then so it got allowed to go further than today.

Try 6 Mill bro...and that's not even counting those lost during the war. Hitler and Saddam were two separate animals. Saddam was bad, sure- he killed as suggested by you, 400k up to '04 (He's been in power for around 40 years). Hitler got to 6 Mill in less than 4 years...SIGNIFICANTLY different.

I pose you this question: What did we tangibly gain by removing him?

I can give you a list of negative and residual consequences to removing him from power.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 62. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 1

Since February 2003, Bashir’s campaign of ethnic and religious persecution has killed at least 180,000 civilians in Darfur in western Sudan and driven 2 million people from their homes. The good news is that Bashir’s army and the Janjaweed militia that he supports have all but stopped burning down villages in Darfur. The bad news is why they’ve stopped: There are few villages left to burn. The attacks now are aimed at refugee camps. While the media have called these actions “a humanitarian tragedy,” Bashir himself has escaped major condemnation. In 2005, Bashir signed a peace agreement with the largest rebel group in non-Islamic southern Sudan and allowed its leader, John Garang, to become the nation’s vice president. But Garang died in July in a helicopter crash, and Bashir’s troops still occupy the south.


2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea. Age 63. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 2

While the outside world focuses on Kim Jong-il’s nuclear weapons program, domestically he runs the world’s most tightly controlled society. North Korea continues to rank last in the index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders, and for the 34th straight year it earned the worst possible score on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House. An estimated 250,000 people are confined in “reeducation camps.” Malnourishment is widespread: According to the United Nations World Food Program, the average 7-year-old boy in North Korea is almost 8 inches shorter than a South Korean boy the same age and more than 20 pounds lighter.


3) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar). Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 3

In November 2005, without warning, Than Shwe moved his entire government from Rangoon (Yangon), the capital for the last 120 years, to Pyinmana, a remote area 245 miles away. Civil servants were given two days’ notice and are forbidden from resigning. Burma leads the world in the use of children as soldiers, and the regime is notorious for using forced labor on construction projects and as porters for the army in war zones. The long-standing house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize and Than Shwe’s most feared opponent, recently was extended for six months. Just to drive near her heavily guarded home is to risk arrest.


4) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 81. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 9

Life in Zimbabwe has gone from bad to worse: It has the world’s highest inflation rate, 80% unemployment and an HIV/AIDS rate of more than 20%. Life expectancy has declined since 1988 from 62 to 38 years. Farming has collapsed since 2000, when Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms, giving most of them to political allies with no background in agriculture. In 2005, Mugabe launched Operation Murambatsvina (Clean the Filth), the forcible eviction of some 700,000 people from their homes or businesses—“to restore order and sanity,” says the government. But locals say the reason was to forestall demonstrations as the economy deteriorates.


5) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan. Age 67. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 15

Until 2005, the worst excesses of Karimov’s regime had taken place in the torture rooms of his prisons. But on May 13, he ordered a mass killing that could not be concealed. In the city of Andijan, 23 businessmen, held in prison and awaiting a verdict, were freed by their supporters, who then held an open meeting in the town square. An estimated 10,000 people gathered, expecting government officials to come and listen to their grievances. Instead, Karimov sent the army, which massacred hundreds of men, women and children. A 2003 law made Karimov and all members of his family immune from prosecution forever.


6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in “reeducation-through-labor” camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV or radio stations. The government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails and text messages. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, at least 400,000 residents of Beijing have been forcibly evicted from their homes.


7) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 82. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5

Although Abdullah did not become king until 2005, he has ruled Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, Fahd, suffered a stroke 10 years earlier. In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. According to Amnesty International, police in Saudi Arabia routinely use torture to extract “confessions.” Saudi women may not appear in public with a man who isn’t a relative, must cover their bodies and faces in public and may not drive. The strict suppression of women is not voluntary, and Saudi women who would like to live a freer life are not allowed to do so.


8) Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 65. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has created the world’s most pervasive personality cult, and criticism of any of his policies is considered treason. The latest examples of his government-by-whim include bans on car radios, lip-synching and playing recorded music on TV or at weddings. Niyazov also has closed all national parks and shut down rural libraries. He launched an attack on his nation’s health-care system, firing 15,000 health-care workers and replacing most of them with untrained military conscripts. He announced the closing of all hospitals outside the capital and ordered Turkmenistan’s physicians to give up the Hippocratic Oath and to swear allegiance to him instead.


9) Seyed Ali Khamane’i, Iran. Age 66. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 18

Over the past four years, the rulers of Iran have undone the reforms that were emerging in the nation. The hardliners completed this reversal by winning the parliamentary elections in 2004 —after disqualifying 44% of the candidates—and with the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2005. Ultimately, however, the country is run by the 12-man Guardian Council, overseen by the Ayatollah Khamane’i, which has the right to veto any law that the elected government passes. Khamane’i has shut down the free press, tortured journalists and ordered the execution of homosexual males.


10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

Obiang took power in this tiny West African nation by overthrowing his uncle more than 25 years ago. According to a United Nations inspector, torture “is the normal means of investigation” in Equatorial Guinea. There is no freedom of speech, and there are no bookstores or newsstands. The one private radio station is owned by Obiang’s son. Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day.

Link (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators)

Should we remove them all?

[cogs69]

Try 6 Mill bro...and that's not even counting those lost during the war. Hitler and Saddam were two separate animals. Saddam was bad, sure- he killed as suggested by you, 400k up to '04 (He's been in power for around 40 years). Hitler got to 6 Mill in less than 4 years...SIGNIFICANTLY different.

I pose you this question: What did we tangibly gain by removing him?

I can give you a list of negative and residual consequences to removing him from power.

I think Hitler wouldn't have even gotten close to that with today's media. But yea, you have a point, different levels. But to me, it is like you saying a pedo that molested one kid isn't as bad as a pedo that molested 1000 kids. they are one in the same to me.

What did we gain? Don't really know. I feel better he isn't in charge of a whole country, and I feel better that he no longer has access to terrorist groups and possible weopons of mass destruction, if he ever did in the first place. Was there any way of knowing that this long after we STILL wouldn't have things ironed out? No, I think if things had settled down by now, and a govt. had been successful by now, no one would be complaining, but since resistance is stronger than expected, it is seen as a failure.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I think Hitler wouldn't have even gotten close to that with today's media. But yea, you have a point, different levels. But to me, it is like you saying a pedo that molested one kid isn't as bad as a pedo that molested 1000 kids. they are one in the same to me.

What did we gain? Don't really know. I feel better he isn't in charge of a whole country, and I feel better that he no longer has access to terrorist groups and possible weopons of mass destruction, if he ever did in the first place. Was there any way of knowing that this long after we STILL wouldn't have things ironed out? No, I think if things had settled down by now, and a govt. had been successful by now, no one would be complaining, but since resistance is stronger than expected, it is seen as a failure.

It's all circumstantial, particularly the ideas of what "would have" or "may have" been. We can only go off of what we knew and know now. We gained nothing from this "war in Iraq". But we sure are spending alot. Him being out of power did what? Allow Iran to have the ability to get them now...yep, that's worse than Iraq getting um. Saddam didn't deal with terrorists' because he thought them a threat to his regime. Iran on the other hand regularly deals with terrorists' (See Hezbollah). If they get weapons, we are in trouble. Iraq wasn't seeking nor did he have the ability to get them. We hurt ourselves on too many different levels for me to even begin to write out on here. Just know that there is more than simply what we see on the surface or that the media entities actively analyze and present. There were regional implications that extended past the borders of Iraq. Look at what is happening with the influx of terrorists' and terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorist recruiting numbers, etc. We basically stirred a beehive and gave the bees a fertility shot. This war on terrorism is one that should not be fought with conventional armies or using conventional methods. This is one for smaller groups (Special Ops) and Intelligence agencies.

[gixxerbill]

1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 62. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 1

Since February 2003, Bashir’s campaign of ethnic and religious persecution has killed at least 180,000 civilians in Darfur in western Sudan and driven 2 million people from their homes. The good news is that Bashir’s army and the Janjaweed militia that he supports have all but stopped burning down villages in Darfur. The bad news is why they’ve stopped: There are few villages left to burn. The attacks now are aimed at refugee camps. While the media have called these actions “a humanitarian tragedy,” Bashir himself has escaped major condemnation. In 2005, Bashir signed a peace agreement with the largest rebel group in non-Islamic southern Sudan and allowed its leader, John Garang, to become the nation’s vice president. But Garang died in July in a helicopter crash, and Bashir’s troops still occupy the south.


2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea. Age 63. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 2

While the outside world focuses on Kim Jong-il’s nuclear weapons program, domestically he runs the world’s most tightly controlled society. North Korea continues to rank last in the index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders, and for the 34th straight year it earned the worst possible score on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House. An estimated 250,000 people are confined in “reeducation camps.” Malnourishment is widespread: According to the United Nations World Food Program, the average 7-year-old boy in North Korea is almost 8 inches shorter than a South Korean boy the same age and more than 20 pounds lighter.


3) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar). Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 3

In November 2005, without warning, Than Shwe moved his entire government from Rangoon (Yangon), the capital for the last 120 years, to Pyinmana, a remote area 245 miles away. Civil servants were given two days’ notice and are forbidden from resigning. Burma leads the world in the use of children as soldiers, and the regime is notorious for using forced labor on construction projects and as porters for the army in war zones. The long-standing house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize and Than Shwe’s most feared opponent, recently was extended for six months. Just to drive near her heavily guarded home is to risk arrest.


4) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 81. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 9

Life in Zimbabwe has gone from bad to worse: It has the world’s highest inflation rate, 80% unemployment and an HIV/AIDS rate of more than 20%. Life expectancy has declined since 1988 from 62 to 38 years. Farming has collapsed since 2000, when Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms, giving most of them to political allies with no background in agriculture. In 2005, Mugabe launched Operation Murambatsvina (Clean the Filth), the forcible eviction of some 700,000 people from their homes or businesses—“to restore order and sanity,” says the government. But locals say the reason was to forestall demonstrations as the economy deteriorates.


5) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan. Age 67. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 15

Until 2005, the worst excesses of Karimov’s regime had taken place in the torture rooms of his prisons. But on May 13, he ordered a mass killing that could not be concealed. In the city of Andijan, 23 businessmen, held in prison and awaiting a verdict, were freed by their supporters, who then held an open meeting in the town square. An estimated 10,000 people gathered, expecting government officials to come and listen to their grievances. Instead, Karimov sent the army, which massacred hundreds of men, women and children. A 2003 law made Karimov and all members of his family immune from prosecution forever.


6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in “reeducation-through-labor” camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV or radio stations. The government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails and text messages. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, at least 400,000 residents of Beijing have been forcibly evicted from their homes.


7) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 82. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5

Although Abdullah did not become king until 2005, he has ruled Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, Fahd, suffered a stroke 10 years earlier. In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. According to Amnesty International, police in Saudi Arabia routinely use torture to extract “confessions.” Saudi women may not appear in public with a man who isn’t a relative, must cover their bodies and faces in public and may not drive. The strict suppression of women is not voluntary, and Saudi women who would like to live a freer life are not allowed to do so.


8) Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 65. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has created the world’s most pervasive personality cult, and criticism of any of his policies is considered treason. The latest examples of his government-by-whim include bans on car radios, lip-synching and playing recorded music on TV or at weddings. Niyazov also has closed all national parks and shut down rural libraries. He launched an attack on his nation’s health-care system, firing 15,000 health-care workers and replacing most of them with untrained military conscripts. He announced the closing of all hospitals outside the capital and ordered Turkmenistan’s physicians to give up the Hippocratic Oath and to swear allegiance to him instead.


9) Seyed Ali Khamane’i, Iran. Age 66. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 18

Over the past four years, the rulers of Iran have undone the reforms that were emerging in the nation. The hardliners completed this reversal by winning the parliamentary elections in 2004 —after disqualifying 44% of the candidates—and with the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2005. Ultimately, however, the country is run by the 12-man Guardian Council, overseen by the Ayatollah Khamane’i, which has the right to veto any law that the elected government passes. Khamane’i has shut down the free press, tortured journalists and ordered the execution of homosexual males.


10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

Obiang took power in this tiny West African nation by overthrowing his uncle more than 25 years ago. According to a United Nations inspector, torture “is the normal means of investigation” in Equatorial Guinea. There is no freedom of speech, and there are no bookstores or newsstands. The one private radio station is owned by Obiang’s son. Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day.

Link (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators)

Should we remove them all?

Man, we need to get Hitman to take them all out. What a bunch of horible greedy leaders. I wonder if God makes Hell a little worse for them when they die?

[cogs69]

It's all circumstantial, particularly the ideas of what "would have" or "may have" been. We can only go off of what we knew and know now. We gained nothing from this "war in Iraq". But we sure are spending alot. Him being out of power did what? Allow Iran to have the ability to get them now...yep, that's worse than Iraq getting um. Saddam didn't deal with terrorists' because he thought them a threat to his regime. Iran on the other hand regularly deals with terrorists' (See Hezbollah). If they get weapons, we are in trouble. Iraq wasn't seeking nor did he have the ability to get them. We hurt ourselves on too many different levels for me to even begin to write out on here. Just know that there is more than simply what we see on the surface or that the media entities actively analyze and present. There were regional implications that extended past the borders of Iraq. Look at what is happening with the influx of terrorists' and terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorist recruiting numbers, etc. We basically stirred a beehive and gave the bees a fertility shot. This war on terrorism is one that should not be fought with conventional armies or using conventional methods. This is one for smaller groups (Special Ops) and Intelligence agencies.


You got very good points. Learn more and more every day. Still don't think Bush takes the whole fall. There weren't this many people AGAINST it when it happened. Thats where I think people ride the media wagon too much. They can't think for themselves.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Man, we need to get Hitman to take them all out. What a bunch of horible greedy leaders. I wonder if God makes Hell a little worse for them when they die?

I really do hope so. N as far as expediting them meeting their maker...I've heard that a Sniper rifle and a few bullets are a helluva lot cheaper than a war...(shoulda thought about that with Saddam and his administration)

[Fuzzy018]

I really do hope so. N as far as expediting them meeting their maker...I've heard that a Sniper rifle and a few bullets are a helluva lot cheaper than a war...(shoulda thought about that with Saddam and his administration)

Too bad it's not that easy. You can't stop what's happening in some on those places by just taking out the head of the snake.

These people have advisors, and "second in command's".

It is not our business to control the whole world.

Maybe these places just aren't as far in their history as we are a dnEurope is......

Did any other country interfere heavily during our Civil War????

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

You got very good points. Learn more and more every day. Still don't think Bush takes the whole fall. There weren't this many people AGAINST it when it happened. Thats where I think people ride the media wagon too much. They can't think for themselves.

This is true, but I can say with a clear conscience that I was against it from the start. I thought it was stupid because to start a war without having completed Afghanistan takes us back to the dumbass mistakes we made back in the 80's- partaking in conflicts and then leaving before we've finished leaving the people to fend for themselves against terrorists (Taliban took over Afghanistan after WE LEFT). Smart move by us. I have my reasons for having been against it and am pretty confident that I'm not one of the latter types. Sure the media is good but I'm sure you know by now that I research before coming to my conclusions.

[Whorenet]

Did Barbara Bush really say that? :eek3:

hmmm.....im thinking its true cause i ran it in my mag as the quote of the month:keke:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Too bad it's not that easy. You can't stop what's happening in some on those places by just taking out the head of the snake.

These people have advisors, and "second in command's".

It is not our business to control the whole world.

Maybe these places just aren't as far in their history as we are a dnEurope is......

Did any other country interfere heavily during our Civil War????

Different times, different circumstances...besides, only we feel the need to interfere in other nations dealings. Partially rightly so though, we learned a hard lesson in being oblivious back in the '40's...

[cogs69]

This is true, but I can say with a clear conscience that I was against it from the start. I thought it was stupid because to start a war without having completed Afghanistan takes us back to the dumbass mistakes we made back in the 80's- partaking in conflicts and then leaving before we've finished leaving the people to fend for themselves against terrorists (Taliban took over Afghanistan after WE LEFT). Smart move by us. I have my reasons for having been against it and am pretty confident that I'm not one of the latter types. Sure the media is good but I'm sure you know by now that I research before coming to my conclusions.

One of the reasons I don't mind debating with you. You have substance to back your statments up. I am not familiar with the 80's/cold war. I should have paid more attention in class. :thumb:

[Fuzzy018]

Different times, different circumstances...besides, only we feel the need to interfere in other nations dealings. Partially rightly so though, we learned a hard lesson in being oblivious back in the '40's...

Yeah but so did everyone else that got attacked. We were't the only ones.

All these people talk so much about the "war on terror" as if it was a country. I say, wake up the reality. You're not gonna find them all. It;s impossible. Concentrate intead on defense.

There's all this blah, blah, blah about going onver there and stopping them when thousands of container enter our ports unchecked.

Did't the 911 terrorists cross from the CANADA border?

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

...as well as my reasons for as much, with documentation to support, read this thread:

Is the war in Iraq creating more terrorists? (http://www.motohouston.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18267)

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

Yeah but so did everyone else that got attacked. We were't the only ones.

All these people talk so much about the "war on terror" as if it was a country. I say, wake up the reality. You're not gonna find them all. It;s impossible. Concentrate intead on defense.

There's all this blah, blah, blah about going onver there and stopping them when thousands of container enter our ports unchecked.

Did't the 911 terrorists cross from the CANADA border?

Here's a quote for you:

The best defense is good offense.

If we just sit back and wait for another attack to happen then it will. To the contrary, if we proactively send Seal Team 6 units over to periodically bust that ass when we get actionable intelligence then we won't have to worry about it because they-the terrorists'- will be preoccupied, to say the least. We sat on our ass in the early '40's and the problem came and thumped us in the butt before we decided "Hey, these fascists and nazi's may be a problem after all". Learn your history and you'll know what what is necessary in the future.

[AliceInChains02]

demoqwats are qwazzzzy:gesture:

[Fuzzy018]

Here's a quote for you:

The best defense is good offense.

If we just sit back and wait for another attack to happen then it will. To the contrary, if we proactively send Seal Team 6 units over to periodically bust that ass when we get actionable intelligence then we won't have to worry about it because they-the terrorists'- will be preoccupied, to say the least. We sat on our ass in the early '40's and the problem came and thumped us in the butt before we decided "Hey, these fascists and nazi's may be a problem after all". Learn your history and you'll know what what is necessary in the future.

I agree with small teams..

The problem is when our dumb*ss president start a full out war.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

One of the reasons I don't mind debating with you. You have substance to back your statments up. I am not familiar with the 80's/cold war. I should have paid more attention in class. :thumb:

Preciate it, yeah man I love history so I was always attentive in that class lol...wish I woulda been as attentive to math. Wouldn't have hated Cal so much...

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I agree with small teams..

The problem is when our dumb*ss president start a full out war.

Yep, THAT I can agree on...t'was rather stupid. Just hope they can fix it and I really, really hope they do not leave before the job is finished. Afghanistan all over again but even bigger...and closer to Syria, Africa and Iran...

[cogs69]

Preciate it, yeah man I love history so I was always attentive in that class lol...wish I woulda been as attentive to math. Wouldn't have hated Cal so much...

haha we are opposites. Math comes very easy to me. :thumb:

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

haha we are opposites. Math comes very easy to me. :thumb:

My kid will be that way. I will focus heavily on his mathematic abilities because I hated math so much. I can do it but I never really had a good teacher so I would have to work harder to understand concepts and operations. My kids will be math geniuses because I don't want the same for him/her. Also goona make their ass focus on history and critical thinking...ain't no dummy's coming outta Sean's house :angry7:

[mathews]

I hope you know the wonderful United Nations has deemed assassination of foreign leaders illegal.

[gixxerbill]

I hope you know the wonderful United Nations has deemed assassination of foreign leaders illegal.

That is why you send crazy rogue agents for the Mission Impossible team that will say they have no knowledge of them if they are either caught or killed. They just get a big fat check when they get back. :nod:

[Cherub]

That is why you send crazy rogue agents for the Mission Impossible team that will say they have no knowledge of them if they are either caught or killed. They just get a big fat check when they get back. :nod:

you watch to many movies there sun

[gixxerbill]

you watch to many movies there sun

Doug tells me that all the time. But you don't think that the cia has never put a hit out on a leader secretly. Come on. Who cares what the UN says anyway. They are wussy commies.

[CaJuNsOuLjA]

I hope you know the wonderful United Nations has deemed assassination of foreign leaders illegal.

Sure as per Reagan's 1981 Executive Order 12333 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html) regarding United States Intelligence Activities, not the UN. What you are referring to is part 2 clause 11 (2.11) whereby it states: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.. What you are probably not aware of is that there was an amendment to this proscription against assassination from 1998 which relaxed the clause disallowing it to be applied to world leaders associated with or otherwise linked to terrorism. The exercise of this proscription can be observed with the attack in Yemen (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew68.php). Besides, we've been trying to kill Castro for years. That EO 12333 can only be pursued/enforced by the President and if it is in his best interests'...he can simply turn a blind eye. So to reiterate, a few bullets and a $10k sniper rifle are a helluva lot cheaper than a war...

[p0opstlnksal0t]

Doug tells me that all the time. But you don't think that the cia has never put a hit out on a leader secretly. Come on. Who cares what the UN says anyway. They are wussy commies.

lol, funny you say that... thanks to the UN we are one of the very few countries left in the world that allow citizens to own firearms. and theyre gunning for the US!

Hilary and Obama would love nothing more than to allow foreign UN soldiers on american soil and disarm our nation... dont think its true, look at both of their track records when it comes to opposing UN bills. hell, McCain the republican front runner is no better!


RON PAUL FTMFW!!!!