Czuch: I don't want to debate for or against anything, but did want to post this:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp

Just in case what you posted gives someone the wrong information.

Artful Dodger: Ok Czuch... I did not compare Bush with Hitler.

I was simply pointing out that just because ones own country backs a war DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

Tuesday & anastasia: Now I remember why I stopped in the fellowship political boards - everyone nit-picks and starts to put words in my mouth. I think I'm done also.

Artful Dodger: Sorry that I started - please just ignore my comments below. I will stay out of the rest of the conversations also.

Artful Dodger: Well I'm not sure how the Clinton administration could be blamed when they did not act upon it.

So question - is Hitler a war criminal? I mean he acted with the backing of his countries administration & politicians? (like the Bush administration acted with the backing of Congress.) [POINT: Just because someone's own country "backs" killing does not make it right.]

I know bringing this up will bring up how this organization is broken - but I still believe any elective war against another country should be backed by the UN. (not just a group of friendly countries).

Let me back up a minute:

I see 2 types of wars. First is a war that is started in retaliation for an attack. War on terror & invasion of Afghanistan was in retaliation for 9/11. Attack of Japan was in retaliation for Pearl Harbor. War with Germany was in retaliation for them declaring war against the US after Japan started the war with the US.

Second - Elective war. This is a war which is started as a pre-emptive strike. THE ONLY TIME in my eyes that an elective war should be started again is with the backing of the UN - which not just the views of 1 country is taking into account - but the views of many countries.

=======
You ask about the president lying in the statement. Well I don't see that statement as a lie - I mean the attack was ordered - was joined by British forces - used the reasoning for attacking weapons program - was a pre-emtive to protect the US. So no, I don't think the statement you wrote is a lie. I believe many facts were distorted and the facts that did not agree with the war plan were labeled as not reliable - and the Bush administration led many to believe the war in Iraq was part of the war on Terror, where in reality it was a second war.

Artful Dodger: The war in Afghanistan was part of the war on terror, the hunt for Bin Laden - a war that most of the world agreed with the Bush administration in starting. There are innocent people killed there, but most see that as part of a just war - a war that was not elective, but a war that was started in retaliation for the attack against America.

The war in Iraq was an elective war that the Bush administration started - a war that most of the world did not agree with - so when innocent people get killed there, it is easy to see why some would blame the Bush Administration for this - since this was a war that should have never been started (as some would see it).

If the Obama administration starts a new elective war and innocent people get killed, then yes - I can see people wanted put the war criminal name to Obama.

This is one of the examples of a bad situation that has happened (Gitmo has held without trial - some people for over 5 years.. some as long as 7 or 8 years)

The extreme answer is to close gitmo.

The CORRECT answer would be process the captured in a TIMELY MANOR and deal with them.

Some of the men held at Gitmo was just in the wrong place at the wrong time - they are not a threat (well were not - maybe now since they have been held in the same areas as extremist for the past many years.. enough to probable get a little brainwashed and pissed at the US for such a long detainment).

Anyway, for some even, the US wants to release them and send them back home, but their home country will not accept them. And who would want to accept someone who 5-8 years ago was not a threat, but again - has been held in close contact with extremist who may have altered their view?

Anyway, this situation is something that should have been solved MANY years ago. It is a shame that Bush let it go this long and made it a problem that Obama will have to sort out. I think "Closing" was too harsh of a direction to go - where as "dealing & processing ALL people held within 6 months" would have been a MUCH better way to go.

... and then if there are extremist which are too "bad" to do anything with, they can stay at Gitmo - but others who are not will hopefully be finally released.

But what do I know - I've only said for the past 4 years they needed to do something with the people being held and not just hold them indefinitely.

I believe the car industry needs help - but this just shows how the people running these companies have NO IDEA of how to run a company.

http://consumerist.com/5137457/chrysler-buys-ads-thanking-you-for-tax-money-you-get-pissed-chrysler-censors-you

Tuesday: "...so called freedom of expression we have supposedly given them."

I believe the "freedom of expression" would be more of freedom to think and speak what they wanted.

Throwing items at someone is a form of assault, which I believe is not even allowed in the US. (Even throwing something that will do no harm can still be considered an assault.)

Czuch: why you say how we were feeding the people in Iraq - was that because we made it impossible for the people of Iraq to sell oil and buy feed themselves?

I mean I understand the need of the emargo against Iraq - but to try to use the result of that (no money for food) as a reason to do more.... Sorry, fail.

Vikings: I would normally agree - but we see how Bush went into Iraq against many wishes - why not do the same to help his own people? Why would Bush care so much to make the people in Iraq lives better... and not his own people?

OK, that was a little bit of sarcasm

Katrina was cause by a lot of issues, many plans and actions were made long before Bush was ever involved - and Katrina caused many of those plans and actions to fail and I don't think Bush or his people should be held responsible for the failure - but they are of course held responsible to make it better for next time. So when the next big natural disaster strikes, if Bush & his people did not learn from Katrina to make it better - then that would be where to blame Bush.

Oh please.... not another Bush in the white house.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090104/ap_on_go_pr_wh/another_president_bush

The problem with Blagojevich is that I believe he was planning on bigger and better things (like a President run at some point), so this "scandal" has really thrown a wrench into his plans.

Of course I don't think bigger and better things are possible, but by resigning or running away, it will make him look guilty and will most defiantly be little chance of him moving on to bigger & better things - and the only hope (small one now) that he has is to deny & fight back.

You can click on it to make it bigger - but it says "Politics in Illinois - Where "Cell Number" on your business card has a slightly different meaning.

I was a little scared this weekend. I heard that a reporter in Iraq threw his shoes at President Bush, and I was afraid he would use that as an excuse to start yet another war, like with Iran.... you know, since people in Iran wear shoes and such.

I'm just going on things I heard or read - sorry I don't have examples - nor am I sure this is 100% correct, but I will try to post what I know about the automobile bailout.

As anastasia has said - it is more of a loan then a bailout.

Also, as I understand it - the UAW in their last 2 contracts have already given in on many things they had in the past, and as I understand it - the president of the union has also agreed that the union will take more cuts. As I understand it, the Senate wanted the union president the other day to promise exact cuts that the UAW would take, and even though he agreed that the UAW needed to do that - he could of course not give specifics since things like that would have to be voted on by all UAW union workers.

The Union president has also said that (as I mentioned about, the union already took cuts and willing to do more), that he also believes that the union should not be the only one giving back. The CEO's and upper management of the car companies should also give back. Also the majority of car parts are made by non-union companies, and even though the UAW has taken cuts in the past - management and other outside sources have only gained in the past. So as he said, the union is willing to do their part - but they also should not be the only ones.

Plus just to let people know - I believe unions today are almost pointless. I believe I lost my job 6 years ago because of the greed and uselessness of a union - so it's not that I'm pro-union... I'm just posting what I understand of the situation right now.

... and again, I say "as I understand" a lot since I'm not 100% sure of all of those - it is just things I have heard and read - so it might not be correct.

anastasia: Some "druggies" will take anything - and they will process the old med's in their bodies until it comes out as less harmful waste.

Jim Dandy: yes I did - kind of "happy" news here where I work....... even though I don't like the idea of spending more money on a special election to pick Obama's replacement because of costs when there is already not enough money to go around.... but I don't like the idea of the governor picking either......

Jim Dandy: Well first he took the money from our local state park which was scheduled to close at the end of November - and after a lot of people calling daily, our local park is one of the few that got the money back to stay open.

Of course I also work at a non-profit agency in his state, and his cut backs on money we normally get from the state has hurt.

Oh, I don't like him very much.........