Sound familiar ? ? ?

I personaly think Bush made a mistake by not listing and re-listing all the reasons for being in Iraq. He should have made each individual reason crystal clear. Public speach is one of his weak points. The fact that Iraq continued to shoot at our plains in the no fly zone should have been mentioned as one of the reasons. Remember that we did not go to war with Iraq in 2002 we pulled a cease fire and have been at war since what 92.

Liberation
Contiuned hostility by Iraq
WMDs
Funding Terrorists

All should have been mentioned but Bush was confident we would find WMDs and only used that as justification. That was a mistake.

 

Bush was unable to do this because he and his administration were making up the reasons as we went along. The whole linking of Iraq to the "War on Terror" is nothing but a sham.

 

Was SH paying familys of suicide bombers?

 

No, MP is a fellow poster here at this message board. If Rush were to register and post here, he would no longer be fair game.

 

MPs argument for being allowed to call Rush names was that he is a public figure. What makes Rush a public figure is that he puts his ideas on a public media. By that rule MP is putting ideas on a public media and is a public figure by his own rules.

 

SO what you are saying is I can call peoples mom names if their moms are not regitered here.

 

How many suicide bombers have we experienced in the U.S.?

 

None of the names that have been called have risen to the level of libel. We are talking about simple name calling.

 

Why does it matter where they blow people up. Is it not terrorisem if it is Jewish people?

Is it only terrorism if Americans are blown up? I guess that is where our difference of opinion is.

 

Why would you want to do that?

If the mom is a public figure and if you are insulting the public figure and not the son or daughter, I guess you could.

All in all, I don't like name-calling as it does not contribute to a civil discussion.

 

I'm sure that Saddam (and our "allies" the Saudis) were wrong to reward the families of suicide bombers. I do not think it was appropriate to kill thousands of American troops in an effort to punish one of these people.

But that is what Bush did.

Excessive pride often has consequences. Only in Bush's case, thousands of American families are bearing the consequences of arrogance. He will retire, with nothing more than the disdain of the American people to pay for it.

And he's already said he doesn't care what we think.

 

I never said this, and you know it; quit telling lies!

It is not America's responsibility to police every country concerning terrorism. Israel is capable of taking care of their own problems.

 

How'd I get in this discussion?

Carryovers?

 

We are posting on a public forum making our opinions public. Making us public figures, in a limited way but still public.

 

Where do you get the rule that we can call public figures names?

 

I told no lies. I asked a question based on this responce posted by you.

As to being the police of countrys. I disagree, I think we have a responsability to try to make this world a better place. If you seen your neighbor being beaten up you would help. You can not stop every bully but when you can help you should.

 

Why wouldn't Pinochet and his evil sound familiar - unless you have been hiding your head in the sand about the evil dictators in this world. In which case, you have probably forgotten about not only "los desaparecidos", but also the hundreds of thousands that Saddam had killed . . .

Hmmm....