Unless of course, you count Al Qaida among your friends. 
Even Osama is smart enough to tolerate his enemies such as Sadam for
his "greater purpose".
If the enemy of Osama's enemy can be his temporary "friend", why can't
we smarten up, before Osama succeeds in fulfilling his wish to make us
all worship Mohammed.

P.S. I claim no spelling prowess, but I relegate to my self the right
to solesize, steal
your views so fast as they shall appear to be truer views...

Dear Tough Lover, 

Thank you for your question - as always, it is interesting and thought provoking. 

Let me refer to the wording of your question, because I think the
answer lies in yoru wording. You asked: " IF "U" CAN'T "C" "W" AS A
FRIEND THEN "Y" NOT AS THE ENEMY OF YOUR ENEMY?".

- Who are "you" that you're refering to? Let's assume that you are
refering to the political opponents of George W. Bush.

There are various types of opposition to George W. Bush's
administration, or even to his persnality, and not all are the same.
This could range between people who oppose him because they think he's
managing the conflict in less than the best way possible; people who
oppose conflicts of any kind; and people who - like the Islamic
Extremists - ideologically oppose democracy, or other values, which
the US regime (and also the current administration) represent.

You can't put all of these people in the same boat. Most people
belong, according to opinion polls, to the first camp: they oppose to
George W. Bush's policies, but that does not imply that they are one
with his "enemies". In fact, the most fierce opponent of George W.
Bush from this camp, say - Michael Moore - would still support
democratic values and would be closer to Bush's ideas than to Bin
Laden's. Treating your opponents as if they are enemies (for example,
asking them "can you find your way out of a closet without help?" or
accusing them of being supporters of evi regimes or ideologies) is a
bad sign in a democracy - it means that your only strategy to deal
with various claims is to demonise your opponent.

It is a very black-and-white perspective - to think of anyone who
doesn't support a certain policy as a "traitor". Take the European
leaders who opposed the intervention in Iraq for example. Do you
sincerely think that they are "enemies" (or view the US that way) only
because they oppose Bush's policies or views regarding Iraq? In fact,
they still view the US as their closest friend and ally - despite
these disagreements.

So, the answer is, that most people treat him, indeed, as an enemy of the enemy. 

However, that doesn't mean that they should vote for him, support his
policies, or stop criticising him the way Moore et al. do.

The whole idea behind democracy is the free exchange of opinions. It
is rather easy to protect opinions that sound sensible. The big test
of the democratic values comes when one has to protect unpopular
views.

The essence of democracy is the idea that one could criticise the
regime, inspect upon their policies, demand information and not feel
lesser than other citizens.

In addition, naturally, even if you treat Bush as "the enemy of your
enemy", that doesn't imply that you wouldn't think that someone else
could do a better job, or implement better policies, to fight
terrorism.

It all boils down to democratic values, at the end of the day. Maybe
there, you could say "either you're with us or against us", and most
people in the West - perhaps even in the whole world - belong to the
democratic camp, or would like to belong there. Most people in the
world do view violence and dictatorship as a problem, even if they
criticise the policies that Bush chose to fight those.

I hope this answered your question.

I accept your LARNED answer GURU, you are on the verge of qualifying
your views to to be truer views.  That could occur in round tow.  In
the mean time here is a "widows-mite" bonus to show appreciation. 
Watch for my rebuttal.

Dubya has my vote because I see him as the lesser of two weasels.

What's a Dubya Pink?, Girl! you're quich on the draw.

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the
influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days.
My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not
available.

Military:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went
AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any
questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air
National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in
Vietnam.

College:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I began my career in the oil business in Midland,
Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't
find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt
shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a
sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With the help of my father and our friends in the oil
industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected
governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil
companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the
Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced LosAngeles
as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the
tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any
governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida,
and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I
became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter
office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing
cost of *over one billion dollars per week*.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted
the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit
in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies
filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a
12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the
history of the U.S. stock market.

In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans
lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the
richest of any administration in U.S. history. My
"poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron
oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips
by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for
receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

One of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the
largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. History,
Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and
corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S.
Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton
against investigation or prosecution. More time and
money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky
affair than has been spent investigating one of the
biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S.
history and refused to intervene when corruption
involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S.
history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals
to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration
than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the
largest bureaucracy in the history of the United
States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any
President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the
United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights
Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S.
"prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused
to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United
Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S.
election).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press
conferences of any President since the advent of
television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in
any one-year period. After taking off the entire month
of August, I presided over the worst security failure
in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the
World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later
made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the
largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people
worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public
venues (15 million people), shattering the record for
protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an
unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military
occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the
will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S.
citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and
support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops
and their families -- in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our
reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on
our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority
of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest
threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical
Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring
Osama Bin Laden to justice.

During the Iraq War and Occupation thousands of
American troops were injured and killed. I did not
have the time to attend any of the funerals for our
fallen soldiers but I did have the time to attend more
than 43 fund-raising events of the Republican party

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now
in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for
public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider
trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in
secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my
Vice-President, attended regarding public energy
policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for
public review. 

Please consider my experience when voting in 2004.

Daytrader ...

He'd get my vote ...

If I had one.

It's so nice to find an honest politician.

Go on George, tell it as it is.

You forgot:

I freed the people of Afghanistan from Taliban rule and help them set
up free elections.

I rided the Iraqi people of a murderous dictator and am helping them
set up free elections.

I have killed or captured 2/3 of al qaeda. 

I give more money to aids relief than all other countries combined. 

I'm sure I have forgotten a coule but someone can help me out. 

daytrader76, you will have a impressive career as a michael moore wannabe some day.

Rome invaded countries to provide a better government.
The countries did not appreciate the help.
Napoleon invaded countries to provide a better government.
The countries did not appreciate the help.
Hitler invaded countries - believe it or not - to provide a better government.
The countries did not appreciate the help.
Invading forces have always met with Resistance - and the American
people have always cheered the resistance to invaders. No country has
the right to impose a government on the people of another country.
America invaded Afghanistan to provide a better government...
America invaded Iraq to provide a better government...
???...

You'd think that after Viet Nam, the American people would understand
that imposing any government on a country without the popular support
of the people of that country just won't work. There will be
resistance.
Do you think the world may be wondering who America may decide to
"help" next? Could that be why a large number of people outside the US
see George W. Bush as the greatest threat to world peace that exists
today?

I'm proud to be an American, but I'm more than a little ashamed of the
actions of my country right now. I demonstrated against the Viet Nam
"War" in the 60s and 70s and never thought the situation would come up
again in my lifetime...

Please don't cite an invasion of a foreign country - whether you call
it "freeing" the country or "ridding the country of a dictator" - as
an honorable deed.

bcguide-ga

The Writing on the Latrine Walls
By William Rivers Pitt
Monday 09 August 2004

I sat with a photographer from Reuters who had just returned from a
six-month tour of Iraq. He had been tagging along with the Kellogg
Brown & Root operation, subsidiary of Halliburton, and saw everything
there was to see. He went from new military base to new military base,
from the oil work in the north and back to the south, observing how
busy were the contactors for Halliburton.

"I feel like I compromised every one of my principles by even being
over there," he told me after the story had been spun out a bit. His
eyes, which had seen too many things through the lens of his camera,
were haunted.

It was two years ago that talk about invading Iraq began to circulate.
Reasons for the invasion were bandied about - they had weapons of mass
destruction, they had a hand in September 11, they will welcome us as
liberators - but it wasn't until the Project for the New American
Century got dragged into the discussion that an understanding of the
true motives behind all this became apparent.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC for short, is just
another right-wing think tank, really. One cannot swing one's dead cat
by the tail in Washington D.C. without smacking some prehensile gnome,
pained by the sunlight, scuttling back to its right-wing think tank
cubicle. These organizations are all over the place. What makes PNAC
different from all the others?

The membership roll call, for one thing:

* Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, former CEO of Halliburton;
* Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense;
* Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense;
* Elliot Abrams, National Security Council;
* John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security;
* I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top National Security assistant;

Quite a roster.

These people didn't enjoy those fancy titles in 2000, when the PNAC
manifesto 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' (Adobe document) was first
published. Before 2000, they were just a bunch of power players who
had been shoved out of the government in 1993. In the time that passed
between Clinton and those hanging chads, these people got together in
PNAC and laid out a blueprint. 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was the
ultimate result, and it is a doozy of a document. 2000 became 2001,
and the PNAC boys - Cheney and Rumsfeld specifically - suddenly had
the fancy titles and a chance to swing some weight.

'Rebuilding America's Defenses' became the roadmap for foreign policy
decisions made in the White House and the Pentagon; PNAC had the Vice
President's office in one building, and the Defense Secretary's office
in the other. Attacking Iraq was central to that roadmap from the
beginning. When former Counterterrorism Czar Richard Clarke accused
the Bush administration of focusing on Iraq to the detriment of
addressing legitimate threats, he was essentially denouncing them for
using the attacks of September 11 as an excuse to execute the PNAC
blueprint.

Iraq, you see, has been on the PNAC menu for almost ten years.

The goals codified in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' the manifesto,
can be boiled down to a few sentences: The invasion and occupation of
Iraq, for reasons that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. The
building of several permanent military bases in Iraq, the purpose of
which are to telegraph force throughout the region. The takeover by
Western petroleum corporations of Iraq's nationalized oil industry.
The ultimate destabilization and overthrow of a variety of regimes in
the Middle East, friend and foe alike, by military or economic means,
or both.

"Indeed," it is written on page 14 of 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,'
"the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent
role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with
Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
of Saddam Hussein."

Two years after the talk began, the invasion is completed. There are
no weapons of mass destruction, there is no connection to September
11, and the Iraqi people have in no way welcomed us as liberators. The
cosmetic rationales for the attack have fallen by the wayside, and all
that remains are the PNAC goals, some of which have been achieved in
spectacularly profitable fashion.

The stock in trade of Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root is
the construction of permanent military bases. The Reuters reporter I
spoke to had been to several KBR-built permanent American military
bases in his six month tour of Iraq. "That's where the oil industry
money is going," he told me. "Billions of dollars. Not to
infrastructure, not to rebuilding the country, and not to helping the
Iraqi people. It's going to KBR, to build those bases for the
military."

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Halliburton subsidiary
Kellogg Brown & Root has made $11,475,541,371 in Iraq as of July 1. So
that's one PNAC goal checked off the list.

As for the corporate takeover of the Iraqi oil industry, that has
become the prime mission of the American soldiers engaged there.
Kellogg Brown & Root also does a tidy business in the
oil-infrastructure repair market. "The troops aren't hunting
terrorists or building a country," said the Reuters photographer. "All
they do is guard the convoys running north and south. The convoys
north are carrying supplies and empty tankers for the oil fields
around Mosul and Tikrit. The convoys south bring back what they pull
out of the ground up there. That's where all these kids are getting
killed. They get hit with IEDs while guarding these convoys, and all
hell breaks loose."

That last goal, about overthrowing other regimes in the region, hasn't
been as easy to follow through on as the PNAC boys might have hoped.
The Iraqi people are fighting back, and the small-by-comparison force
Rumsfeld said would be enough to do the job can't seem to pacify the
country. Perhaps that is because too many troops are dedicated to
guarding the oil supply lines. More likely, however, it is because of
the sincere belief among the Iraqi people that they have been
conquered - not 'liberated' but conquered - and their conquerors don't
give a tinker's damn whether they live or die.

"The Americans over there have all these terms for people who aren't
Americans," the Reuters photographer said. "The Iraqi people are
called LPs, or 'Local Personnel.' They get killed all the time, but
it's like, 'Some LPs got killed,' so it isn't like real people died.
Iraqi kids run along the convoys, hoping a soldier will throw them
some food or water, and sometimes they get crushed by the trucks.
Nothing stops, those are the orders, so some LPs get killed and the
convoy keeps rolling. The labels make it easier for them to die. The
people are depersonalized. No one cares."

"Everyone is an 'insurgent' over there," the photographer told me.
"That's another label with no meaning. Everyone is against the
Americans. There is a $250,000 bounty on the head of every Westerner
over there, mine too, while I was there. The Americans working the oil
industry over there are the dumbest, most racist jackasses I've ever
seen in my life. That's the American face on this thing, and the Iraqi
people see it."

930 American soldiers have died to achieve goals the PNAC boys gamed
out before they ever came in with this Bush administration. Well over
10,000 Iraqi civilians have likewise died. Over $200 billion has been
spent to do this. Fighting today rages across several sections of
Iraq, and the puppet 'leaders' installed by U.S. forces are about to
drive a final stake into the heart of the liberation rhetoric by
declaring nationwide martial law.

Two enemies of the United States - the nation of Iran and Osama bin
Laden - are thrilled with the outcome to date. Saddam Hussein was an
enemy to both Iran and bin Laden, and he has been removed. The
destabilization and innocent bloodshed bolsters Iran's standing
against the U.S., and sends freshly motivated martyrs into the arms of
Osama.

Yes, the Halliburton contracting in Iraq for military bases and
petroleum production is a cash cow for that company. The bases are
being built. The oil industry has been privatized. The resulting chaos
of the PNAC blueprint, however, has left the entire theater of the war
in complete chaos. The Bush administration has insisted all along that
this invasion was central to their 'War on Terror.' It has, in truth,
become a failed experiment in global corporate hegemony writ large,
foisted upon us by some men named Cheney and Rumsfeld who thought it
would all work out as they had planned it in 2000.

It hasn't, except for the profiteering. For all their white papers,
for all their carefully-laid plans, for all the power and fancy titles
these erstwhile think-tankers managed to gather unto themselves, their
works are now blood-crusted dust. They are clearly not as smart as
they thought they were. The overall 'War on Terror' itself has plenty
of examples of these boys not being too swift on the uptake. Iraq is
only the largest, and costliest, example.

The case of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan is another perfect example. Khan
was a mole, deep undercover within the ranks of al Qaeda, who was
sending vital data on the terror organization from Pakistan to British
and American intelligence. But officials with the Bush administration,
desperate to show the American people they were making headway in the
terror war, barfed up Khan's name to the press while bragging about
recent arrests. Khan's position as a mole within al Qaeda was
summarily annihilated. The guy we had inside was blown.

Pretty smart, yes? "The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or
worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's
Defense publications, in a Reuters article on the blown agent. "You
have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al
Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first
place? It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage,
counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak
and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time
there's a development, is it?"

This would be the second agent we know of who has been blown by the
arrogant stupidity of the Bush administration. The other, of course,
was Valerie Plame. Plame was a 'Non-Official Cover' agent, or NOC, for
the CIA. NOC designates the deepest cover an agent can have. Plame's
deep-cover assignment was to run a network dedicated to tracking any
person, nation or group that might give weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists. Because her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had the
temerity to accuse the Bush administration of lying in the public
prints, the administration blew Plame's cover as a warning to Wilson
and any other whistleblowers who might have thought of coming forward.

The Bush administration blew Khan's cover because they wanted to get a
soundbite out for the election campaign. They blew Plame out of sheer
spite, and out of desperation. The mole we had inside al Qaeda, and an
agent we had tracking the movement of weapons of mass destruction, are
both finished now because the PNAC boys are watching all their plans
go awry, and they don't quite know what to do about it. That makes
them stupid and exceedingly dangerous.

The soldiers over there are hip to the jive at this point. Michael
Hoffman, a Marine corporal in artillery, was part of the original
March invasion. Before Hoffman's unit shipped out, his battery first
sergeant addressed all the enlisted men. "Don't think you're going to
be heroes," said Hoffman's sergeant. "You're not going over there
because of weapons of mass destruction. You're not going there to get
rid of Saddam Hussein, or to make Iraq safe for democracy. You're
going there for one reason and one reason alone: Oil."

The Reuters photographer I spoke to couldn't get any soldiers to talk
about how they felt when surrounded by their fellow soldiers. "They
don't talk in the ranks, or just about anywhere on base," he said.
"You have to go out to the latrine area, to the Port-O-Potties. For
some reason, they talk there. You can read how they really feel - all
the anti-Bush stuff, all the wanting to go home - in the writing on
the shithouse walls."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080904A.shtml

daytrader: Isn't it a crying shame the allies defeated nazi Germany,
Japan and Italy in WWII? Just think of how many lives would have been
saved had the allies not fought. Think how happy the nazi occupied
countries would have been
had we not imposed regime change. By the way, can you find your way
out of a closet without help?
monroe22

Haw!
I wondered how long it would take be the namecalling started.

Daytrader I will refrain from calling you any names, but I hope you
dont read minds.  And I withdraw the reverse vicarious "donderhead
remark" Imade before.
My friend Barry Farber would treasure you as a valuable specimen to be
secured in a museum and studied in the interest of science.  We
sincerely hope we can inocul(H)ate the rest of America before you are
safeguarded.

In your haste to promulgate your laundry list of "W's" flaws you
neglected to note that I did not purport that he was without "sin",
instead my contention was that he be at least treated as the "enemy of
your enemy".  That designation would certainly allow him to be all of
the bad things you congered up about him, yet having him save you from
Bin Laden's wrath.  But knowing you the way I have come to know you in
these words you have uttered, you may have your head burried deep in
sand, and not believe that Bin means what he says.  Fix my spelling
please...got to go...

*my contention was that he be at least treated as the "enemy of
your enemy".*

Is he really, though?

From the Pitt article above:

"Two enemies of the United States - the nation of Iran and Osama bin
Laden - are thrilled with the outcome to date. Saddam Hussein was an
enemy to both Iran and bin Laden, and he has been removed. The
destabilization and innocent bloodshed bolsters Iran's standing
against the U.S., and sends freshly motivated martyrs into the arms of
Osama."

OK Daytrader, since you have started to employ your own reasoning, let
me indulge you as a reward, you may yet be corrigible.

If I read you correctly you are sying that the U.S. would have better
served if we had left Iraq to take out Osama and Iran?  If I was not
biting my toung, here is where I would be calling you names.:) See I
smiled when I said that?

You ought to know that: 1.  Sadam tried and failed to take out Iran in the oast?
You aslo ought to know that as Muslem Brothers it is easier for the
afore mentioned to tolerate an accomodation amoung themselves than
with us Infidels?
You also ought to know that Sadam has more reason to hate us moer than
he hates Iran because of the fresher wounds he nurses because og the
Gulf Incident?

Since you introduced scriptures into this discussion, you ought to
know alsothat it is written that "if one intends to do harm to his
brother, he had better do it so thoroughly, that he fears no reprisal
from his brother.

It is also widely understood that one never wounds a lion then
attempts to go to sleep in the same jungle with that wounded lion
roaming around.  Sadam was that wounded lion.  POTUS Bush #1 was
hamstrung by the UN and the widely praised Coalition which forced him
to leave the job half done by not going to Baghdad to finish off the
wounded lion.  It was inevitible that The wounded Lion Sadam would
find some way subtle or otherwise to reak revenge on us.  It is
written.

Osama was not a strategic enemy because he could not have taken out
neighter Sadam nor Iran, and in any case his number one target was us
then Saudi Arabia.

Your other point about the way it is turning out, is engendered from
your not thinking for yourself or your not being exposed to enough
balanced news.  It is my understanding that this effort is further
along that similar situations in the aftermath of WW2 ala Germany
etal.  Do you not recall that the dishonest media was calling this war
a quagmire even when our valiant men were blazing a trail across the
Iraqi Desert at record pace? This was a good start Trader, you should
do some more critical thinking for your self.  Use the articles as raw
material, to come up with your own conclusions...:)Hit me again I am
still wiggling, my friend Barry would say...

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/bush-large.jpg
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1229
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6186837&pageid=rs.Politics&pageregion=single1&rnd=1089501180078&has-player=false


And I don't think the Bible supports the invasion of Iraq.

Exodus 23:2
"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. ... do not pervert justice by
siding with the crowd.

1 Corinthians 2:6
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not
the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to
nothing.

2 Corinthians 10:4
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.

Ecclesiastes 9:18
Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good. 

Romans 15:33
The God of peace be with you all. Amen.

Dear Dear BCguide, you actually confess that you were responsible for
the death of more that two million inocent people? Do you sleep at
nights knowing that your demonstran forced us to leave those poor
children and women to be slaughtered.  Tell me BC, if you were a real
peace maker would you not have gone to demonstrate against Polpot to
atop the slaughter? but instead like a pharsee you demonstrated where
it was safe and where the camera could show the world how peacefullyou
were.  Shame shame shame.

Re your notion of why we went into Iraq: I wonder why we have to be
spoon-fed.  even without being told by the president I understand that
we went into irq for multiple reasons.  Reason #1 a fear that Sadam is
dead set on repaying us for Gulf 1, #2 if he cant do it himself he is
going to sneak something to one of our other enemies to do it for him
#3 he is in a startegic position for us to be to take out the other
members of the axis of evil. # 4 and this was anafter thought but it
is a good outcome to stop the butcher and there may be more reasons
that we dont know about, but if these are for national security
purposes we should accept it.  Any government DEM, or GOP must not be
micromanaged.  We voted them in and we should allow some leeway for
some mistakes and even some intentional mal practice in a time of war.
 We will take them to task later when we returm home.  Grandma Moses
used to say: wait until you get home"  Incidentally, noboddy seems to
remember, but this war is Gores V.P.'s war.  While we were still in
Afghan, Liberman was pounding on "W"'s door to rush into Iraq.  Check
the records, and you will see...

Tough Lover - hank you for the rating and the tip!

Hmmmm

Do I really have to look at Toughlover's rebuttal?

But, to take a cue from Politicalguru ...

No Hank You!

Many Hanks!

Oh no, One Tom is more than enough.

Re: Do I really have to look at Toughlover's rebuttal?

Don't worry Probono, I promise to be sequacious, not loquacious.
and there nothing compulsory about this forum.  And here I was
exempting you from BOOKBURNERS:)

My Guru, with absolute reverence for your formidable wisdom, I venture
to confute only the parts of your argument that seems feable, yet I
hasten to commend the other parts which I find enlightening and
scholarly.
Inthe interest of managability I shall treat one stanza at a time.

YOUR ARGUMENT: There are various types of opposition to George W. Bush's
administration, or even to his persnality, and not all are the same.
This could range between people who oppose him because they think he's
managing the conflict in less than the best way possible; people who
oppose conflicts of any kind; and people who - like the Islamic
Extremists - ideologically oppose democracy, or other values, which
the US regime (and also the current administration) represent.

MY RESPONSE: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH YOUR OBSERVATION, AS YOU
POINTED OUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT GIVES US THE RIGHT TO BE SENSIBLE OR
STUPID IN OUR UTTERANCES.  IT WOULD BE BELOW YOUR WISDOM TO IGNORE THE
COURTS CURTAILMENT OF THIS AMENDMENT AS IT RELATES TO SHOUTING FIRE IN
A CROWDED THEATRE OR IN THIS CASE ADING AND ABBETING THE ENEMY IN A
TIME OF WAR, AND COMMITTING SEDITION.
IT IS INCONGRUENT WITH YOUR WISDOM TO TROW UP YOUR HANDS AND ALLOW THE
CONSTITUTION TO BE USED AS A SUICIDE PACT.  THIS IS A KIND OF WAR THAT
WE HAVE NEVER FACED BEFORE.  THE ULTIMATE WEPON HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE
FORM OF A SUICIDE BOMBER, OR A SUICIDE BUBONIC PLAGE KILLER.  THIS IS
THE KIND OF WAR, IF ANY WHERE THE POTUS SHOULD HAVE CLOSED THE BORDERS
AND DECLARED MARSHALL LAW AND ISOLATE SUSPECTED CHARACTERS AS ANOTHER
POTUS DID DURING WWII.  THIS IS A KIND OF WAR WHERE THE ENEMY CAN BE
LIVING NEXT DOOR WITH THE PLAGE WAITING TO DO US IN.  THIS IS THE ERRA
OF THE ASEMETRIC WARRIOR.

IF SOME THINK THAT POUS BUSH IS NOT PERFORMING, THEN OF CORSE THE
CONSTITUTION CERTAINLY GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO VOTE THE PUBLISHER OF
SCREW MAGAZINE IF THEY CHOOSE.  MY QUESTION IS ALSO WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTION.  I JUST ASK THE OTHER HALF OF AMERICA TO CONTEMPLATE WHY
THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION WAS NOT ON THE ENEMY'S LIST OF TARGETS TO
ATTACT.  I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT IF AL QAIDA COULD, THEY WOULD VEOT
FOR US DEMS. I AM ONLY ASKING MY FELLOW DEMs TO COGITATE THE WISDOM OR
LACK THEREOF OF MID OCEAN CHANGE FOR A CANDIDATE WHO THE ENEMY WOULD
DDIE FOR...

STANZA 2 NEXT...HOW ARE YOU HOLDING UP PROBONO?

"THIS IS THE KIND OF WAR, IF ANY WHERE THE POTUS SHOULD HAVE CLOSED THE BORDERS
AND DECLARED MARSHALL LAW" 

Are you really helping your Republican cause with statements such as these?

Are you a donkey in an elephant suit?

BCguide, being the peace lover that you say you are, I wonder what it
is that you would have done facing the same situation as GWB after
9/11?

To equate our invasion of Afghanistan (to pursue al qaeda and bin
laden after they attacked us) and our invasion of Iraq (to prevent the
spread of WMD and end the regime of a dictator who harbored al qaeda)
to hitler is ludicris. Hitler didn't invade countries to free them
from tyranny and install a democratic government that they can run on
their own. He wanted to kill non-aryans, and take their resources to
further his goal european domination. We, on the other hand are trying
to free oppressed people, help them set up their OWN government, and
then let them be. It is pure ignorance, and indoctrination by the
liberal media that leads people to believe that GWB is hell bent on
ruling the region or that he started this war for anything other than
the protection of the American public.  And again, if you would check
out another source besides ABC "news" or the NY times you would find
that the vast majority of Iraqis are happy to have saddam gone and the
Americans there.  I have spoken with several soldiers who have
returned from various cities in Iraq and they say that almost everyone
they encounter is happy to have them there.

Isn't it funny how the anti-war crowd will gather by the thousands and
speak out when a war to rid a country of a murderous dictator starts,
but they say nothing while that same dictator kills his own people. If
they are so concerned with preventing death why aren't they speaking
out against the dictator instead of the man who wants to rid the world
of this murderer?

Except for ending slavery, fascism, communism, and nazism war has
never solved anything.  Yes BCguide, this "invasion" to rid Iraq of
tyranny is and honorable deed.

Dear Daytrader, again you have lapsed back into loquation rather than sequation.
It helps no one but yourself to refute an argument.  Any idiot can
refute, but it takes wisdom to confute. And try to use your own logic
rather than the redy-made canned articles that you like to fall back
on.  In one of the articles you present, the arthur comments that "the
Iraq war is not a fun war"; is that what you would have said?  Fun
war?  It may be news to you, that most people who countenance war, do
so not because we find it FUN, but because we understand that Bullies
do not go away, if we turn and walk away. Do you believe the little
German would have left us alone if we had allowed him to conquer the
rest of the world?  You like to employ the Bible.  Did God walk away
from satan when he started the first war in heaven?
By the way, the reason I minimise the use of the Bible to support my
argiments, is the following: unless one branches off into a
full-fledged Bible-Class to correctly interprit the Bible, each person
can find a part of scripture to support his argument.  For example you
quuoted "blessed are the peace-makers" but I could also Quote you "I
come not to bring peace, but a sword" Math. 10:34

First of all, I'm talking about Iraq.  You're talking about another
war sixty years ago.  Iraq has nothing to do with World War II.

"You like to employ the Bible.  Did God walk away
from satan when he started the first war in heaven?"

Is GWB God?

"each person can find a part of scripture to support his argument. 
For example you quuoted "blessed are the peace-makers" but I could
also Quote you "I
come not to bring peace, but a sword" Math. 10:34"

I was waiting for you to bring that one up.  Jesus was speaking of the
future wars and violence that would happen in his name.  It is a
complete misrepresentation of Christianity to use that quote to
justify violence.  Jesus was a pacifist.

The argument "anyone can support any action with the Bible" is
entirely false.  That's moral relativism, and it is everything that
the Bible is *not* about.

DayTrader, I have news for you, I am a black, poor, registered
Democrat who does not allow loyalty to trump honesty. The cause I am
trying to foster is not republican,it is the concept of the lesser of
two evils.  If my idol the real JFK were here today, he would be
espousing the same approach that you now refer to as republican cause.
Was the Nam war a GOP cause? Was the internment of the Japaneese a GOP
cause. Was first across the board tax-cut by JFK a GOP cause? Was
going to the moon, a Republican cause? I myself do not consider these
to be negative, but I am sure you would if you thought that they were
Republican acts. You would have to stifle your conscience not
acknowledge that the real Democratic party died with JFK. If you are
the typical dishonest soul AKA LIB, then you will check to see if
anyone saw you stumble over these facts, then you will brush yourself
off and proceed as if nothing happened.

"The cause I amtrying to foster is not republican,it is the concept of
the lesser of two evils."

which is, in your eyes, Republican.  You began this thread as
political propaganda for a Republican candidate.

"If you are the typical dishonest soul AKA LIB"

aka anyone who disagrees with you, right?

Daytrader you fail to qualify as a worthy oponent for the following reasons:

1. You seem to be incapable of indulging yourself in even the shortest
bouts of reasoning.  You disagree without reasoning.  It is written
that even reasonable men disagree, and my corollary to that is "but
fanatics dissagree without reasoning.  Please review the entire
discussion and you will see that you have not produced a single
paragraph of your own.  You have depended entirely on what other
people have said, even the idiot that said "the Iraq war is not a fun
war". Iam sure that even you would have hesitated to imply that some
wars are fun, if you had been thinking for yourself, rather than
regurgitating other people's bile.
 
Eample # 2. You responded: The argument "anyone can support any action
with the Bible" is entirely false.  That's moral relativism, and it is
everything that
the Bible is *not* about.

Again as any donkey, could, you say that my argument is false, but you
neglected to present the evidence to support your contention
(dissagreeing without reasoning) "fanatic" at bent childish. When I
was still 5 years of age I would say to my brother "I am faster than
you and he would say, you're not, then I  would say, I am too... and
could go on for days...

Example #3  to prove my assertion that you are incapable of reasoning
or dishonest:  I said because of the nature of this war, the POTUS
Should of      closed the border and declared Marshall Law and you
replied: Are you really helping your Republican cause with statements
such as these?
then I related to you all the things that I consider similar but good
that we DEMS did, that you would now consider bad if this POTUS had
done them and you completely brushed off those facts and instead
accused me of calling people who dissagree with me dishonest.
Well unlike you I will not just deny it I will show why it is not so.  
Did I not accept Political Guru's answer despite his dissagreeing with
my argument?  Now are you not going to hang hour head in shame, or
will you pick yourself up , dust yourself off and pretend that nothing
happened as Sir winston pridicted you and all LIBS would do?

"you have not produced a single paragraph of your own."

Psalm 119:66
Teach me knowledge and good judgment, for I believe in your commands. 

Proverbs 20:3
It is to a man's honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel. 

2 Timothy 2:24
And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to
everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

James 4:1
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your
desires that battle within you?

Psalm 2:10
Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. 

Exodus 20:13
"You shall not murder. 
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Exodus 20:15
"You shall not steal. 

Pentagon audit faults Halliburton
The New York Times
August 12, 2004
http://www.indystar.com/articles/3/169620-8533-010.html
WASHINGTON -- An internal Pentagon audit has found Halliburton Co.
failed to adequately account for some of the $4.2 billion it has
received for providing logistical support to troops in Iraq and
Kuwait.

If the accounting of Kellogg Brown & Root, the Halliburton subsidiary
working in Iraq, is not corrected, hundreds of millions of dollars in
payments may be withheld, the Pentagon said.

The audit, completed Aug. 4 and first reported in The Wall Street
Journal on Wednesday, found KBR's accounting inadequate in nearly
every way in dealing with the costs of providing food, shelter and
other support for troops in the single biggest project under contract
in Iraq. The audit is not released.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the audit was being used
politically. Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton's chief
executive from 1995 until 2000.

Tolerating someone does not constitute being a friend.
And thank God, we have a president currently, who is dedicated to
putting an end to terrorism once and for all. The U.N is a big
useless-chatter organization. I like it best how ol' Goerge W. said
it,  "The United States of America will never seek a permission slip
to do what needs to be done as far as defending our nation".
Any one who hates America, and wants to attempt or does attempt to
hurt America, is the enemy, and needs to be put in prison for life.
America is one nation under God,  founded by Christians.  If anyone
does not believe in God, they need to leave America <><
http://www.christianamerica.com/foundingfathers/roger_sher.htm
Many people try to create false websites that state America was not
founded by Christians, But anyone can lie on a website, America's
founding fathers were indeed Christians, and the constitution was
written based on Christian morals, but over time, its been twisted
many times, to accomidate evil notions, sadly.
<><

answersguy, obviously I disagree about our current president, but I
agree with you about the founding fathers.  I am grateful for this
free and open debate, and I wish you the best.


Luke 23:2
And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man
subverting our nation...

Matthew 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword.

Matthew 5:19
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches
others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great
in the kingdom of heaven.

Day Trader, you are hopeless.  I pointed out that you hardly have a
thought of your own and you intimated "I dont have a thought of my
own? Well watch this, and then you gushed right bact in with the
articles and the Bible quotes, I myself wiould not call you a name,
but I would sure as hell wish somebody would. Isn't it you and your
ilk who puts down GW for his religon incidentally?  I told you before
that the scriptures are a whole other debate unto itself, that would
have to be trashed out seperately before we can wisely employ it in
any intelegent debate. For instance some of us understand that when
Jesus said it was finished while he was still on the cross, he was
referring to the first dispensation that stated with Adam and ended
the minute that He christ gave up the Ghost.  Along with the
dispensation were the laws and profits, and "works" including the ten
commandments.  It is written "not one jot or title shall fall to the
ground until all is fulfilled".  And all of that dispensation was
fulfilled when Christ died.  If any idiot says that all was not
fulfilled, then that idiot would have to explain how Jesus would have
been able to give the NEW COMMANDMENT if the old was still in force.
So you see Mr. Trader, some of us would not agree that any of those
old testiment quotes are binding anymore, especially when Revilations
tells us that in these last days, there SHALL be WARS and rumors of
WARS.  Now if the Bible says wars SHALL be, who the hell are we to say
it ain't so.  We are the wiser to be sure that we are not the ones on
the loosing side than to fight against God's prophesy.  God's will,
will be done.

"how Jesus would have been able to give the NEW COMMANDMENT if the old
was still in force?"

Jesus brought a new covenant, but it is the same morality.

John 13:34
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so
you must love one another.

Leviticus 19:18
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but
love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 19:17
"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only
One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Mark 10:19
You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do
not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your
father and mother.'

John 14:15
If you love me, you will obey what I command. 

John 14:21
Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He
who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and
show myself to him.

Acts 5:29
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!"

This is interesting discussion, here is interesting question:
Who is whom terrorist? 

http://www.nomorebush.premiumfinder.com/who-is-whom-terrorist.php

One side's "freedom fighter" is another side's terrorist.  The United
States was founded by terrorists, as least from the perspective of the
powers who ruled England during the 18th century.

"Any one who hates America, and wants to attempt or does attempt to
hurt America, is the enemy, and needs to be put in prison for life.
America is one nation under God,  founded by Christians.  If anyone
does not believe in God, they need to leave America " 
                                                      -answersguy-ga

what happened to freedom of speech? the belief followed by you is, not
only bizarre, but als false read this

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

also what you say about non christians leaving America (US?) also goes
against part of amendment #1 freedom of religion

also what happened to "seperation of church and state"?