They had the Best American, now WHO would be the Worst? (1 Viewer)

[Billo_Really]

We've had the Best American, now WHO would be the Worst?

1. Timothy McVie.
2. Lee Harvey Oswald.
3. Sirhan Sirhan (he's in this country so long he has got to be one by now)
4. Charles Manson.
5. Charles Keating.
5. The Rosenburgs
6. Mayor Daly
7. Bill O' Reilly
8. Gerry Falwell
9. David Hasslehoff.
10. John Wilkes Booth

 

[Stherngntlmn]

 

[Billo_Really]

I did like Kennedy's 3-strikes comment to Rumsfeld. That got his attention!

 

[Schweddy]

Stherngntlmn, I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Excellent choices.

 

[loverofpeace]

I think we need a longer list. One that includes Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney or Ashcroft or Gonzales or Ann Coulter or Robert Byrd. Or Ted Bundy. John Wayne Gacy. Wesley Alan Dodd. Oliver North. BTK. William Calley and the others who were responsible for the My Lai massacre. Or how about any of the other murderers or hate group leaders? Or Nixon or the CEO of Enron, not to mention the heads of the other corporations engaging in immoral actions. Or all of them.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

I think we need a longer list. One that includes Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney or Ashcroft or Gonzales or Ann Coulter or Robert Byrd. Or Ted Bundy. John Wayne Gacy. Wesley Alan Dodd. Oliver North. BTK. William Calley and the others who were responsible for the My Lai massacre. Or how about any of the other murderers or hate group leaders? Or Nixon or the CEO of Enron, not to mention the heads of the other corporations engaging in immoral actions. Or all of them.

why not add in the entire hippie movement from 1965-present...?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Some of the hippies, but you have to keep in mind that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a bad person.

I'm just saying that I think the entire hippie(make love, not war) movement can be held indirectly responsible for the deaths of more people than any of those serial killers murdered.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

I disagree, but please, go on, how did a bunch of pacifists lead to more deaths than a bunch of serial killers?

Well, firstly by prolonging the vietnam war by destroying troop morale and showing the NVA that we were a divided country without enough resolve to stay the course when the war dragged out longer than expected. It is my firm belief that the NVA would have surrendered much earlier, sparing the deaths of thousands of soldiers.


http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040406-032203-3282r.htm

"Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army, received South Vietnam's unconditional surrender on April 30, 1975. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal after his retirement, he made clear the anti-war movement in the United States, which led to the collapse of political will in Washington, was "essential to our strategy."

Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses."

America lost the war, concluded Bui Tin, "because of its democracy. Through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

General Giap, Leader of the NVA, has been quoted as saying similar things and thinking the anti-war movement, however I can't seem to find the source for them right now.


Not to mention the war in Iraq... we have to have nice sensitive soldiers that can't use all their weapons to the best of their abilities because we have to *****foot around the liberals who are afraid the US might look bad if are marines went through the country at full steam.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Not to mention the war in Iraq... we have to have nice sensitive soldiers that can't use all their weapons to the best of their abilities because we have to *****foot around the liberals who are afraid the US might look bad if are marines went through the country at full steam.

Ah, yes, because if non-government groups kill innocent people it's slaughter, but when governments slaughter innocent people it's OK. :roll:

 

[Stherngntlmn]

So yeah, it's obviously the hippies's fault, not the ones declaring unneccisary wars. I think if your gonna add war deaths into this, you just condemned Nixon, Johnson, and Bush, not the hippies.

Just because you believe they were unnecessary doesn't make you right, and does not excuse the fact that the anti-war movement prolonged the very wars they fought against, and caused thousands more good american soldiers to die.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Just because you believe they were unnecessary doesn't make you right, and does not excuse the fact that the anti-war movement prolonged the very wars they fought against, and caused thousands more good american soldiers to die.

So we should all sit back and let our leaders do whatever they like in our names? Really?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Nope, just realize that other than voting... Visciously fighting the popularly elected elected majority on current event topics you are against only prolongs the very issues that **** you off, in which case, you yourself become part of the very problem you care so deeply about.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

So what your saying is that the deaths of these soldiers is the fault of Americans expressing their opinion that the war should be over and the soldiers should be taken home, and not the fault of those who sent them there in the first place, and had the power to take them home, yet didn't?

So if the popularly elected leaders who the majority of the public elected hadn't sent soldiers, when the vast majority of the country obviously was telling them to... would they actually be doing the representative job they were elected to do?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

So then wouldn't you hold the majority accountable, as opposed to the minority who didn't want our boys to go to war in the first place?

no.. because a job needed to be done, the majority understood that and tried their best to get it done. The minority made the sacrifice necessary to do the job twice as bad as it had to be.

 

[Melchior]

Franklin D. Roosevelt is by far the worst president in American history, that man was a traitor! No better than Stalin...

 

[Naughty Nurse]

So if the popularly elected leaders who the majority of the public elected hadn't sent soldiers, when the vast majority of the country obviously was telling them to... would they actually be doing the representative job they were elected to do?

So please produce the quotes, properly sourced of course, to support the idea that both GWB and Phoney Blair said, prior to elections, if you vot for me I will invade Iraq.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 23-26, 2004. N=969 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

4/27-30/03 Approve-%75 Disapprove-%22 NoOpinion-%2

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

4/27-30/03 Worth Fighting-%70 Not Worth Fighting-27 No Opinion-4



At the time we invaded Iraq... just about everyone in the US was behind it. Now the liberals wanna try to make it look like Bush went against the voice of the nation the day he invaded... freakin Monday morning quarterbacks.. Now that we're in they just don't wanna put forth the hard work and sacrifice it takes to follow through, like always, they're no actual use to the country other than bitchin and complaining.


The politicians didn't run on that platform in a campeign because the subject didn't come up until midway through a term.

 

[Billo_Really]

not to mention the heads of the other corporations engaging in immoral actions

I always ask the question, who killed more people, Charles Manson or Charles Keating?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 23-26, 2004. N=969 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

4/27-30/03 Approve-%75 Disapprove-%22 NoOpinion-%2

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

4/27-30/03 Worth Fighting-%70 Not Worth Fighting-27 No Opinion-4



At the time we invaded Iraq... just about everyone in the US was behind it. Now the liberals wanna try to make it look like Bush went against the voice of the nation the day he invaded... freakin Monday morning quarterbacks.. Now that we're in they just don't wanna put forth the hard work and sacrifice it takes to follow through, like always, they're no actual use to the country other than bitchin and complaining.


The politicians didn't run on that platform in a campeign because the subject didn't come up until midway through a term.

But was the opinion of your population, like ours, informed by a bunch of outright lies? Or is that an inconvenience that we shouldn't raise right now?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

But since the job was not done, and yet we are still here, wouldn't that imply that there was not a job that needed to be done?
And you can't fault the protesters for protesting, instead, you must fault those in power for giving them something to protest about.

Actually the job to be done in Vietnam was stopping the spread of communism in southeast asia.... since communism has not spread in that area of the world, the job was accomplished.... and yes I can fault the liberals for protesting.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Actually the job to be done in Vietnam was stopping the spread of communism in southeast asia.... since communism has not spread in that area of the world, the job was accomplished.... and yes I can fault the liberals for protesting.

And the job in Iraq was to remove WMD. And guess what? There weren't any. Clever Mr Bush - he managed to instigate a retroactive change, thus proving that he was right all along!

 

[Stherngntlmn]

But was the opinion of your population, like ours, informed by a bunch of outright lies? Or is that an inconvenience that we shouldn't raise right now?

I can't speak for the entire country. I can speak for myself. I care nothing about sadams WMD's, which I do believe he had.. but wasn't a direct threat. I cared nothing about sadams flagrant violations of UN resolutions, which he did violate, but I don't regard the UN as having any jurisdiction over sovereign countries. I supported the war for other reasons, like creating an allie with a stable source of oil, removing a genocidal dictator from power, and creating an American troop presence on the opposite Iranian border from afghanistan in order to use surrounding positioning as a powerchip in Iranian diplomacy talks.

besides all that... every agreeable member of congress clearly stated that the war wasn't just about WMD's

 

[Billo_Really]

every agreeable member of congress clearly stated that the war wasn't just about WMD's

That's because the war IS about WMD's. "WORDS OF MASS DECEPTION"

 

[Stherngntlmn]

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf#search='congress resolution iraq 2003'

The above is a link to the congressional resolution put forth and ratified by the United States congress which supported the president's intensions of invading Iraq. The President never asked for this resolution, and already had been instilled by congress with the executive power to order the invasion. This resolution was volenteerily put forth by congress specifically to support the invasion of Iraq for the 4 pages worth of listed reasons on the document... not just WMD's...

 

[Billo_Really]

The above is a link to the congressional resolution put forth and ratified by the United States congress which supported the president's intensions of invading Iraq. The President never asked for this resolution, and already had been instilled by congress with the executive power to order the invasion. This resolution was volenteerily put forth by congress specifically to support the invasion of Iraq for the 4 pages worth of listed reasons on the document... not just WMD's...

All those 4 pages were lies. Not one was proven to be true. And here is the biggest lie of all, which is an impeachable offense...

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work
for the necessary resolutions[bombing is not a necessary resolution at this point],’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be
unavoidable’’;

Bush told the UN Security Council this crap in September, keep this in mind when you read the General's statement below...

General admits to secret air war
Michael Smith

THE American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.
Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 “carefully selected targets” before the war officially started.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html

Am I missing something here? The stuff he told Congress was unjustified. How far do we go making excuses for him. We impeached Clinton over a sex thing! This isn't the America I was raised to believe in. We used to be the beacon of democracy. Now, were full of $hit!