• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Worst President Ever!!! Approval Rating Drops!!!

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Name this horrible, awful, terrible president.

-He dragged the US into a war that they had no reason to be in.
-The nations we attacked had not attacked us, or in any way forced us to take action against them.
-It was largely thought that the president entered the war to secure US economic interests, although he claimed that he entered the war to "spread democracy in an area that was oppressed."
-The war cost the United States over 200 billion dollars.
-It started off involving some 25 nations, but most of them dropped out, leaving the US and one or two allies to handle it on their own.
-Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.
-The public outrage against the president was enormous, and he was deeply hated throughout the US.
-The president claimed that he was not trying to occupy the countries, and as soon as was able, passed soverignity back to the countries that were invaded.

Okay, go ahead and guess.

Ready?


If you guessed Woodrow Wilson, good job.


Differences between the situation faced by Woodrow Wilson and George W Bush:

-We entered World War I with little to NO provocation, whereas in this War, we were attacked first.
-Both countries that were attacked in this war had fought wars with the US before, whereas in WWI, this was not the case.
-World War 1 cost far, far more.
-The number of US casualties was 137,000. Compare that to just over 2000 now. Less than 1.5 percent.
-100 times as many civilians were killed in WWI.
-George Bush was reelected, whereas Woodrow Wilson left office hated.

Think of this:

The country was so angry about Wilsons decision to involve the US in the war that as he left office in 1920, they elected numerous new Senators who pledged to pull out our forces and return to isolation. As a result, his plan for World Peace, the 14 Point Plan, was voted down by Congress, dooming the League of Nations to failure, and dooming the World to another, much more deadly war just a generation later. Thankfully, we have made the right decision where the people of 1920 did not. We have signified that we will NOT allow this war to be fought half-assedly. I wholeheartedly believe that abandoning Iraq right now would cause an international mess that would come back to bite us later on. Although it may be difficult, we MUST stay the course and see it through. If this is World War III, I hope not to see WW4.

How many people look back now and think about how awful World War I was, and how horrible of a president Woodrow Wilson was? The vast majority of the country HATED Wilson back then, and if you had told them that that war would go down in history as a necessary step toward democracy in Europe, they would have laughed in your face.

Think about that when people complain about how George Bush is the worst president in history.
 
Last edited:

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Name this horrible, awful, terrible president.

-He dragged the US into a war that they had no reason to be in.
-The nations we attacked had not attacked us, or in any way forced us to take action against them.
-It was largely thought that the president entered the war to secure US economic interests, although he claimed that he entered the war to "spread democracy in an area that was oppressed."
-The war cost the United States over 200 billion dollars.
-It started off involving some 25 nations, but most of them dropped out, leaving the US and one or two allies to handle it on their own.
-Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.
-The public outrage against the president was enormous, and he was deeply hated throughout the US.
-The president claimed that he was not trying to occupy the countries, and as soon as was able, passed soverignity back to the countries that were invaded.

Okay, go ahead and guess.

Ready?


If you guessed Woodrow Wilson, good job.


Differences between the situation faced by Woodrow Wilson and George W Bush:

-We entered World War I with little to NO provocation, whereas in this War, we were attacked first.
-Both countries that were attacked in this war had fought wars with the US before, whereas in WWI, this was not the case.
-World War 1 cost far, far more.
-The number of US casualties was 137,000. Compare that to just over 2000 now. Less than 1.5 percent.
-100 times as many civilians were killed in WWI.
-George Bush was reelected, whereas Woodrow Wilson was not.

Think of this:

The country hated Woodrow Wilson so much that they voted him out of office. As a result, his plan for World Peace, the 14 Point Plan, was voted down by Congress, dooming the League of Nations to failure, and dooming the World to another, much more deadly war just a generation later.Thankfully, we have made the right decision where the people of 1920 did not. We have signified that we will NOT allow this war to be fought half-assedly. I wholeheartedly believe that abandoning Iraq right now would cause an international mess that would come back to bite us later on. Although it may be difficult, we MUST stay the course and see it through. If this is World War III, I hope not to see WW4.

How many people look back now and think about how awful World War I was, and how horrible of a president Woodrow Wilson was? The vast majority of the country HATED Wilson back then, and if you had told them that that war would go down in history as a necessary step toward democracy in Europe, they would have laughed in your face.

Think about that when people complain about how George Bush is the worst president in history.
Great post. I almost deleted after the first line. I am glad I read the whole thing. it is very important for everyone to be able to put the Iraq war in proper perspective.
 

KrazyKarl

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Too many false/misleading statements.

Woodrow Wilson was elected president twice. Once in 1912 and once in 1916. He didn't run in 1920. He was never defeated.

Germany invaded France, while Iraq sat there not making weapons of mass destruction.

Germany sank the RMS Lusitania, with over 100 American passengers, and conspired with Mexico to declare war on the United States. The Senate vote for war on Germany was 82-6 and the HoR vote was 373-50. Only 1 person voted against declaring war on Austria-Hungary.

The excessive reparations demanded from Germany drove the nation into poverty. It was this situation that led to Hitler's rise to power.

There were many more than "1 or 2" allied nations in WWI.

I agree that the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq will only lead to chaos. I wouldn't have voted to go to war in the first place. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq and disregard for fiscal responsibility are the reasons I think he will go down in history as a bad president.
 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Differences between the situation faced by Woodrow Wilson and George W Bush:

-We entered World War I with little to NO provocation, whereas in this War, we were attacked first.
One major flaw in your arguement. We were not attacked first! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We attacked a country that did nothing to us. Attacking Iraq is one of the most cowardly things a country has ever done in the history of our planet.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
KrazyKarl said:
Too many false/misleading statements.

Woodrow Wilson was elected president twice. Once in 1912 and once in 1916. He didn't run in 1920. He was never defeated.
Excuse me, I meant to say that Bush was reelected after declaring war, while Wilson left office hated. It was the isolationist senators who ran decrying Wilson who were the reason that we pulled out. I corrected the original to reflect this error.

Germany invaded France, while Iraq sat there not making weapons of mass destruction.
...but offering financial and material aid to terrorists.

Germany sank the RMS Lusitania, with over 100 American passengers, and conspired with Mexico to declare war on the United States. The Senate vote for war on Germany was 82-6 and the HoR vote was 373-50. Only 1 person voted against declaring war on Austria-Hungary.
Aside from the fact that the Zimmerman note was most likely fake, it was propaganda and warmongering that brought us into WWI. And what are you arguing by posting the votes? The Iraq war vote was even more lopsided.

The excessive reparations demanded from Germany drove the nation into poverty. It was this situation that led to Hitler's rise to power.
No, it was a combination of the failure of the League of Nations and the refusal of the American people/Allies to do the job properly that left Germany in a state where Hitler could rise to power.

There were many more than "1 or 2" allied nations in WWI.
And there were many more than 1 or 2 now. That's my point.

I agree that the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq will only lead to chaos. I wouldn't have voted to go to war in the first place. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq and disregard for fiscal responsibility are the reasons I think he will go down in history as a bad president.
And any such speculation now is just that.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Billo_Really said:
One major flaw in your arguement. We were not attacked first! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We attacked a country that did nothing to us. Attacking Iraq is one of the most cowardly things a country has ever done in the history of our planet.
Did nothing to us? Okay. Well, neither did Germany.

And listen, your whiny "most cowardly in the history of the planet" argument does nothing other than show you don't know **** about history.
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Iraq was harboring terrorists, and had terrorist training camps. Despite the fact they had been in violation of the UN inspection charter for years, and Sadaam Hussein was a tryant equivalent to the likes of Stalin and Hitler. What Bush did going into Iraq was saving American lives. Yes I do mean what I say. By going into Iraq he made a choice of having American soldiers die instead of Innocent children and women. He took the fight elsewhere , we cannot act like a toothless tiger like we did under the Clinton Administration. Everytime something happened we acted cowardly by not taking action Ex. Somalia, USS Cole Clinton actually had a chance to get Osama Bin Laden but he didn't. The last time America was attacked was Pearl Harbor. We cannot let anyone think we can be attacked and not respond with full force. The terrorists know that most Americans are weak and after a little bloodshed we will pull out. Which is why I urge everyone to look at the situation again, we cannot give in or pull out until our mission is done. WE have to fight the terrorists overseas not on our homefront.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Paul said:
Iraq was harboring terrorists, and had terrorist training camps. Despite the fact they had been in violation of the UN inspection charter for years, and Sadaam Hussein was a tryant equivalent to the likes of Stalin and Hitler. What Bush did going into Iraq was saving American lives. Yes I do mean what I say. By going into Iraq he made a choice of having American soldiers die instead of Innocent children and women. He took the fight elsewhere , we cannot act like a toothless tiger like we did under the Clinton Administration. Everytime something happened we acted cowardly by not taking action Ex. Somalia, USS Cole Clinton actually had a chance to get Osama Bin Laden but he didn't. The last time America was attacked was Pearl Harbor. We cannot let anyone think we can be attacked and not respond with full force. The terrorists know that most Americans are weak and after a little bloodshed we will pull out. Which is why I urge everyone to look at the situation again, we cannot give in or pull out until our mission is done. WE have to fight the terrorists overseas not on our homefront.

Heheheheh

 

Billo_Really

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Originally Posted by RightatNYU:
Did nothing to us? Okay. Well, neither did Germany.

And listen, your whiny "most cowardly in the history of the planet" argument does nothing other than show you don't know **** about history.
Then what did they do to us, [mostly wrong]...atNYU?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Paul said:
Iraq was harboring terrorists, and had terrorist training camps. Despite the fact they had been in violation of the UN inspection charter for years, and Sadaam Hussein was a tryant equivalent to the likes of Stalin and Hitler. What Bush did going into Iraq was saving American lives. Yes I do mean what I say. By going into Iraq he made a choice of having American soldiers die instead of Innocent children and women. He took the fight elsewhere , we cannot act like a toothless tiger like we did under the Clinton Administration. Everytime something happened we acted cowardly by not taking action Ex. Somalia, USS Cole Clinton actually had a chance to get Osama Bin Laden but he didn't. The last time America was attacked was Pearl Harbor. We cannot let anyone think we can be attacked and not respond with full force. The terrorists know that most Americans are weak and after a little bloodshed we will pull out. Which is why I urge everyone to look at the situation again, we cannot give in or pull out until our mission is done. WE have to fight the terrorists overseas not on our homefront.
My answer to your post is this thread, in which we have found out that it was an al Qaeda operative who was spreading the lie about Iraq and al Qaeda cooperating against the US. The secular Hussein was al Qaeda's ideological enemy too, and they saw war with the US as a bonus too, if they could get us to invade. The al Qaeda operative who fabricated the rumor that Bush used to help justify the war is now in custody. Bush knew better too. He was warned about this piece of fakery in 2002, but chose to ignore the warning.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Billo_Really said:
Then what did they do to us, [mostly wrong]...atNYU?
I don't even know what you're trying to argue here. Iraq didn't attack us openly (Aside from shooting at our planes and funding suicide bombers) or directly, just like Germany didn't. That's the point. If it was okay to attack Germany, why not Iraq?
 

Paul

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Location
Watertown NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Should we have taken the chance then, Danarhea? Hussein has been in violation of the UN Charter for quite sometime, he started the Gulf War in his attempt at imperialism for oil. (Which many people said we were in Iraq for, take a look at the gas prices please) He committed inexplainable atrocities against his own people (The Kurds) leaving dead childrens bodies lying on top of each other. This is a form of genocide. In 1977 when Hussein was first inducted as head of Iraq he called out every name of every person that was in attendence, which was the senior politicians of Iraq. After he said someones name he would say whether or not they had committed crimes against the government. If he said they had, he had them escorted away. The remaining politicians were cheering "we love sadaam" so they wouldn't get taken away. Hussein said since they loved him and their country so much they could shoot their colleagues tommorrow.

Is this the actions of a stable leader? These are the actions of a tyrant who rules by fear. If he used Chemical Weapons against his own people what would he do to us? Should we have waited until he had nuclear weapons? Then if he took off an entire state and 10 million people died Bush would have been blamed. He would have been blamed because he "had prior knowledge and didn't care". He chose not to take the chance of 10 million innocent people dying, not to mention the effects after concerning the environment.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
danarhea said:
My answer to your post is this thread, in which we have found out that it was an al Qaeda operative who was spreading the lie about Iraq and al Qaeda cooperating against the US. The secular Hussein was al Qaeda's ideological enemy too, and they saw war with the US as a bonus too, if they could get us to invade. The al Qaeda operative who fabricated the rumor that Bush used to help justify the war is now in custody. Bush knew better too. He was warned about this piece of fakery in 2002, but chose to ignore the warning.
interesting.

www.husseinandterror.com

The Hoover Institute at Stanford would disagree.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
RightatNYU said:
Name this horrible, awful, terrible president.

-He dragged the US into a war that they had no reason to be in.
-The nations we attacked had not attacked us, or in any way forced us to take action against them.
-It was largely thought that the president entered the war to secure US economic interests, although he claimed that he entered the war to "spread democracy in an area that was oppressed."
-The war cost the United States over 200 billion dollars.
-It started off involving some 25 nations, but most of them dropped out, leaving the US and one or two allies to handle it on their own.
-Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed.
-The public outrage against the president was enormous, and he was deeply hated throughout the US.
-The president claimed that he was not trying to occupy the countries, and as soon as was able, passed soverignity back to the countries that were invaded.

Okay, go ahead and guess.

Ready?


If you guessed Woodrow Wilson, good job.


Differences between the situation faced by Woodrow Wilson and George W Bush:

-We entered World War I with little to NO provocation, whereas in this War, we were attacked first.
-Both countries that were attacked in this war had fought wars with the US before, whereas in WWI, this was not the case.
-World War 1 cost far, far more.
-The number of US casualties was 137,000. Compare that to just over 2000 now. Less than 1.5 percent.
-100 times as many civilians were killed in WWI.
-George Bush was reelected, whereas Woodrow Wilson left office hated.

Think of this:

The country was so angry about Wilsons decision to involve the US in the war that as he left office in 1920, they elected numerous new Senators who pledged to pull out our forces and return to isolation. As a result, his plan for World Peace, the 14 Point Plan, was voted down by Congress, dooming the League of Nations to failure, and dooming the World to another, much more deadly war just a generation later. Thankfully, we have made the right decision where the people of 1920 did not. We have signified that we will NOT allow this war to be fought half-assedly. I wholeheartedly believe that abandoning Iraq right now would cause an international mess that would come back to bite us later on. Although it may be difficult, we MUST stay the course and see it through. If this is World War III, I hope not to see WW4.

How many people look back now and think about how awful World War I was, and how horrible of a president Woodrow Wilson was? The vast majority of the country HATED Wilson back then, and if you had told them that that war would go down in history as a necessary step toward democracy in Europe, they would have laughed in your face.

Think about that when people complain about how George Bush is the worst president in history.
It's disappointing to see you make assertions that there is a connection between 9-11 and our invading Iraq. What a joke.

And NYU, you have no idea how history will treat George Bush. Did Wilson LIE to us to get us into World War 1?
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KrazyKarl said:
Too many false/misleading statements.

Woodrow Wilson was elected president twice. Once in 1912 and once in 1916. He didn't run in 1920. He was never defeated.

Germany invaded France, while Iraq sat there not making weapons of mass destruction.

Germany sank the RMS Lusitania, with over 100 American passengers, and conspired with Mexico to declare war on the United States. The Senate vote for war on Germany was 82-6 and the HoR vote was 373-50. Only 1 person voted against declaring war on Austria-Hungary.

The excessive reparations demanded from Germany drove the nation into poverty. It was this situation that led to Hitler's rise to power.

There were many more than "1 or 2" allied nations in WWI.

I agree that the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq will only lead to chaos. I wouldn't have voted to go to war in the first place. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq and disregard for fiscal responsibility are the reasons I think he will go down in history as a bad president.
If the Gov. in England listened to Winston Churchill, and his reports about Hitler has a gathering threat, they could have done a pre-eptive strike on Germany like we did in Iraq avoiding a world war.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
It's disappointing to see you make assertions that there is a connection between 9-11 and our invading Iraq. What a joke.
Uh, check out www.husseinandterror.com, and then tell me that Saddam had nothing to do with terror.

And NYU, you have no idea how history will treat George Bush.
That's the point.

"How many people look back now and think about how awful World War I was, and how horrible of a president Woodrow Wilson was? The vast majority of the country HATED Wilson back then, and if you had told them that that war would go down in history as a necessary step toward democracy in Europe, they would have laughed in your face.

Think about that when people complain about how George Bush is the worst president in history."

Wilson was hated at the time too, all I'm saying is that it's impossible to see how Bush will be viewed now.

Did Wilson LIE to us to get us into World War 1?
I wouldn't expect you to know this, but yes. The US entry into WWI was one of the most concerted efforts of government manipulation we've ever experienced. Aside from Wilson exaggerating the threat over and over, the press blowing the dangers out of proportion, and the "discovery" of the Zimmerman note purported to have been written by Germany, asking Mexico to attack us, there were many unprecedented steps taken to spur us onward to war. Both before and during the war, the level of propaganda was amazing.

Look at this vitriol infused speech:

Loyalty and German-Americans

I know that it is hard for Americans to realize the magnitude of the war in which we are involved. We have problems in this war no other nations have. Fortunately, the great majority of American citizens of German descent have, in this great crisis of our history, shown themselves splendidly loyal to our flag.

Everyone had a right to sympathize with any warring nation. But now that we are in the war there are only two sides, and the time has come when every citizen must declare himself American - or traitor!

We must disappoint the Germans who have always believed that the German-Americans here would risk their property, their children's future, and their own neck, and take up arms for the Kaiser. The Foreign Minister of Germany once said to me "your country does not dare do anything against Germany, because we have in your country 500,000 German reservists who will rise in arms against your government if you dare to make a move against Germany."

Well, I told him that that might be so, but that we had 500,001 lamp posts in this country, and that that was where the reservists would be hanging the day after they tried to rise. And if there are any German-Americans here who are so ungrateful for all the benefits they have received that they are still for the Kaiser, there is only one thing to do with them. And that is to hog-tie them, give them back the wooden shoes and the rags they landed in, and ship them back to the Fatherland.
WOW! Now that's a pretty over the top speech. Who did that come from, I wonder? Was it the 1917 version of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter?

Nope. It was James Gerard, US Ambassador to Germany.

In both of his books, published before the US involvement in the war, Gerard made the "imminent threat" claim over and over again, spurring the nation on to war in fear.

My point is that I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people didn't know that WWI was both instigated by our gov and publicly incredibly unpopular. Nowadays, it's looked at as a noble war.

How much better will this war be looked at in 80 years, considering the level of instigation was lower and public support was higher?
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Uh, check out www.husseinandterror.com, and then tell me that Saddam had nothing to do with terror.
I will check that out later. I never said that Hussein had nothing to do with terror--he had NOTHING to do with September 11th. If this website shows me otherwise, I won't believe it. Sorry.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
IS this news? Sounds like it belongs into the history section imo.

Also that website I have already been to and while it has supposedly reliable sources, firstly I don't see how any of this means we should invade Iraq. I also cannot help to be a bit catuious about the site because, of course, this guy on the site is extremely biased and tries to get his point crossed in a particular way that makes me think he might be strecting the facts. None of those are completely reliable.
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
It's disappointing to see you make assertions that there is a connection between 9-11 and our invading Iraq. What a joke.

And NYU, you have no idea how history will treat George Bush. Did Wilson LIE to us to get us into World War 1?
Obtuse statement. Very simpleton like.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aps said:
I will check that out later. I never said that Hussein had nothing to do with terror--he had NOTHING to do with September 11th. If this website shows me otherwise, I won't believe it. Sorry.

A true loyalist to her anger.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
FinnMacCool said:
IS this news? Sounds like it belongs into the history section imo.

Also that website I have already been to and while it has supposedly reliable sources, firstly I don't see how any of this means we should invade Iraq. I also cannot help to be a bit catuious about the site because, of course, this guy on the site is extremely biased and tries to get his point crossed in a particular way that makes me think he might be strecting the facts. None of those are completely reliable.
OK...who should we invade? If not Saddam and the image he projected to every Arab leader in the Middle East...who should we invade to kick start change in the Middle East?
 
Top Bottom