Bad-Bye, Bad-Riddance, and Fair Poorly. Its finally over.

[morganlefay]

ahh...now I get it

thanks for simplifing it JPnyc

MLF

[fourdc]

When George HW Bush (dad) finished the Desert Storm short of taking Saddam out I was heavily critical against him. He later explained that he felt a "leashed" Saddam was better than the vacuum that would be created by taking him out.

Looking back, my criticism of the first President Bush was wrong as we now have seen what toppling Saddam has wrought.

The current President Bush is a failure. I do not believe the man is evil, however some of his advisers are.

How much will Cheney get from Halliburton for a sign on bonus after his term of VP runs out?

I just find it ironic that these war drum beating neo cons never served in active duty military even though there was a conflict during their "watch". As Cheney said "I had other priorities". If it's such a noble cause why aren't Barbara and Jenna enlisting? War's ok if it's other people dieing?

The scariest thought for me is who the hell is fit for office in the 2008 election.

[alakhiyar]

I am glad he is gone and think the way it was done was fine. MHO about the Saddam issue.

As for the "other" things, they are all small parts to the larger picture I believe. The Iran / Iraq war.... really was the US / Soviet war. We pumped everything to Iraq, the Soviets pumped everything to Iran. It was a "wargame" between the 2 superpowers IMO. I think we are still playing it though.... look who is still pumping money and technology to Iran and other "rogue" nations (N Korea)... the former Soviet Union. They are broke and are looking at aligning themselves with people to help them defeat us (US). Remember the saying "...the enemy of my enemy is my friend..." the Soviets are using this.

What most tree hugging peacenics don't realize is that if Iran or any rogue nation actually gets nuclear power and the ability to deliver it "across the pond", all bets are off and the world will become a very different place. Then, when we do finally go nuclear (and we will I believe), things will change virtually overnight. The Soviets and the US always had a very good deterrent for nuclear war.... MAD or "Mutually Assured Destruction" which basically is the end of the world as we know it. The Middle East wants the end of the world to complete the predictions of their so called "religion".

I believe that we took Iraq and Saddam out for a much larger reason that WMD and his attrocities. It is for the larger part of the overall puzzle of how to keep things from escalating out of hand.

As for Bush, I really liked him in the beginning, but the last 2 years I have not. His vision has gone away and he seems to be "coasting" and leaning away rom his roots. That is why the Dems won so many seats recently. I will not vote for the Hildabeast though no matter what... or Obama. No matter how much I dislike Bush recently, I believe he did a good job with what was handed to him as unemployment is waaaaay down, the tax breaks were nice, stock market is at record levels, and the economy is growing. This isn't just helping the rich, I am middle (and I do mean middle) class but my 401k has really benefited from the last 2 years of the Bush economy.

[Terr]

As for the "other" things, they are all small parts to the larger picture I believe. The Iran / Iraq war.... really was the US / Soviet war. We pumped everything to Iraq, the Soviets pumped everything to Iran. It was a "wargame" between the 2 superpowers IMO. I think we are still playing it though....

Not really. We're playing the USSR's role for Afghanistan, rather than our role in Iraq after the Shah was deposed. (Before the Shah was deposed, the Ford administration was trying to send nuclear tech to Iran.)

What most tree hugging peacenics don't realize is that if Iran or any rogue nation actually gets nuclear power and the ability to deliver it "across the pond", all bets are off and the world will become a very different place.

Well of course the world will be very different: Very big IF clauses deserve very big THEN's. But you also forgot one other component: The will to do so. (Did you know we're giving India nuclear tech even though they're not part of the Nonproliferation treaty?)

The Middle East wants the end of the world to complete the predictions of their so called "religion".

Can you clarify about this? The only people I'm aware of who have anything like a modern-day glorious doomsday scenario about their religion are the Christian fundamentalist folks who believe in the Rapture coming etc.

[nihil]

Both Christianity and Islam believe in the end of the World, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, and this is mainstream, not fringe sect belief.

Neither believe that this will be a man made event, it will be ordained by God.

[cgkanchi]

(Did you know we're giving India nuclear tech even though they're not part of the Nonproliferation treaty?)

Ummm..., no you're not. What you are giving us is nuclear fuel for our power generators. And I hardly think that India can be compared with Iran or North Korea or any other "rogue" nation, since India has a long history of exercising restraint with both our conventional and nuclear capabilities. We could have kicked the ass of our neighbouring countries many times over (well, except China, they'd kick our ass), but despite repeated provocation, we never did.

Oh, and we don't need nuclear technology, we already have it.

Cheers,
cgkanchi

[JPnyc]

India is predominately Hindu with Sikh and Muslim minorities, so it's not likely that they're a threat like the current outlaw fanatic-muslim based nations. Besides as cgkanchi said, India has had nukes for a while now.

[alakhiyar]

Not really. We're playing the USSR's role for Afghanistan, rather than our role in Iraq after the Shah was deposed. (Before the Shah was deposed, the Ford administration was trying to send nuclear tech to Iran.)

If you think that the USSR is not involved currently with Iran, you should look closer. The Iranian insurgents that we are catching in Iraq have Soviet hardware, and new hardware, not "surplus"

Well of course the world will be very different: Very big IF clauses deserve very big THEN's. But you also forgot one other component: The will to do so. (Did you know we're giving India nuclear tech even though they're not part of the Nonproliferation treaty?)

I believe that this is not "IF" but "WHEN" since the "will to do so" is there. When the Iran leader states "...Isreal should be wiped off the map...", I think the will is there.... JMHO.

Can you clarify about this? The only people I'm aware of who have anything like a modern-day glorious doomsday scenario about their religion are the Christian fundamentalist folks who believe in the Rapture coming etc.

I am no expert on Islamic religion, but the radicalist movement wants to "cleans" the world of the evil westerners and will stop at nothing to do so. They are not afraid of "Mutual Destruction" as they believe that when they die in a "Jihad", they will meet the virgins on the other side. To them, mutual destruction is part of the equation, not something feared as it was by the former Soviet Union.

At least that is the way I understand it. But I am far from an expert...

[Terr]

Ummm..., no you're not. What you are giving us is nuclear fuel for our power generators.

Under the deal, energy-hungry India will get access to US civil nuclear technology and fuel, in return for opening its civilian nuclear facilities to inspection.

And I hardly think that India can be compared with Iran or North Korea or any other "rogue" nation

I just get antsy when the US appears to be playing favorites between two nuclear-armed nations that have not historically been on the best of terms. (If only there was no Kashmir...)

[wh0rd]

He's not dead, he's probably in a tropical island surfing the internet on his laptop and reading our comments and laughing away.