Obama Is A Great Person-

AND COUNTLESS LIVES SAVED.

and somewhere in the 80-90 thousand range of Iraqi civilians dead. i think that might offset your "countless lives" that were apparently saved (have a stat for that mister bring-me-proof who uses the sweeping generalization of "stupid liberals" to gloss over an entire political spectrum you don't understand, aren't exposed to because of your media, and are afraid of from residual anti-communist propaganda and is hypocritical in his absence of supporting stats?) you also have a country that now requires constant military presence otherwise it will fall into a bloody civil war that could easily become genocide. saddam was an evil man but he kept control, he was racist and oppressive but there was a degree of (fear induced) peace. now there is a terribly weak puppet government without any sort of self-sufficiency after years of american involvement. regardless of what you say, saddam WAS minding his own business, and yes his government was corrupt and brutal, but its not america's responsibility to declare war on countries with corrupt governments and depose their leaders. if they really cared about that they'd do something about the situation in dozens of african and asian countries.

there was NO proof that he had weapons, intended to use them against the west or was housing al-qaeda (sp?) operatives, which was supposed to be the point of the war on terror. funny how bush's war on Al-Qaeda quickly became the finishing of daddy and rumsfeld's 1990 war. sure, as you said, the "panzy azz, tree hugging" UN wouldn't go in there, but you guys had the "guts" or "balls" to do so. maybe the UN figured there are other ways than WAR to attempt to solve a problem. especially when things are not positive. thousands of lives are at stake, have some respect for human life (don't bring up that your enemies don't so you shouldn't because thats sinking to their level and completely abandoning the mantra of your country). but they had a fear campaign in which every single speech any of the white house staff made mentioned weapons of mass destruction over and over to freak the public into unabashed support. if you want proof that UN, regardless of how slow and caught up in bureaucracy they are, have a better system than riding in with your guns blazing, look at North Korea. way more of a threat than Iraq: legitimate nuclear program, missile tests, a leader with specific ambitions towards world power and anti-Americanism. through patience and time, sanctions have resulted in a crippled country that had no choice but to abandon its programs and become transparent to UN inspections. yes, it is a different situation than iraq, but regardless there are alternate routes, something the cowboy mentality of bush's cronies apparently couldn't understand. oh, and didn't the war "end" and you guys "won" like 3 years ago?

i agree that wright is a bigot, and a destructive preacher who is selling a misleading image. but i think if you were to look into a lot of the connections republican politicians and presidents have/had you'd see equally if not more hateful and racist personalities, and some people who are legitimate enemies of the country according to the president. look at someone like strom thurmond. or the fact that the bush's have intimate ties with saudi oil. or maybe trent lott.

i don't understand how you can argue for and defend a man who's administration has crippled the US economy. isn't it embarrassing that a country a tenth of your size has surpassed your dollar (canada)? can't you see the connection between that, the housing market crash that has sent many americans into tent cities, the terribly performing stock market and the national debt that has nearly tripled since 2000? i agree some response had to be made for 9/11, but seven years of strife has caused a free fall in both your country's standing economically and diplomatically in the world.

Badgerfan, Excuse me, are you kidding me, the soldiers that enlist know that they are going to war.  Saying that they are innocent is saying that they are naive.  I am sorry how in the world can you support Bill Clinton after all of this.  In response to him fighting daddy's war, you need to get a clue.  Learn a little about pollitics, the economy is not in a recession as you believe it is. 

Gas prices at an all time high, convince me a demon-crat would do any differently.

Eastwood, also give me a break.  That isn't even worth a response, learn some history, Saddam destroyed the weapons.  That is just the simple truth.  Blah Blah Blah, I am not embarrassed by Bush because he is the right man for the job.  It isn't hard to defend Bush, at the end of 2004 his ratings were around 50 percent and after 9/11 they were around 85 - 90 percent.  It's just our media hijacked the war and his approval ratings.  I guess America isn't the brightest a 28 % approval rating. 

So many things I can just rip you apart on.  America killed itself economically,  the market is saturated with computers so how can it go upwards, the housing market crash has nothing to do with the president.

A. Bush is better than Clinton economically,  If Clinton had his way with socialized health care we would be in a depression. 

B. Give me something that the U.N. has done, Bush gave Saddam a year and a half to let us inspect him.  Saddam said no so we went to war.  The U.N. is worthless you seriously need to learn some pollitics.

C.  Why would I want some environmentalist, gay rights, pro-choice, I only like minorities, anti-business, anti-war reject become president. It would be like voting for a professor.  Bush has normal philosophies and is a hero. 

Iceman- he who knows not that he does not know is a fool- I am not calling you a fool but the more you type the more ignorance you type.  Notice, I am not calling you ignorant be any means, you are simply stating data that is untrue and not very logical.  If you count how many responses you have made to this one thread, you are either retired, not being very productive at work and live a very boring life.  I mean it isn't that serious.  At the end of the day we will have a President and it just very well could be Obama.  The question for you is how will you adjust, overcome and adapt.  <o:p> </o:p>

As far as intelligent rebuttal:  Do you have a clue who the U.N. is made of?  Go ahead and Google it to become informed.  I doubt you know very past the name about the U.N. because when you speak you do so without coherent thought or relativity.  <o:p> </o:p>

As far as Saddam Hussein allowing us to inspect, let me tell the real truth of how it went down:<o:p> </o:p>

#1- Bush accuses Hussein of having WMD(weapons of mass destruction) so he calls for an inspection of the country-  I will talk in layman terms so we can all grasp the idea.  Bush says it has been so any years and he has violated the U.N. laws in regards to WMD.  He calls for sanctions.<o:p> </o:p>

#2- Bush- say he wasn't allowing us to inspect- Saddam Hussein allowed us to as our inspectors were already in the country.<o:p> </o:p>

#3- Bush says- he wouldn't let us inspect at a rate we wanted too, assumed Hussein was moving WMD from one location to another- He wasn't because there weren't any WMD.  They he fabricated the idea- I will get back to that.<o:p> </o:p>

#4- Bush still is not satisfied with not finding WMD and looking pretty silly with the idea so he comes up with excuse #4- Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator and we need to give the country back to its people.  He mentions how he treated his own people unfairly and so forth.  None of this related to the <st1:country-region> <st1:place> US</st1:place> </st1:country-region> by the way as Hussein had never launched any initiative to attack the <st1:country-region> <st1:place> US</st1:place> </st1:country-region> . nothing to date anyway.  9/11 belong to still alive Bin Laden,<o:p> </o:p>

#5- The U.N. meets to vote on going to war with this country.  The majority vote no.  Only the British and the <st1:country-region> <st1:place> U.S.</st1:place> </st1:country-region> vote yes.  To this point we have no real reason to go to war and kill anyone. If we stop right here, it does not take a genius to figure out that <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Iraq</st1:place> </st1:country-region> has done nothing to us.  <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Iraq</st1:place> </st1:country-region> does not have any WMD and we should not be concerned with the legal matters of another country whether right or wrong.  People in the <st1:place> Middle East</st1:place> fight spiritual warfare’s and it is deep.  We can not begin to comprehend how deep.  At this point all we know for sure is that we have the justification to go to war- 9-11 which we should have invaded and took over <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Afghanistan</st1:place> </st1:country-region> but they don't the resources <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Iraq</st1:place> </st1:country-region> does.  And we have a President without any foresight making irrational and uninformed decisions.  There is no arguing this point right now.  <o:p> </o:p>

#6- Bush makes the most unintelligent speech ever about going to war and lighting up the sky, "Shock and Awe!"  The strategy was to catch them by surprise and hit them quick hard and in a fury. We dropped over 2000 bombs in 2 minutes and the massacre was on.  It wasn't a war; it is not a war and will never be a war.  With the allies we had, the military intelligence and personnel, it can never be a war with a country the size of <st1:state> <st1:place> Texas</st1:place> </st1:state> .  The entire country of <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Iraq</st1:place> </st1:country-region> is about the size of <st1:state> <st1:place> Texas</st1:place> </st1:state> if that.  And we hit them with all our forces plus other countries.  Listen to these terms:<o:p> </o:p>

#1- Heavy resistance = we haven't killed them all yet<o:p> </o:p>

#2- Insurgents = they are trying to fight back instead of being shot to death<o:p> </o:p>

#3- terrorist = people who can't fight fair because they are too weak so they try other sneak tactics to defend themselves or stop others from taking their bread all the time.<o:p> </o:p>

Back to Hussein fabricating the story about WMD, if you just for once think about intelligence and a cry to protect your people you would understand the philosophy behind his desperate attempt to save his country.  <o:p> </o:p>

#1- He knew as soon as Bush took office <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Iraq</st1:place> </st1:country-region> would be a renewed interest for oil.  Never mind Dick Cheney already had contracts on their oil prior to the war.  <o:p> </o:p>

#2- He doctored up this WMD to scare us away or keep us away from taken over.  Bush wanted that oil; He did every on earth to even be in office.  He stopped recounts and so forth, he had to be in office because 9-11 was already in place; Going to war with <st1:country-region> <st1:place> Iraq</st1:place> </st1:country-region> was already in place- He had to get into office<o:p> </o:p>

#3- Main Culprit- Clinton Conspiracy- They had to dig deep to ruin the <st1:city> <st1:place> Clinton</st1:place> </st1:city> campaign because another Dem would have been in office.  Kerry actually won on many accounts but that is another story.  So they made sure with degrading <st1:city> <st1:place> Clinton</st1:place> </st1:city> to the max to ruin the Democratic Party Nominee.  How quickly we forgot how the country was thriving.<o:p> </o:p>

#4- So Hussein did all that he could to save his country-  It didn't work for his country and it didn't work  to save his life.  If we want to hold people accountable for the things they did in the past, then every Political official who made slavery legal should line up at the electric chair and I mean it.  Every person who has discriminated against another person because of their skin color and denied them equal rights should line up too.  To do otherwise would be hypocritical, contradicting and totally discombobulated.  <o:p> </o:p>

Now how many years later and we are still over there, have killed every major leader of country and its armies and....  Iceman, how on earth can you even have the audacity to open you mouth.  I like you passion as you are determined but please, just please do some research before you continue to say things that make you look ignorant.  I did not intend to type all this out and I do not have time to proof read so please forgive me.  <o:p> </o:p>

Stick a fork in me I am sincerely done and totally depressed thinking about that whole scenario again.<o:p> </o:p>

Iceman- he who knows not that he does not know is a fool- I am not calling you a fool but the more you type the more ignorance you type.  Notice, I am not calling you ignorant be any means, you are simply stating data that is untrue and not very logical.  If you count how many responses you have made to this one thread, you are either retired, not being very productive at work and live a very boring life.  I mean it isn't that serious.  At the end of the day we will have a President and it just very well could be Obama.  The question for you is how will you adjust, overcome and adapt.  <o:p> </o:p>

As far as intelligent rebuttal:  Do you have a clue who the U.N. is made of?  Go ahead and Google it to become informed.  I doubt you know very past the name about the U.N. because when you speak you do so without coherent thought or relativity.  <o:p> </o:p>

As far as Saddam Hussein allowing us to inspect, let me tell the real truth of how it went down:<o:p> </o:p>

#1- Bush accuses Hussein of having WMD(weapons of mass destruction) so he calls for an inspection of the country-  I will talk in layman terms so we can all grasp the idea.  Bush says it has been so any years and he has violated the U.N. laws in regards to WMD.  He calls for sanctions.<o:p> </o:p>

#2- Bush- say he wasn't allowing us to inspect- Saddam Hussein allowed us to as our inspectors were already in the country.<o:p> </o:p>

#3- Bush says- he wouldn't let us inspect at a rate we wanted too, assumed Hussein was moving WMD from one location to another- He wasn't because there weren't any WMD.  They he fabricated the idea- I will get back to that.<o:p> </o:p>

#4- Bush still is not satisfied with not finding WMD and looking pretty silly with the idea so he comes up with excuse #4- Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator and we need to give the country back to its people.  He mentions how he treated his own people unfairly and so forth.  None of this related to the <st1:country-region> <st1:place> <u1:country-region> <u1:place> US</u1:place> </u1:country-region> by the way as Hussein had never launched any initiative to attack the </st1:place> </st1:country-region> <st1:country-region> <st1:place> <u1:country-region> <u1:place> US</u1:place> </u1:country-region> . nothing to date anyway.  9/11 belong to still alive Bin Laden,<o:p> </o:p> </st1:place> </st1:country-region>

#5- The U.N. meets to vote on going to war with this country.  The majority vote no.  Only the British and the <st1:country-region> <st1:place> <u1:country-region> <u1:place> U.S.</u1:place> </u1:country-region> vote yes.  To this point we have no real reason to go to war and kill anyone. If we stop right here, it does not take a genius to figure out that </st1:place> </st1:country-region>