Dubya's 50 greatest accomplishments

Oh, the Free Trade one is great.

The USA has done this one several times under different presidents, so the Clinton haters can claim this one too:

So Canada signs NAFTA (against the will of the Canadian people, and under rampant cries of US political force being brought to bear, but that is not the point). This sets a list of what tariffs can and can't be applied to oh, say, softwood lumber, one of Canada's huge exports.

So with the introduction of NAFTA, tariffs are removed from softwood lumber.

Canada proceeds to make lots of money selling softwood lumber to the USA.

The USA lumber industry complains it can't make as much profit any more.

The USA responds by slapping a huge tariff on Canadian softwood lumber.

The World Court in the Hague declares the USA in violation of NAFTA and orders the tariffs removed.

The tariffs are removed, again.

Canada makes lots of money selling softwood lumber to the USA, again.

The USA lumber industry complains it can't make as much profit any more, again.

The USA responds by slapping a huge tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, again.

The World Court in the Hague declares the USA in violation of NAFTA and orders the tariffs removed, again, again.

The USA lumber industry complains it can't make as much profit any more, again, again.

The USA responds by slapping a huge tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, again, again...

At the risk of sounding like a Teletubby program, I'm not gonna post any more agains, although this pattern would go on for some time before reaching the present day...

And you remember how the US banned Canadian beef because of the Mad Cow scare? Turned out that was an American cow. :rolleyes:

Whats the matter with a Teletubby program? :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandwich

HE'S FEARED THROUGHTOUT THE CIVILIZED WORLD :devil:

---

And also in his own country :D :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Inferno, you must understand that the only way to be free is the American Way. That is why they are so eager to teach those in the world how its done. But you know what most pupils are like, unruly, insolent, refuse to learn just because they are told to learn.

---

I can't believe I missed this the first time through! :grin:

I bow down to you NooNoo... :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Inferno, you must understand that the only way to be free is the American Way. That is why they are so eager to teach those in the world how its done. But you know what most pupils are like, unruly, insolent, refuse to learn just because they are told to learn.

---

But why do they need to learn in the first place? Surely freedom is choosing the way you wish to live yourself? Not be dictated to by a more powerful nation and then threatened with invasion if you don't comply.

If communists want to stay communists for example, let them. If people don't want to embrace democracy, that's their choice. Why is the American way the only way to be free?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corturbra

But why do they need to learn in the first place? Surely freedom is choosing the way you wish to live yourself? Not be dictated to by a more powerful nation and then threatened with invasion if you don't comply.

If communists want to stay communists for example, let them. If people don't want to embrace democracy, that's their choice. Why is the American way the only way to be free?

---

It's not about us changing the world governments. It's about changing the governments in the world that really oppress, torture or starve their population. We don’t try to change communists just because we don’t like the form of government, just like we don’t try to change Most of the European countries. But the one’s we have intervened needed the assistance, and we offered them democracy. Does it work well that way…well, no, but we are trying real hard! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

It's not about us changing the world governments. It's about changing the governments in the world that really oppress, torture or starve their population. :)

---

You may wish to rethink that statement, given that the US is solely responsible for Saddam being in power in the first place ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

You may wish to rethink that statement, given that the US is solely responsible for Saddam being in power in the first place ;)

---

No, I think my answer is comprehensive enough...allow me to expound. I said that we are trying real hard to fix things. Sadam was a mistake made by our cold war efforts, just as Osama is. We are now trying to fix that problem...once and for all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inferno_gn

Hi there,

Well, stupid peoples only elected stupid president (someone says that to be once).

Ju Leon...

---

You're Canadian, you don't get a say in my countries politics, shut the f*** up.


[QUOTE=WebHead]I Economy,.. Just look at the facts Tech presented. That makes me NOT want to vote for Bush.

Compassion? Well he wasn't very compassionate towards California when we had issues with electricity a few years ago. Compassion? For who? The rich and wealthy? Well I'm not rich and wealthy so thats not a reason.

Environment? What is he doing for the environment?

[QUOTE]

Economy
Look at what others posted in Techs thread and how the economy is in it's fastsest growth period over the last 6 months ever, how most of the democrat/liberal figures at BS statistics and you read that thread through because obviously you haven’t.

Compassion
Cali. environmental laws prevented development of new power plants and there's not much Bush could have done about the situation anyway. You can't just tell NJ or WV to start crankin' out more juice because Cali. residents voted democrat.

Environment
See Major Kong’s posts about the environment or PM him. Environmental laws are still in place. Sure better fuel economy regulations would be great but considering that many a voter drives a sports car or SUV, it’s not bright politics and I don’t remember the standards being changed back when they needed to be changed while Willy was in office before SUV’s were eating gas so mom could get to the grocery store and every rural guy had an f150 they would drive. It’s a little late now bub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

You may wish to rethink that statement, given that the US is solely responsible for Saddam being in power in the first place ;)

---

We didn't "make" him and we are not responsible for him being in power.

See this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB107/
and particularly this:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

It details how the USA is not a big schoolboy but does not show us supporting him in any amazing way that kept him in power. BTW - his weapons are soviet bought/made.

Ummm US guaranteed his loan money when Iran beat the tar outta his army. US took him off the terrorist list and

Quote:

---

The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side.

---

If you had been truly neutral, Iran would have rolled right over him....but the us was more scared of Iran, so they made Iraq look good. And let's not get into the response to CW that the Reagan adminstration gave

Quote:

---

limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results."

---

while thousands died.

Sorry Saddam would have slipped quietly into ignomy if it wasn't for the US. Your documents merely back up my views, not change them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Ummm US guaranteed his loan money when Iran beat the tar outta his army. US took him off the terrorist list and


If you had been truly neutral, Iran would have rolled right over him....but the us was more scared of Iran, so they made Iraq look good.

Sorry Saddam would have slipped quietly into ignomy if it was for the US.

---

And probably based on intelligence at the time we would be talking about how the current Iotola was funding terrorism and threatining Middle Eastern Peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

courtesy of geoscomp

The long, strange trip its been for George Bush.

Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

__________________

---

Gee, it seems like somebody is doing the ol' Copy & Paste from a highly partisan website.

Isn't that just what you were complaining to me about? But I did notice that you didn't post the looooonnnnggg response to Kerry's flip-flops.

You're just like your candidate...WEAK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

And probably based on intelligence at the time we would be talking about how the current Iotola was funding terrorism and threatining Middle Eastern Peace.

---

Exactly the point. Hindsight being 20/20 it is easy to look back and blame those responsible. But the fact remains, that at the time that the decisions were being made they were believed to be the best approach for protecting both our interests, and the interest of world peace if that were even possible…of course our interest being more important I am sure…let’s not forget that in the cold war Iran wasn’t the enemy, Russia was…so anyone funded by them was guilty by that association…

"Abortions for some...miniature American flags for others!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

It's not about us changing the world governments. It's about changing the governments in the world that really oppress, torture or starve their population. We don’t try to change communists just because we don’t like the form of government, just like we don’t try to change Most of the European countries. But the one’s we have intervened needed the assistance, and we offered them democracy. Does it work well that way…well, no, but we are trying real hard! :)

---

So when can we expect the bombing of China & North Korea to begin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovetheusers

You're Canadian, you don't get a say in my countries politics, shut the f*** up.

---

You're not Iraqi, so why don't you shut the f*** up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

So when can we expect the bombing of China & North Korea to begin?





You're not Iraqi, so why don't you shut the f*** up?

---

Hey...If I had my way...Boom!....J/K

So what's up yo? You haven't been at it with me in a while...I miss you... :butt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Ummm US guaranteed his loan money when Iran beat the tar outta his army. US took him off the terrorist list and


If you had been truly neutral, Iran would have rolled right over him....but the us was more scared of Iran, so they made Iraq look good. And let's not get into the response to CW that the Reagan adminstration gave
while thousands died.

Sorry Saddam would have slipped quietly into ignomy if it wasn't for the US. Your documents merely back up my views, not change them.

---

If I may, I'd like to offer an editorial reply. I don't have any links or data to back me...just my personal observations.

Iran was an enemy of the U.S. since the Carter days when they took over the U.S. Embassy in Teheran and rubbed America's nose in the dirt. And, as they are fond of saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So yes, we may have assisted Iraq (and therefore Saddam) in the beginning of their war with Iran in some way while we were officially neutral. But then we realized that they/he were just as screwed up as the other people.

As for them gassing their own citizens with CW's, again, don't blame the U.S. (Reagan) for that. We had no control over what was happening back then...not like we do now.

Just my two cents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

Ummm US guaranteed his loan money when Iran beat the tar outta his army. US took him off the terrorist list and


If you had been truly neutral, Iran would have rolled right over him....but the us was more scared of Iran, so they made Iraq look good. And let's not get into the response to CW that the Reagan adminstration gave
while thousands died.

Sorry Saddam would have slipped quietly into ignomy if it wasn't for the US. Your documents merely back up my views, not change them.

---

I fail to see how a loan makes the USA wholly culpable for Saddam. Did we sell him the weapons? no, that was someone else. As for the chemical weapons, maybe you didn't read but all precursur chemicals were blocked from sale to him from this country. We did decry his use of chemical weapons only after time but and lets be honest here, if he made them he must have bought the chemicals from someone else. So, it looks like the whole world is responsible for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayward Clam

You're not Iraqi, so why don't you shut the f*** up?

---

Are you Inferno_obgyn?

The US refusal to intervene, plus their active work as making Saddam a world "good guy" was enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilovetheusers

Are you Inferno_obgyn?

---

Is that your best answer to his very relevant question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Is that your best answer to his very relevant question?

---

What relevat question?

You said

Quote:

---

You're Canadian, you don't get a say in my countries politics, shut the f*** up.

---

And Clam said

Quote:

---

You're not Iraqi, so why don't you shut the f*** up?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Is that your best answer to his very relevant question?

---

Dude, stay out of other people's fights. You want to spar, you just need to come lookin' for me. :thumbs:

So are you also saying then that through your little statement, that as a whole, America should have stayed out of Iraq's fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

Cool. I wonder if you can list one single reason why we should re-elect George Bush?

---

....because there are no other republicans to vote for. Don't tell me you're voting democrat.... Jim Kerry...he's a freaking joke. He's lived his entire life riding on the coat tails of his rich wives. He's never earned his own money. Why would you want someone like that running our country. He's a bull**** artist.

I will proudly vote for BUSH in November.

Did you just ****ing say that because you are not a jew, you will be voting for Bush?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WebHead

You guy's really can't think of a reason can you? LOL. I'm just asking for one single reason, and the best anyone can come up with is, "He's not John Kerry." Oooookkkk.

I guess it all makes sense though. I mean, bush didn't need a reason to go to war with Iraq,.. why should his voters need a reason to reelect him? Hell, let's all just git our cowboy boots and cowboy hats on,.. saddle up, and ride on over to Iraq shootin our guns off. Yeeehaaa!! :rolleyes:

---

He's given freedom and hope to the future of Afghanistan and Iraq. He's captured Saddam.

You're not seeing the bigger picture....you need educated.

Your such a liberal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

Did you just ****ing say that because you are not a jew, you will be voting for Bush?

---

No Sir...I was trying to lighten my response. I didn't want it to seem to serious. I didn't really mean anything by it.

Ok, thanks :thumbs2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by opiate

He's given freedom and hope to the future of Afghanistan and Iraq. He's captured Saddam.

You're not seeing the bigger picture....you need educated.

Your such a liberal!

---

Freedom and Hope to Afghanistan? It is still a warlord hell.
Freedom and Hop to Iraq? Jurys still out on that one.
He captured Saddam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by opiate

He's given freedom and hope to the future of Afghanistan and Iraq. He's captured Saddam.

You're not seeing the bigger picture....you need educated.

Your such a liberal!

---

Freedom and Hope to Afghanistan? It is still a warlord hell.
Freedom and Hop to Iraq? Jurys still out on that one.
He captured Saddam?
He didn't capture bin Laden

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Freedom and Hope to Afghanistan? It is still a warlord hell.
Freedom and Hop to Iraq? Jurys still out on that one.
He captured Saddam?

---

THE BIGGER PICTURE!

I said....He's given freedom and hope to the future of Afghanistan and Iraq.

So basically your saying that everything we've done in both of those countries was for nothing and that all the men and women over there fighting and dying....are doing it for no reason and they haven't accomplished anything? Excuse me: Were you alive on 9/11/2001?

I'd like to be standing next to you while you say this to the families of our dead solders. If you live in America you don't deserve to!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

Freedom and Hope to Afghanistan? It is still a warlord hell.
Freedom and Hop to Iraq? Jurys still out on that one.
He captured Saddam?
He didn't capture bin Laden

---

You gotta belive, we will catch bin Laden. Don't say we won't, you can't predict the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by opiate

THE BIGGER PICTURE!

I said....He's given freedom and hope to the <b><i>future</i></b> of Afghanistan and Iraq.

---

OK. The BIGGER PICTURE>
The invasion of Iraq is part of plan put forth a few years ago by some neo-con think tanks. It postulated that a sea change in the Mid East could be brought about if an oil producing country could be made into a western style democracy. They said that such a country would spur change throughout the middle east.
I personally believe this is why Bush invaded Iraq. It is a bold plan. My problems with this is we may have mistaken the interests of the people of Iraq. Undoubtedly they were one of the most secular of all the mid east countries. However, the religious leaders were the ones who were opposed to and oppressed by Saddam. Their goal is now the Caliphate. With large part of the population still believing in the Caliphate I don't know if there will ever be peace and prosperity in Iraq. The success of a secular government seems only to be possible with the support of American troops. I think that if there is one thing we have learned it is that an occupying army will not gain the peoples support over time, in fact the opposite. We may be in for years of terrorist attacks against us both in Iraq and here at home. If we pull out I fear Iraq will become another Iran.
just my opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

OK. The BIGGER PICTURE>
The invasion of Iraq is part of plan put forth a few years ago by some neo-con think tanks. It postulated that a sea change in the Mid East could be brought about if an oil producing country could be made into a western style democracy. They said that such a country would spur change throughout the middle east.
I personally believe this is why Bush invaded Iraq. It is a bold plan. My problems with this is we may have mistaken the interests of the people of Iraq. Undoubtedly they were one of the most secular of all the mid east countries. However, the religious leaders were the ones who were opposed to and oppressed by Saddam. Their goal is now the Caliphate. With large part of the population still believing in the Caliphate I don't know if there will ever be peace and prosperity in Iraq. The success of a secular government seems only to be possible with the support of American troops. I think that if there is one thing we have learned it is that an occupying army will not gain the peoples support over time, in fact the opposite. We may be in for years of terrorist attacks against us both in Iraq and here at home. If we pull out I fear Iraq will become another Iran.
just my opinion

---

Good point....I aggree most of what you are saying, but the master Iraq plan about oil is still something I don't belive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

OK. The BIGGER PICTURE>
The invasion of Iraq is part of plan put forth a few years ago by some neo-con think tanks. It postulated that a sea change in the Mid East could be brought about if an oil producing country could be made into a western style democracy. They said that such a country would spur change throughout the middle east.
I personally believe this is why Bush invaded Iraq. It is a bold plan. My problems with this is we may have mistaken the interests of the people of Iraq. Undoubtedly they were one of the most secular of all the mid east countries. However, the religious leaders were the ones who were opposed to and oppressed by Saddam. Their goal is now the Caliphate. With large part of the population still believing in the Caliphate I don't know if there will ever be peace and prosperity in Iraq. The success of a secular government seems only to be possible with the support of American troops. I think that if there is one thing we have learned it is that an occupying army will not gain the peoples support over time, in fact the opposite. We may be in for years of terrorist attacks against us both in Iraq and here at home. If we pull out I fear Iraq will become another Iran.
just my opinion

---

Note: When you post something like this, it is important to differeniate between what is fact and what is opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

The invasion of Iraq is part of plan put forth a few years ago by some neo-con think tanks. It postulated that a sea change in the Mid East could be brought about if an oil producing country could be made into a western style democracy. They said that such a country would spur change throughout the middle east.

---

This sounds like a fact, lets have some data/links whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

I personally believe this is why Bush invaded Iraq. It is a bold plan. My problems with this is we may have mistaken the interests of the people of Iraq. Undoubtedly they were one of the most secular of all the mid east countries. However, the religious leaders were the ones who were opposed to and oppressed by Saddam. Their goal is now the Caliphate. With large part of the population still believing in the Caliphate I don't know if there will ever be peace and prosperity in Iraq. The success of a secular government seems only to be possible with the support of American troops. I think that if there is one thing we have learned it is that an occupying army will not gain the peoples support over time, in fact the opposite. We may be in for years of terrorist attacks against us both in Iraq and here at home. If we pull out I fear Iraq will become another Iran.
just my opinion

---

This, you state as opinion. Thats fine, you can have an opinion, but please post some kind of facts/data so that we can believe/laugh at what you have to say.

I'm not trying to challenge you, I'm actually trying to understand why you post alot of this stuff and have no basis for it. Maybe if you posted things to back up what you say, I might be inclinded to believe you more. Right now you sound like a guy who watches the skies for the Black Helicopters who are coming to get you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

OK. The BIGGER PICTURE>
The invasion of Iraq is part of plan put forth a few years ago by some neo-con think tanks. It postulated that a sea change in the Mid East could be brought about if an oil producing country could be made into a western style democracy. They said that such a country would spur change throughout the middle east.

---

Where did you pull this one out of? I personally don't believe these are your thoughts. You picked them up somewhere...where? You must be a plant by the Democratic party...LOL.

Any links/data to support your assertions?

We covered this previously. Links were provided.
btw what books on the terrorist situation/current events have you read?
The Bush campaign seems to be based on:
1)Incredibily short memories
2)Innuedo
3)Blind patriotism
4)Shouting down its critics.
I am not saying that their ultimate aims are the same but isn't that what fascist countries do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techs

We covered this previously. Links were provided.
btw what books on the terrorist situation/current events have you read?
The Bush campaign seems to be based on:
1)Incredibily short memories
2)Innuedo
3)Blind patriotism
4)Shouting down its critics.
I am not saying that their ultimate aims are the same but isn't that what fascist countries do?

---

But no links now to provide....hmmm...can't seem to find them.

I must admit that I haven't read a book since reading one of the Dr. Seuss's books to my kids. But that doesn't mean I'm not informed. I have satellite TV, the internet, etc...and I do read the papers. Also, I have been around the world a couple of times and across most of the USA. So, don't start putting on airs towards me...

Define fascist:

Quote:

---

The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems.

---

Who is being persecuted or being denied equality in the U.S.? Are you?