George W. Bush

[ahmedito]

We now know that Bush lied about iraqs WMD... now hes pinning it on the CIA... of course, the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis really dont care by now.

[Saturn]

I think Bush is awesome.  He's a modern hero.  Forget everything you read in history books about the moral presidents of times past.  Bush is better than all of them.

Once I met Bush at a fundraising event.  I said "Bush, I'm a big fan of yours, I love how you handled the Iraq situation, Saddam is such an evil guy!"  And then Bush replied, "He's also awful good at Texas Hold 'Em!  I played him again and again, but he kept winning.  I must've lost $70000 (of taxpayer money of course) to him in poker games alone.  But I took over his country!  Guess I get the last laugh after all!!"  What a funny guy!   He is my hero.

I can't wait until election time so I can vote for him again.  I don't think he should even need to run for office again.  He should simply remain president for his whole life.  He should be president of the entire universe.

Vote Bush, president of the universe, 2004.

[dinosaurtales]

We now know that Bush lied about iraqs WMD... now hes pinning it on the CIA... of course, the hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis really dont care by now.

I have not seen one bit of evidence that Bush *lied* about anything.  In fact the evidence just came out from that commission that he was given bad info, and you guys are still on the *lying* kick.  You just can't get off it - what's WRONG with you folks?

[Allan]

I will most definitely vote for President Bush.  He has had to make difficult and necessary decisions.  Even Senators Kerrey, Edwards and Clinton voted in favor of taking action against Iraq.  

To paraphrase someone else, other than stopping slavery, the Kaiser and Nazism, war has accomplished NOTHING.

"To a Republican, every day is July 4th.  To a Democrat, every day is April 15th."  --Ronald Reagan  

[janice]

I think Bush is awesome.  He's a modern hero.  Forget everything you read in history books about the moral presidents of times past.  Bush is better than all of them.

Once I met Bush at a fundraising event.  I said "Bush, I'm a big fan of yours, I love how you handled the Iraq situation, Saddam is such an evil guy!"  And then Bush replied, "He's also awful good at Texas Hold 'Em!  I played him again and again, but he kept winning.  I must've lost $70000 (of taxpayer money of course) to him in poker games alone.  But I took over his country!  Guess I get the last laugh after all!!"  What a funny guy!   He is my hero.

I can't wait until election time so I can vote for him again.  I don't think he should even need to run for office again.  He should simply remain president for his whole life.  He should be president of the entire universe.

Vote Bush, president of the universe, 2004.

Well said, Saturn!!  AMEN!!  I love Bush!!  He is a godly man, a very devout Christian, and I believe that he did what he did only after spending a great deal of time in prayer over this.  Therefore, I believe that he is doing God's will.  I won't get into one of my "sermons" here! LOL  Just because they couldn't find any weapons doesn't mean that there was none.  Duh!!

[trunks]

Yawwwwwwwn . . .
I hesitate to even remotely think that Bush is a Christian at all, with all his endorsement on the hate/discrimination issues.

Cheers!

[janice]

Yawwwwwwwn . . .
I hesitate to even remotely think that Bush is a Christian at all, with all his endorsement on the hate/discrimination issues.

Cheers!

Could you list some examples of what you mean?  Thanks!!!

[trunks]

His active support of the FMA and the recent suggestion of the Constitutional amendment are ample in reflecting his deadly obduracy and bigotry rather than anything about Christian love and respect. He has actually been shattering the very notion of liberty - which the Constitution firmly defends.

Bear in mind that all forms of 'Christian' bigotry drive people away from true Christian faith rather than attract them.

On his removal of two tyrannical regimes, what about North Korea? What about China?

[drooxy]

Not too many oil reservoirs in North Korea or China...



Cheers,
Drooxy

[willcowskitz]

Well said, Saturn!!  AMEN!!  I love Bush!!  He is a godly man, a very devout Christian, and I believe that he did what he did only after spending a great deal of time in prayer over this.  Therefore, I believe that he is doing God's will.  I won't get into one of my "sermons" here! LOL  Just because they couldn't find any weapons doesn't mean that there was none.  Duh!!

BHUAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!
Good one, Janice, good one.

[liszmaninopin]

I suppose it's known that I don't support Bush, but I have a question/challenge for those who do.  Defend in perhaps a paragraph or two why you want him back in office.  Bring in any issue you want.  The other day, I was trying to think about anything that Bush has done that seemed like a good decision.  He made some decent ones, but then didn't follow up properly-the Afghan war; for example.  Domestically, though, I can think of nothing positive that he has done.

[Saturn]

He adds many words and phrases to the dictionary.  What, you mean Bushisms don't count as valuable contributions to society?

Just recently, Bush declared that his administration will "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people."  Quite possibly the best Bushism yet.

[in_love_with_liszt]

Uhh...In my opinion George Bush uniting America is like a wrecking ball building a house-
in other words, Bush just isn't built in such a way that he can unite the US completely. His idea of uniting America is building a large social fence around the entire nation and turning it into a very select Country Club, and you're not allowed in if you're not religious, not straight, and not "American" enough by his standards. Not saying he hasn't done some good things, like tightening of security which has undoubtedly kept us safer. However, in general it seems he is digging this country further into a trench that will be very hard to get out of sooner or later.

[willcowskitz]

Realize the irony in the way Bush punctuates words "freedom" and "security" in same sentence?

Benjamin Franklin said it best;

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

[Allan]

John Kerry has said more illogical things than President Bush.   Just the other day, he ran an ad saying "I defended our country as a youth."  But shortly after he left Vietnam Kerry testified before congress in 1971.  I watched the video of his testimony and he said that both he and his fellow solidiers routinely committed war atrocitites---in no way did Kerrey view the actions of the U.S. as defending his country.   Instead, he viewed the US as engaging in an illegal war.   His view on this was unambiguous.  I respect anyone who fights for our country, but Kerry is bound by his actions and words (which greatly offended many Vietnam veterans).  Kerrey wants to revise his own history by asserting  "I defended my country" in Vietnam.  Which is it---war criminal or hero!!??  Kerrey's instability in thinking---let alone his potential instability as a leader---is truly shocking.

[liszmaninopin]

Well, that does miss the point, as this discussion is about Bush...but anyway:

By "defended his country," I feel that he was referring to having willingly served in the armed forces, in a zone of battle.  Also, perhaps when he first joined, he was an idealistic youth; strong in feeling that the war was justified and he was truly defending his country.  When he got back, he realized that the Vietnam war was a mistake, and not truly a defensive war.  He recognized error, and changed his mind.  Don't mistake changing your mind for weakness.  When someone changes their mind based upon a keener perception of reality, it is a positive thing.  When one refuses to change one's mind despite reality, it is a negative thing.

[Allan]

Lizmaninopin, although we probably agree about Liszt and Chopin, I respectfully disagree with you  on this one.  

My post was directly addressing the GWB issue.  My point is that Kerry's gaffs are more intentional and manipulative rather than Bush's sometimes ridiculous, but unintentional, gaffs.  Kerry already defined for himself what he did in Vietnam.  He went before Congress and, with the broadest of brushes, painted himself, other soldiers and most military leaders as essentially engaging in, and approving of, criminal activity.  Who can debate that Vietnam was anything other than a debacle?  But Kerry went much further in his testimony.  The kind of criminal actions Kerry discussed involve INTENT, not just mere accidents or following orders.  He aligned himself (which was his right) with a very reactionary group out to prove criminal intent in order to stop the war.   Okay, but I just can not buy his new characterization that he defended  his country.  I believe that Kerry was against the Vietnam war, but the way he went about it was over the top.  That is just my view.

[liszmaninopin]

I don't believe Bush's gaffs are unintentional, many of them anyway.  To beat a dead horse, take the Iraq example-different segments of his administration are and have been giving completely contradictory impressions about WMD and links to terrorists/Al-Qaida.

You have a point, that in hindsight, fighting in Vietnam was not really "defending the country."  However, for what it's worth, he did volunteer to do whatever his country asked of him in some of the harshest combat of a very gruesome war.  There is some intrinsic honor in that, in my mind.

[Allan]

I honor Senator Kerry's military service.  But I hold him accountable for his own serious descripition/definition of his actions in combat.  He is the one who has boxed himself in on this one.  

To tell a lie is intentional.  I understand Kerry thinks Bush lied (i.e. intentionally mislead) concerning WMD.  I give Bush more credit than that.  The C.I.A., Russia and Great Britian all gave independent accounts that were alarming.  After 911, President Bush was not going to believe in Iraq's position rather than take action.   Kerry and Edwards took the same view, and I applaud them for that.  What I can't abide is their attempt to revise what they approved of and passing their votes off as "lies by Bush and his administration."   Are Kerry and Edwards on record as saying SPECIFICALLY "our votes were wrong."  I doubt that, because they are trying to win an election on the premise they are "strong" on defense.

[Peachy_Keen]

I suppose it's known that I don't support Bush, but I have a question/challenge for those who do.  Defend in perhaps a paragraph or two why you want him back in office.  Bring in any issue you want.  The other day, I was trying to think about anything that Bush has done that seemed like a good decision.  He made some decent ones, but then didn't follow up properly-the Afghan war; for example.  Domestically, though, I can think of nothing positive that he has done.

Well, in all fairness you might as well offer the same challenge to everyone who supports Kerry.

[liszmaninopin]

True, I might, but such a thread has already been started by Allan.  It has Kerry/Edwards in the title, you can't miss it.

[Peachy_Keen]

True, I might, but such a thread has already been started by Allan.  It has Kerry/Edwards in the title, you can't miss it.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of a proactive statement that makes arguments instead of generalisations.

[liszmaninopin]

Okay, I will take my own challenge, but with regards to my support for Kerry.

I support Kerry's bid for the Presidency for many reasons, but two are of particular importance to me.  First is the environment.  Kerry's voting record on environmental conservation is top notch, and I fully believe that of all the candidates presently running, Kerry will do the best job balancing sound environmental protection with economic growth.  My second main reason for supporting Kerry is that I feel he will pursue a sensible foreign policy.  He has stated many times that he will seek diplomatic solutions to problems, and has demonstrated the ability while in the foreign relations committee to tackle difficult international problems.  He is a very intelligent man, and able to articulate his ideas well-both of which will be positive characteristics in the drive to cooperate effectively with the environmental community.

[ahmedito]

I firmly believe that Bush is the worst thing that happened to the USA, and not good for the rest of the world either. And if the american people reelect him, the rest of the world will change their minds in their attitude to the americans to "they deserve everything they get now".

Check this site out:

https://www.theboywhocriediraq.com

To the Bush haters it will all be sensible stuff. To the Bush likers, please read through it, at least you'll understand what we Bush haters think...pretty much.

[ChristmasCarol]

I have an idea,
Let's have George Bush read the 1,000 names of soldiers who have died on each 9/11 anniversary.

[dinosaurtales]

AND the 3000 names of civilians killed by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

[liszmaninopin]

While we're at it, how about the countless Iraqis who have died, not only as collateral damage, but through the imposition of extremely harsh sanctions...

I don't think we should go this way.

[bernhard]

And let us not forget 10 000 Iraqi civilians, many of whom were children and who had nothing to do with any of that.

[Allan]

And all the others who have died from terroism in the Middle East and elsewhere.   Remember folks, John Kerrey voted for military action.  

[trunks]

I urge my American friends to vote and uproot the Bush and cast it into the fire.

[ChristmasCarol]

I urge my American friends to vote and uproot the Bush and cast it into the fire.

You got it... I have a bumper sticker that says "The Bush I like isn't in the White House"

[Daevren]

To me it is amazing to see how much support Bush still has. Just shows how subjective things can be.

To me he is awful. No leadership qualities whatsoever so his neocon advisors just tell him what to do. Now these guys are smart. I know Bush isn't as stupid as he appears to be, because of his language disability, but he is still no match for those guys. He can not win any discussion against those guys. That puts some crazy people in power.

If he is just an image then why can't he give a speech? And his speechwriters, my god, there are so much lies and utter provocations, poralisations, oversimplyfications in it, it makes every non-american, and probably alot of americans sick.

I also don't get the whole strong on defence thing Bush supposedly has. Why is that guy strong on defence? What skills does he have? Did he study Caesar and Napoleon when he was young or something? I don't get the impression Bush is some kind of military genius. And all those big mouthed guys, Rumsfelt and Wolfowitz, they have no military experience whatsoever. What are they doing in the defence department? Same with Cheney.

Its pretty sick that the Bush campaign tries to scare the sh*t out of people, that only Bush can safe the whole world from utter destruction. And that a vote for Kerry is a vote for terror. Those things are the most ridiculous I ever heard.

Also, probably the scariest, is that he thinks god tells him what to do, he has a direct connection with god and he is just completing gods mission. We had some people like that in history before, and they are pretty insane.

"- Squander the goodwill of the international community towards the US post 9/11 by alienating some of our closest allies."

Thats probably the worst thing he did. There was so much support and now the US has no credit at all. They misused the trust of the closest allies. Pretty bad thing for america.

Another big problem is that both de democrats and republicans sevre corporations, they don't serve the people, they serve corporations. It doesn't really matter who you vote for, the same people will be put in power.

Why ooh why, out of all americans, did you people elect that guy?

He split the US in half, polarised the whole country, and thus the world.

I wouldn't vote for Kerry though.

[Allan]

Let us all ensure that Kerrey never even sniffs the oval office.  

I get a little riled about all the "goodwill" that was squandered.  What does "goodwill" really mean!?  I appreciated the show of sympathy by other countries, but we needed their serious help, not just laying flowers at embassies.   Many of the European countries would be reluctant to join us in ANY military action against the Middle East.   When Kerrey, Edwards and others decided to go to war, other countries did help us.  But France and Germany were never going to help us.  The LA Times (an anti-Bush paper) stated in a recent front page article that Kerrey's claim he would get more allies involved was ridiculous.  The article quoted  many embassy and foreign officials who clearly stated that a change in leadership would NOT result in  additional countries coming to our aid in the fight against terrorism.

[Daevren]

I am pretty sure Kerry could get alot more support from Europe. Remember that in countries like Italy there was a 80% majority against the war. Same in Poland, Spain an a few other countries.

Also, Kerry will not have policies to offend, provoke and humiliate his allies.

[Allan]

Kerrey's campaign is the most disingenuous campaign  I have ever witnessed.   It is my belief that if Kerrey voted the way he usually did in Congress (on behalf of his more liberal-leaning constituents in Mass.) he would have voted against the war.  Instead, realizing that a national election was looming, he broke ranks from his Mass. ties and voted for the war.  Now he waivers (seemingly) each week regarding the war.  

[Daevren]

Thats another topic.

But it isn't as bad as Bush sowing hate and fear.

[Allan]

Kerrey and Edwards have done much to spread hate if you think going to war was a "hateful thing" (which I do not, I think it was an act of defense).    Kerrey and Edwards voted for war--the use of deadly force.  Many countries disagreed  with their decision and considered the war a "hateful act."    Edwards always talks about "two Americas"  (the old, tired and yes, hateful way) of trying to pit Americans against each other with class warfare politics.    Kerrey testified in Congress in 1971 that all American soldiers were committing atrocities (check the transcript of his testimony).  His  over-the-top rhetoric did much to stir hate and resentment within this country, sorry to say.  

[Daevren]

Maybe Kerry lied in 1971 I don't know.

But if he did then he lied with a good reason, to stop a war.

And the war in Iraq, if you think it was defence then that is pretty stupid. Because everyone knows Iraq was totally harmless. Its military was so weak it wasn't even able to control its own territorry. And then the US feels threatened. You know, those people in Kuwait and Iran, who both got invaded by Iraq, laughed their asses off because of the absurdity.

But I saw polls from the US. The Bush administration did a good job at brainwashing people. About 60-70% believed Saddam was behind 9/11. And I saw several independent polls having the same percentages.

Now that is stupid.

If Bush started another brain wash campaign tomorrow he could invade any country in the world for any reason. I bet they could get support for bombing France or Germany. That is because imagination of about 40% of the people in the US stops when you cross the border. They don't know that there is a world outside of the US. Its the same people that don't have a passport and never leave their state. You could get them to vote for Hitler.

[liszmaninopin]

I think that the reason we had little international support for the war was the fact that it was unjustified.  If there was a war waged for legitimate reasons, we would find much more support.  Kerry says wouldn't launch a war for false reasons, and if that's the case, he would garner more international support.  Also, most of the world hates Bush now-they're certainly not going to cooperate with any of his plans.  They might be willing to give Kerry a chance.

[dinosaurtales]

I think that the reason we had little international support for the war was the fact that it was unjustified.  If there was a war waged for legitimate reasons, we would find much more support.  Kerry says wouldn't launch a war for false reasons, and if that's the case, he would garner more international support.  Also, most of the world hates Bush now-they're certainly not going to cooperate with any of his plans.  They might be willing to give Kerry a chance.

We had a lack of  support from France and Germany for at least 2 reasons:  1) None of those countries really want to help the US even though they are considered "allies".  They are lazy and cheap, and 2) They didn't have airplanes fly into their buildings killing 3000 of their citizens.  If they had, they would be right there on the war on terror.  Look at the Russian school *incident*.  Russia was cool on the war on terror till that happened to THEM, now they are hot to trot.  

We actually have quite a coalition going with countries like Britain, Australia, and several others.  the press just doesn't like to mention those, though because it would look like were successful after all.

If anybody thinks that the countries that are our *friends* really ARE our friends, they're in la-la land.  Most countries, like Russia, Japan, Germany, China, etc etc are just waiting like spiders for the US to appear weak enough to go after, and trust me, they will .  All of those countries would love to have the US in their back pocket.  So I am leery of the *necessity* of a coalition to fight a war where we were the ones attacked.  If they want to join in , great, but it's really our fight now.

[xvimbi]

We had a lack of  support from France and Germany for at least 2 reasons:  1) None of those countries really want to help the US even though they are considered "allies".  They are lazy and cheap, and 2) They didn't have airplanes fly into their buildings killing 3000 of their citizens.  If they had, they would be right there on the war on terror.  Look at the Russian school *incident*.  Russia was cool on the war on terror till that happened to THEM, now they are hot to trot.  

You are confusing the "War on terror" with the "War against Iraq" (like so many of your fellow citizens). There is a lack of support for the war against Iraq, because most countries did not think it was justified. And as it turned out, they were right.

There is total support for the war on terror by the countries you mentioned. Russia, Germany and France have had problems with terrorism long before GW Bush was even born. They have been fighting terrorism for decades and have made good progress. Only Russia still has problems, and that might be their own fault. You didn't see the US help those countries in any way. Germany and a lot of other countries participate actively in fighting terrorism with the US in Afghanistan. They do not participate in the war against Iraq, because it is a completely different ballgame.

[liszmaninopin]

We don't necessarily need an international coalition.  However, charging into war with almost the entire world telling you that you're wrong should make one listen.  International support lends legitimacy to an international operation.  As it stands, what little support we have is waning-and the citizens of those governments that support the war are mostly anti-war.  Even in the US, the war is very unpopular.  The Iraq war was a bad decision-and most of the world can say "I told you so..."

Flying airplanes into a tower has nothing to do with Iraq-so you can't use that as a justification for the war.

[Daevren]

We had a lack of  support from France and Germany for at least 2 reasons:  1) None of those countries really want to help the US even though they are considered "allies".  They are lazy and cheap, and 2) They didn't have airplanes fly into their buildings killing 3000 of their citizens.  If they had, they would be right there on the war on terror.  Look at the Russian school *incident*.  Russia was cool on the war on terror till that happened to THEM, now they are hot to trot.

You know nothing about international politics.

They are lazy and cheap? what! Is that a reason? They didn't have planes, they had their own terrorists. And they are gone now.

And after 9/11 the US had alot of support, and you almost lost all, why? Because of W Bush his arrogance and unability to think.

A reason why France and Germany didn't support the war in Iraq was because it was not in their interest. They had more trade with Iraq than the US. The US needed no help because THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO THREAT FROM IRAQ! No country in the world was threatened by Iraq. With one exeption? The most powerful country in the world, the US? Come on!

Why did France and Germany oppose the war? Because it would increase terrorism, would destroy Iraq and kill alot of people. If my government would sent me to Iraq to kill innocent people because the US wants to for undisclosed reasons then my government would do a really crappy job. France and Germany are not going to the work for the US because the US demands it.

Then they got bashed by Rumsfelt, American media and who knows else. The US laughs them in the fase and starts an war without UN support. Then the US commits a war crime by an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. (not the first, maybe the 20th time). People got hanged for that in Nuremburg. And don't give me the 1441 resolution crap. Resolutions don't give you the right to invade a country. Only the UN does, and they didn't. Its the UN's 1441 resolution. Not an american 1441 resolution. The US cannot use resolution 1441 in any way.

Resolution 1441 can only be an ethical reason, not a legal one.

Russia? Do you know anything about Russia? Russia has had had terrorists from Chechnia for the last 15 years. Why? Because the russian military kills people in Chechnia. With the support of the US and Europe btw. And then those people want revenge.

Actually, before 9/11 the US was critical about it, so was Europe. But since 9/11 the US is free to do what it wants, Russia will not comment on it, and in return the US will not comment on Chechnia. So they can slaughter people without critizism. And that is as good as the 'War on Terror' gets. And yes 'War on Terror' should always be in quotes, because its just a name. It is not war on terror. You cannot wage war on terror. Its a meaningless Orwellian term.

Cool on terror? Terrorism is the reason Putin got elected. Russia has been hot on terror for the last 10 years. Also, the war in Chechnia hasn't got anything to do with 9/11, "The War on Terror", Al Quada or anything. Its an old ethnic conflict, it has been there for a long time and has become active since the collapse of the Sovjet Union.

If you don't care about what happens outside the US, then don't comment on it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

If anybody thinks that the countries that are our *friends* really ARE our friends, they're in la-la land.  Most countries, like Russia, Japan, Germany, China, etc etc are just waiting like spiders for the US to appear weak enough to go after, and trust me, they will .  All of those countries would love to have the US in their back pocket. "

Then they are no different than the US? Whats wrong with that?

[Allan]

I appreciate and respect your views, Daevren, I hope you do others, even if you disagree, for example,  with someone's points about international politics.

[Daevren]

I do. But when they are in contradiction with the facts I have to point it out.

[Allan]

Kerry's campaign is in trouble because of the box he created for himself.  He voted for war.  Edwards voted for war.   I would have found him to be at least more coherent if he had voted against the war.  If people are going to criticize, then Kerry and Edwards share blame for the war.  

Hypothetical Only:

Kerry:  "Hi, I'm President John Kerry.  Would you please help send money and troops to Iraq in the war I approved!?"

German Chancellor.  "Let me think about it.  I thought about it...no."

[dinosaurtales]

Kerry's campaign is in trouble because of the box he created for himself.  He voted for war.  Edwards voted for war.   I would have found him to be more at least more coherent if he had voted against the war.  If people are going to criticize, then Kerry and Edwards share blame for the war.  

Hypothetical Only:

Kerry:  "Hi, I'm President John Kerry.  Would you please help send money and troops to Iraq in the war I approved!?"

German Chancellor.  "Let me think about it.  I thought about it...no."

That's hysterical - I imagine that's not too unlike how the conversation would actually go.  Then Kerry would *condemn* their actions, and raise taxes to cover the cost over here (like they couldn't get the money any other way!  ha!)

[Hmoll]

Then Kerry would *condemn* their actions, and raise taxes to cover the cost over here (like they couldn't get the money any other way!  ha!)

And what other ways - besides the taxpayer - do you think this war is being paid for?

[Daevren]

Pffff, what the hell are you people talking about. Kerry can't restore Bush his mistake. And he can't just pull the troops out. He won't get support because he isn't Bush.

Kerry will go to Europe, talk with Schroder and Chirac. Of course he isn't going to beg for money. He doesn't have to. He will just talk with them about how he is not Bush and he will consult and respect his allies.

He could get the UN involved. Bush doesn't want that. THe UN could pay some of the costs. Also, alot more countries could get involved.

But I guess its kind of too late now. It had already escalated far too much. It also seems that the US military has 0.0% experience and training for peacekeeping missions. They always end up provoking the general population.

Kerry can't fix Iraq. But at least he will not start another unessesary war without international support.

[ChristmasCarol]

Pffff, what the hell are you people talking about. Kerry can't restore Bush his mistake. And he can't just pull the troops out. He won't get support because he isn't Bush.

Kerry will go to Europe, talk with Schroder and Chirac. Of course he isn't going to beg for money. He doesn't have to. He will just talk with them about how he is not Bush and he will consult and respect his allies.

He could get the UN involved. Bush doesn't want that. THe UN could pay some of the costs. Also, alot more countries could get involved.

But I guess its kind of too late now. It had already escalated far too much. It also seems that the US military has 0.0% experience and training for peacekeeping missions. They always end up provoking the general population.

Kerry can't fix Iraq. But at least he will not start another unessesary war without international support.

Have you read "The Ugly American"?  The U.S. has been screwing up in other countries before.  It is an irony it seems to me that the very reason the U.S. was formed was to get away from the British Empire.  And... well the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree it seems.  The thing that makes my skin crawl is Bush's (written by someone else speeches) saying God is on our side and blah blah blah.  And we want everyone to be a democracy... well yah even if they maybe don't want to be a democracy.  And while I'm at it, I'm so tired of reading/hearing insults slung back and forth at whoever is expressing their opinion.  I'm working on a blues tune called "The Republican Whine".  And isn't it fascinating that the Democrats are always blamed for higher taxes and the Republicans get in office and "forget" their promises to do better?  I have a new policy when I vote.... no incumbents.... ever.  Let's see if there's anyone with enough guts to do something that really represents the American people.  I'm waiting... waiting.