<p>.... thru Iran</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>(must credit this to the Onion)</p>
<p>so who do you guys think is next? </p>
<p>iran?
north korea?</p>
<p>hmmm...Michigan and Wisconsin....:p</p>
<p>ugh... I hate how Bush thinks that he has to be the world's police. He claims that he invaded Iraq to find WMDs, but there have been none found. So why are we still there??? As an Iranian American who has many family members in Iran, I know that there is a lot of political oppression there. But imho, it is not enough to cause an invasion by the US. Iran keeps saying that they have nuclear power plants to create nuclear energy for 'peaceful purposes'. North Korea says that they have nuclear weapons and are thinking about testing them. So Bush says we go to Iran??? I would think the bigger concern would be going to the nation that says that they have the weapons first, even if Iran is lying, but maybe that's just me. Sadly, it's all about oil.</p>
<p>There War in Iraq has very little to do, if at all, with oil. I don't know why the majority of people assume that the United States has control on the oil supply; this is hardly the case! OPEC is the governing body of oil distribution, and they make all of the decisions regardless of the United States wants. If we controlled the oil supply do you really think gas would be $2.00/gallon? I doubt it. </p>
<p>And it's obvious that Iran is conducting nuclear weapons operations. Regular nuclear power does not require enriched plutonium, but the Iranians insist upon going through this process. What is enriched plutonium used for? Nuclear weapons! They have tried to scatter this process throughout the country at different nuclear sites to avoid detection of their intentions to create nuclear weapons. The Iranians will have the capacity to create 8 nuclear bombs a year by 2006 so it is important that we pressure them to stop now so they don't have the capacity to start bombing other countries.</p>
<p>Iran is more important than North Korea because of location location location. Iran is right in the heart of the continent, and they can give their nuclear knowledge to anyone in the surrounding region. Or better yet, they would have a much easier time bombing someone if it came to that. North Korea, however, is isolated on a little peninsula with essentially nobody to turn to except China (which hopefully wouldn't be willing to help).</p>
<p>You say you don't like the job of George W. Bush? Well take this quote from Vice-Presidential canidate John Edwards: *"Iran is further along in developing a nuclear weapon than they were when George Bush came into office... A nuclear Iran is unacceptable for so many reasons, including the possibility that it creates a gateway and the need for other countries in the region to develop nuclear capability -- Saudi Arabia, Egypt, potentially others." *</p>
<p>Does this site really need another flame Bush thread?</p>
<p>Also N. Korea poses a may pose a huge threat to the world. If there was going to be some kind of action, we would have the world behind us.</p>
<p>Except France, because they're cowards (and/or they just like being contrarian with America because it gives them a self-inflicted false sense of importance in a "we're just as important as America" type way).</p>
<p>damn i love france jokes.</p>
<p>Just to set some things straight....The Saudi and the U.S. have very very very close ties and the prince is a very close acquaintence of president Bush's....Eqypt isn't much of a threat to the U.S. either...we have extensive trade agreements with the southern part of the Middle East...aside from Qatar and Yemen..</p>
<p>Finally I am back after being banned from the heated Debate 2. Man is sure feels good to be back as primitivefuture !</p>
<p>"The Saudi and the U.S. have very very very close ties and the prince is a very close acquaintence of president Bush's"</p>
<p>Thats what they appear to be. Actually, the Saudi hates the president just like Chirac or any other country leader. I think they were laughing from the outcome of the 2004 election, but thats just my opinion.</p>
<p>Hmmmm....I know you're wrong :)...not think...know.</p>
<p>Saudis have close economic and political ties with the U.S....they supply over 50% of the U.S.'s petroleum supply...king Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud has been a guest at the White House on numerous occasions...Prince Abdullah offered several millions of dollars to aid New York in reconstruction after 9/11...Governments are very careful with their money</p>
<p>His relation with the President is similar to Bush relation with any other leader. U.S. and Saudi Arabia may have strong economic ties, but that doesnt mean that prince Abd is a personal fan of Bush. Really do you think thats the case?</p>
<p>"king Fahd bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud has been a guest at the White House on numerous occasions"</p>
<p>president Parvez Musharaf was also invited to the White House just a couple of months ago. So whats your point?</p>
<p>"Governments are very careful with their money"</p>
<p>the Prince has LOADS of cash to spend. Countries can aid each other, but that doesnt mean they a close friends. For example, Putin and Bush arent what we call "friends" even though their main goal is peace with each other.</p>
<p>There are probably some polls that prove Saudi disapproval of Bush. I am not bothering to look for one as the issue is apparent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Saudi and the U.S. have very very very close ties and the prince is a very close acquaintence of president Bush's
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i think they are something more than acquaintence...chk out the link :p j/k</p>
<p>Parvaz Musharaf has a military tie with the U.S...you do remember the alliance made between the U.S. and Pakistan correct?...Pakistan agrees to aid the United States in tracking down and prosecuting terrorists.</p>
<p>and i really think you're just another one of those that doesn't really keep up with politics...you assume merely by stereotype :)</p>
<p>Adides.......LOL LOL LOL....that made my day...</p>
<p>Pakistan agrees to aid the United States in tracking down and prosecuting terrorists.</p>
<p>It depends on who these terrorists are. Their main target is Bin Laden and Pakistan has put little effort to track him down. They made agreements but no way are they in an "alliance."</p>
<p>Pakistan and U.S. allies? hah! have you ever seen anti-Bush demonstrations by Pakistani citizens. Also, most Americans view Musharaf as a tyrant.</p>
<p>you obviously don't know about Pakistani government...nor American government...</p>
<p>furthermore.....how much effort has the President put in to finding Bin Ladin since February 2002?...that's right...none at all...he admitted it either last april or april of 2002...:)...and Musharaf has actually pulled Pakistan up out of the water...if you didn't know...which...i know you didn't know....Pakistan's former Prime Minister Nawa Sharif was embezzling government money and jailing those who opposed his rule...he was removed from office by Musharaf...since Musharaf took office, Pakistan has capitalized to a greater extent and the economy/society has progressed technologically. You are another one of "those ppl" who base their political knowledge on sheer assumption and stereotype/the media's perception of the world rather than actual fact.</p>
<p>Oh yeah...there are anti-Bush demonstrations all across the world...there have been numerous ones in western Europe, more prominently London....you don't see those on TV do ya? ;)...they filled trafalgar fountain with red food coloring and rallied for Britain's withdrawal of support from America. To name other nations where anti-Bush protests have been common in the last several years....France, Germany, Belgium, and....the United States :)
If i'm not mistaken....those include our closest allies/even ourselves.
Furthermore...I don't like Bush as a president..he's "bounced the nation's checkbook" to the highest level since the New Deal...his policy plans are horribly unorthodox and risky...he's been able to get even a slight majority's support of his social security bill in neither Congress nor the public...his supply side fiscal policy hasn't worked the way he's wanted it to, and his debt will take decades to eliminate. His theory of preemptive action is the most controversial doctrine in the last 40 years...overall...he'll end up in the "average" or "below average" category when he leaves office.</p>
<p>Yes, well we all know how much the Communist News Network (CNN) tries to portray the world as a bastion of United States animosity. Unfortunately, the media has such a strong grip on the general public that they can force them into believing something they otherwise might not if presented with the complete facts of the situation. I'm certainly not saying Fox News or any other conservative media outlet is immune from this tactic, but it is undeniable that the media is mostly liberal.</p>
<p>media is mostly liberal.</p>
<p>There is no solid evidence that shows that the media is trying to insert any bias at all. CNN may be liberal, but they try to portray news as objectively as possible. I just learned that yesterday when i was studying for the government exam.</p>
<p>Of course I know about pakistani politics and how Musharaf came to power. All that I am saying is that most Americans see him as a tyrant and as a ruthles dictator.</p>
<p>For example, under pakistani law, if a woman is raped then she has to provide 4 male withnesses to have a trial. Does that sound fair to you?</p>
<p>the media IS mostly liberal but you are correct...they usually try to make the news objective...asside from Fox...they like putting a conservative twist on things....ppl like Larry King and James Carville will too....but if you just watch the regular anchors they'll just read whatevers on the cards.
The media has a structural bias...it works as a business....it tries to find the most tantalizing, fascinating, surreal stories it can to get more viewers and higher ratings...whether there be a conservative scandal or a liberal scandal...the media will be all up on it trying to present it in a way that more ppl will watch more of the time.</p>
<p>and law is mostly cultural...chances are if you raped a girl in pakistan, her family would be on you in a second without governmental action.</p>
<p>Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.</p>
<p>Maize and Blue, I am disapointed in you. France is an amazing nation, with a great culture, great history and great present. Do you honestly think the US is more important than any nation on Earth? I hope not. All nations are equal. Accusing any nation of being cowardly is very simplistic. One must always consider the circumstances and the facts before making such a sweeping generalization.</p>