I think most Americans expect just one thing from their Presidents: War. If a U.S President doesn't start a war somewhere on foreign soil, then he's considered weak, or uninspiring.
Really?
Maybe I'm not "most Americans", but that's not my expectation. Where are you getting that from?
From here, I expect anyone who claims they're qualified to lead this country, to do just that.
Be smart, be responsible, no hiding, no excuses, no double-talking, no shots, no strings. No divisiveness.
Follow through with the promises made.
Party affiliation means shit to me.
DO YOUR FUCKING JOB, AND DO IT WELL.
Maybe with some integrity too.
So tough to accomplish?
awesome post !
Byrnzie is just trying to push buttons.
Seriously, I looked into your eyes, America, saw deep into your soul. So let's get honest and officially call it "America's Outrageous War Economy." Admit it: we secretly love our war economy. And that's the answer to Jim Grant's thought-provoking question last month in the Wall Street Journal -- "Why No Outrage?"
There really is only one answer: Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war. We love "America's Outrageous War Economy."
Americans passively zone out playing video war games. We nod at 90-second news clips of Afghan war casualties and collateral damage in Georgia. We laugh at Jon Stewart's dark comedic news and Ben Stiller's new war spoof "Tropic Thunder" ... all the while silently, by default, we're cheering on our leaders as they aggressively expand "America's Outrageous War Economy," a relentless machine that needs a steady diet of war after war, feeding on itself, consuming our values, always on the edge of self-destruction.
Why else are Americans so eager and willing to surrender 54% of their tax dollars to a war machine, which consumes 47% of the world's total military budgets?
Why are there more civilian mercenaries working for no-bid private war contractors than the total number of enlisted military in Iraq (180,000 to 160,000), at an added cost to taxpayers in excess of $200 billion and climbing daily?
Why do we shake our collective heads "yes" when our commander-in-chief proudly tells us he is a "war president;" and his party's presidential candidate chants "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as if "war" is a celebrity hit song?
Why do our spineless Democrats let an incompetent, blundering executive branch hide hundreds of billions of war costs in sneaky "supplemental appropriations" that are more crooked than Enron's off-balance-sheet deals?
Why have Washington's 537 elected leaders turned the governance of the American economy over to 42,000 greedy self-interest lobbyists?
And why earlier this year did our "support-our-troops" "war president" resist a new GI Bill because, as he said, his military might quit and go to college rather than re-enlist in his war; now we continue paying the Pentagon's warriors huge $100,000-plus bonuses to re-up so they can keep expanding "America's Outrageous War Economy?" Why? Because we secretly love war!
Funny, but I thought that your goofy, frat-boy President, George W. Bush was undoubtedly the most incompetent President your country has ever had.
I mean, I think it's clear to any reasonable person that Dubya was an idiot. He wasn't a leader. And he just did what he was told - even then, with great difficulty. Didn't he break the record for the least amount of public appearances, and foreign travel, of any President before him in the age of t.v? He was such a complete moron that even his puppet masters were afraid and embarrassed to wheel him out onto the public stage.
To deny this means you a are a fucking imbecile. Pure and simple.
The 'worst president' portion of this thread should have been done with the very first responder simply stating the obvious. Everyone else should have said, "Okay. Well... the second worst president then."
The best president can definitely be up for debate.
Funny, but I thought that your goofy, frat-boy President, George W. Bush was undoubtedly the most incompetent President your country has ever had.
I mean, I think it's clear to any reasonable person that Dubya was an idiot. He wasn't a leader. And he just did what he was told - even then, with great difficulty. Didn't he break the record for the least amount of public appearances, and foreign travel, of any President before him in the age of t.v? He was such a complete moron that even his puppet masters were afraid and embarrassed to wheel him out onto the public stage.
To deny this means you a are a fucking imbecile. Pure and simple.
The 'worst president' portion of this thread should have been done with the very first responder simply stating the obvious. Everyone else should have said, "Okay. Well... the second worst president then."
The best president can definitely be up for debate.
Yinz are like a baby birdies, mouths agape swallowing what you are fed and happily ignorant to any other possibility. It's quite sick the influence media has over youzes brains. Bush can be considered a prez who could have been better. "He could have been better" because he was inherently good; his problem was not that he was too "right wing" his problem was that he was recklessly swayed by the congress gearing up for an Obama presidency.
Obama, the worst thing that has ever happened to the US, kept the destructive policies of Bush and added a sympathy for the enemy. Then took the bail out Mountra of Bush and threw borrowed money at anyone who would take it.
The current douche bag in the White House literally (and I mean literally) got all the money in the world and didn't do one lasting positive thing. At least FDR had some good ideas; BHO has zero, zilch, nada.
The dude only kept one campaign promise...he reversed global warming; it's fucking freezing here!
Bush can be considered a prez who could have been better. "He could have been better" because he was inherently good; his problem was not that he was too "right wing" his problem was that he was recklessly swayed by the congress gearing up for an Obama presidency.!
..Oh man, that is too funny! Thanks for the laugh.
Funny, but I thought that your goofy, frat-boy President, George W. Bush was undoubtedly the most incompetent President your country has ever had.
I mean, I think it's clear to any reasonable person that Dubya was an idiot. He wasn't a leader. And he just did what he was told - even then, with great difficulty. Didn't he break the record for the least amount of public appearances, and foreign travel, of any President before him in the age of t.v? He was such a complete moron that even his puppet masters were afraid and embarrassed to wheel him out onto the public stage.
To deny this means you a are a fucking imbecile. Pure and simple.
The 'worst president' portion of this thread should have been done with the very first responder simply stating the obvious. Everyone else should have said, "Okay. Well... the second worst president then."
The best president can definitely be up for debate.
Yinz are like a baby birdies, mouths agape swallowing what you are fed and happily ignorant to any other possibility. It's quite sick the influence media has over youzes brains. Bush can be considered a prez who could have been better. "He could have been better" because he was inherently good; his problem was not that he was too "right wing" his problem was that he was recklessly swayed by the congress gearing up for an Obama presidency.
Obama, the worst thing that has ever happened to the US, kept the destructive policies of Bush and added a sympathy for the enemy. Then took the bail out Mountra of Bush and threw borrowed money at anyone who would take it.
The current douche bag in the White House literally (and I mean literally) got all the money in the world and didn't do one lasting positive thing. At least FDR had some good ideas; BHO has zero, zilch, nada.
The dude only kept one campaign promise...he reversed global warming; it's fucking freezing here!
It's clear to me that you have no idea how foolish you come across on these boards.
the best and worst US presidents weren't this idolized...
Che Guevara is an icon, but those who idolize him idolize a lie. Che was not a “freedom fighter.” He was a killer who enjoyed killing. He was, after all, Fidel Castro’s executioner.
He proudly claimed the deaths of 1400 boys, his own hands!
Tell us where you live again Byrnzie? Did you vote this year?
Did you forget you live in the United States?
Clinton was a decent president, can most of us agree?
Byrnzie if you want to say that both sides commited atrocities I will 100% agree with you. But to completly blame the United States is being short sighted.
So what you're saying here is that the situation in Guatemala in the 1980's was a level playing field between the forces of Communism, on the one hand, and the forces of Democracy, on the other? A level playing field? Now please explain to me how genocide occurs on a level playing field.
In 1995, Allan Nairn was interviewed on Charlie Rose about his piece in The Nation called "CIA Death Squad," in which he described how Americans were directly involved in killings by the Guatemalan army. He was interviewed alongside Elliott Abrams, who challenged what he was saying.
Elliot Abrams had served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs under President Reagan from 1981 to 1985. This clip begins with Elliott Abrams.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: Wait a minute. We’re not here to refight the Cold War. We’re here to talk about, I thought, a specific case in which an allegation is being made that—of the husband of an American and, another case, an American citizen were killed, and there was a CIA connection with—allegedly with the person allegedly involved in it. Now, I’m happy to talk about that kind of thing. If Mr. Nairn thinks we should have been on the other side in Guatemala—that is, we should have been in favor of a guerrilla victory—I disagree with him.
ALLAN NAIRN: So you’re then admitting that you were on the side of the Guatemalan military.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: I am admitting that it was the policy of the United States, under Democrats and Republicans, approved by Congress repeatedly, to oppose a communist guerrilla victory anywhere in Central America, including in Guatemala.
CHARLIE ROSE: Alright, well, I—
ALLAN NAIRN: A communist guerrilla victory.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, I—
ALLAN NAIRN:Ninety-five percent of these victims are civilians—peasant organizers, human rights leaders—
CHARLIE ROSE: I am happy to invite both of you—
ALLAN NAIRN:—priests—assassinated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan army. Let’s look at reality here. In reality, we’re not talking about two murders, one colonel. We’re talking about more than 100,000 murders, an entire army, many of its top officers employees of the U.S. government. We’re talking about crimes, and we’re also talking about criminals, not just people like the Guatemalan colonels, but also the U.S. agents who have been working with them and the higher-level U.S. officials. I mean, I think you have to be—you have to apply uniform standards. President Bush once talked about putting Saddam Hussein on trial for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg-style tribunal. I think that’s a good idea. But if you’re serious, you have to be even-handed. If we look at a case like this, I think we have to talk—start talking about putting Guatemalan and U.S. officials on trial. I think someone like Mr. Abrams would be a fit—a subject for such a Nuremberg-style inquiry. But I agree with Mr. Abrams that Democrats would have to be in the dock with him. The Congress has been in on this. The Congress approved the sale of 16,000 M-16s to Guatemala. In ’87 and ’88—
CHARLIE ROSE: Alright, but hold on one second. I just—before—because the—
ALLAN NAIRN: They voted more military aid than the Republicans asked for.
CHARLIE ROSE: Again, I invite you and Elliott Abrams back to discuss what he did. But right now, you—
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: No, thanks, Charlie, but I won’t accept—
the best and worst US presidents weren't this idolized...
Che Guevara is an icon, but those who idolize him idolize a lie. Che was not a “freedom fighter.” He was a killer who enjoyed killing. He was, after all, Fidel Castro’s executioner.
He proudly claimed the deaths of 1400 boys, his own hands!
Tell us where you live again Byrnzie? Did you vote this year?
Did you forget you live in the United States?
Clinton was a decent president, can most of us agree?
thank you for posting this about Guevara.
At the end of Clinton's term...I swear to God...the first thing I thought and said was "he kept us out of war for 8 years"
the best and worst US presidents weren't this idolized...
Che Guevara is an icon, but those who idolize him idolize a lie. Che was not a “freedom fighter.” He was a killer who enjoyed killing. He was, after all, Fidel Castro’s executioner.
He proudly claimed the deaths of 1400 boys, his own hands!
Tell us where you live again Byrnzie? Did you vote this year?
Did you forget you live in the United States?
Clinton was a decent president, can most of us agree?
thank you for posting this about Guevara.
At the end of Clinton's term...I swear to God...the first thing I thought and said was "he kept us out of war for 8 years"
I think enough time has past that most of us can agree that Clinton was a good/decent president. I don't think we could have achieved that same consensus the day he left office.
The number of people in California who have exhausted all available unemployment insurance benefits has surpassed 1 million. - http://UTSanDiego.com - http://utsd.us/19zKU68
Can we gauge this by lives lost can anyone here say IRAQ 4thousand american lives wasted as if we had a surpluss of citizens to be discarded like trash if i go on this BUSH is the worst ever by a country mile ...And how many IRAQI'S DEAD .......and not one weapon of mass destruction found none ....
Can we gauge this by lives lost can anyone here say IRAQ 4thousand american lives wasted as if we had a surpluss of citizens to be discarded like trash if i go on this BUSH is the worst ever by a country mile ...And how many IRAQI'S DEAD .......and not one weapon of mass destruction found none ....
I really like the Bush Family.
AND I voted for them every time. I still think Clinton was better for the time. What about Garfield ? What did he do? Dwight D. Eisenhower was neato, and so were both Roosevelt's.
Are you letting the media decide your mind? Do you feel like it's "un hip" to think for yourself?
J.F.K. spent a lot of his time cheating on Jakie. How many Kennedy's were corrupt?
I guess Nixon was the Best? This is all opinion. Saddam did worse to that country than the Bush family. Ask anyone from Iraq. PLEASE. I've posted this before, and I don't care to repeat it. Uday .. Saddam Jr. was sniped without any press. He was so EVIL. I compare him to Pablo Escobar . So evil. The Husseins all had body doubles, and Uday's "Twin" was forced to act like him. He was disgusted, and scared everyday.
Yahia was born into a Kurdish family. During his education, Latif claimed to have been classmates with Uday Hussein, and that classmates remarked on his resemblance to Uday.[1]
Yahia says he became Uday's double after the Iran–Iraq War had begun. Yahia's unit received a dispatch ordering Yahia (then 23) to report to the presidential palace. Upon his arrival, Yahia was informed that he was to become Uday's fedai (body double) to make public appearances as Uday whenever a dangerous situation was expected. Yahia initially refused to take the job and was subsequently put in solitary confinement. After his imprisonment, Latif agreed to be Uday's double. He was trained for six months to imitate Uday's speech patterns and manner. He underwent surgery and dental work to make their appearances more similar. During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Yahia was used as a morale booster for the Iraqi troops and sent to Basra posing as Uday to meet with troops.
His relationship with Uday later deteriorated. According to Yahia, the final straw came when a woman Uday was interested in paid more attention to Yahia. Uday shot at him, grazing him. Yahia fled north, where he was imprisoned by Kurdish rebels, being mistaken for Uday. When his captors realized he was not Uday, he was released and granted asylum in Austria in 1992. After Yahia was attacked in Austria, he moved to London in 1995.
On 10 March 1997, Yahia threatened a refugee official in Norway, showing up at his office with a can of gasoline, pouring it out over the floor, and threatening to light it. The official managed to calm Yahia, who fled after half an hour. He was subsequently arrested by the police. He was released before his trial and left the country, first to Germany, then to Ireland.
I wish I could make this stuff up but I read too many books.
'Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.'
'Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.'
'Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.'
90% of statistics are made up.
How many respondents out of how many responded positive to the surveyor?
Bye Burnz... I can't take your one sided stuff anymore. You used to be fun?
:wave:
We should ask Dr. Seuss.
they had fun tearing down his images... just saying?
Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better today
5%
Better before
90%
Not sure
5%
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
'Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.'
90% of statistics are made up.
How many respondents out of how many responded positive to the surveyor?
Bye Burnz... I can't take your one sided stuff anymore. You used to be fun?
:wave:
We should ask Dr. Seuss.
they had fun tearing down his images... just saying?
I think the retroactive justification ("Iraq is better off" "Hussein was evil") for the Iraq war is a way people who voted for Bush try to come to terms with their own guilt for voting for him
they had fun tearing down his images... just saying?
No one in that picture looks to be having any fun at all. Not one raised arm, not one person jumping up and down, no one joyfully hugging the person next to them.
Comments
awesome post !
Byrnzie is just trying to push buttons.
Godfather.
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2008-08 ... -president
Yes, America's economy is a war economy. Not a "manufacturing" economy. Not an "agricultural" economy. Nor a "service" economy. Not even a "consumer" economy.
Seriously, I looked into your eyes, America, saw deep into your soul. So let's get honest and officially call it "America's Outrageous War Economy." Admit it: we secretly love our war economy. And that's the answer to Jim Grant's thought-provoking question last month in the Wall Street Journal -- "Why No Outrage?"
There really is only one answer: Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war. We love "America's Outrageous War Economy."
Americans passively zone out playing video war games. We nod at 90-second news clips of Afghan war casualties and collateral damage in Georgia. We laugh at Jon Stewart's dark comedic news and Ben Stiller's new war spoof "Tropic Thunder" ... all the while silently, by default, we're cheering on our leaders as they aggressively expand "America's Outrageous War Economy," a relentless machine that needs a steady diet of war after war, feeding on itself, consuming our values, always on the edge of self-destruction.
Why else are Americans so eager and willing to surrender 54% of their tax dollars to a war machine, which consumes 47% of the world's total military budgets?
Why are there more civilian mercenaries working for no-bid private war contractors than the total number of enlisted military in Iraq (180,000 to 160,000), at an added cost to taxpayers in excess of $200 billion and climbing daily?
Why do we shake our collective heads "yes" when our commander-in-chief proudly tells us he is a "war president;" and his party's presidential candidate chants "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," as if "war" is a celebrity hit song?
Why do our spineless Democrats let an incompetent, blundering executive branch hide hundreds of billions of war costs in sneaky "supplemental appropriations" that are more crooked than Enron's off-balance-sheet deals?
Why have Washington's 537 elected leaders turned the governance of the American economy over to 42,000 greedy self-interest lobbyists?
And why earlier this year did our "support-our-troops" "war president" resist a new GI Bill because, as he said, his military might quit and go to college rather than re-enlist in his war; now we continue paying the Pentagon's warriors huge $100,000-plus bonuses to re-up so they can keep expanding "America's Outrageous War Economy?" Why? Because we secretly love war!
When we go to war the nation swells into a patriotic fervor, nothing can be questioned or you're an unpatirotic, unamerican, troop shater.
To deny this means you a are a fucking imbecile. Pure and simple.
The 'worst president' portion of this thread should have been done with the very first responder simply stating the obvious. Everyone else should have said, "Okay. Well... the second worst president then."
The best president can definitely be up for debate.
Yinz are like a baby birdies, mouths agape swallowing what you are fed and happily ignorant to any other possibility. It's quite sick the influence media has over youzes brains. Bush can be considered a prez who could have been better. "He could have been better" because he was inherently good; his problem was not that he was too "right wing" his problem was that he was recklessly swayed by the congress gearing up for an Obama presidency.
Obama, the worst thing that has ever happened to the US, kept the destructive policies of Bush and added a sympathy for the enemy. Then took the bail out Mountra of Bush and threw borrowed money at anyone who would take it.
The current douche bag in the White House literally (and I mean literally) got all the money in the world and didn't do one lasting positive thing. At least FDR had some good ideas; BHO has zero, zilch, nada.
The dude only kept one campaign promise...he reversed global warming; it's fucking freezing here!
It's clear to me that you have no idea how foolish you come across on these boards.
That is all.
Obama (combating national racism and calming irrational hatrid, stopped torture again, shrinking wars)
Lincoln (we all know what he did)
Worst:
W (Iraq war - fueling hatred of Muslims - torture)
Jackson (indians)
Buchanan and Pierce (because we had to wait for Lincoln)
he was a cleveland fan??
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Che Guevara is an icon, but those who idolize him idolize a lie. Che was not a “freedom fighter.” He was a killer who enjoyed killing. He was, after all, Fidel Castro’s executioner.
He proudly claimed the deaths of 1400 boys, his own hands!
Tell us where you live again Byrnzie? Did you vote this year?
Did you forget you live in the United States?
Clinton was a decent president, can most of us agree?
This is the kind of President that is too hipster.
So what you're saying here is that the situation in Guatemala in the 1980's was a level playing field between the forces of Communism, on the one hand, and the forces of Democracy, on the other? A level playing field? Now please explain to me how genocide occurs on a level playing field.
In the meantime, read on...
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/19/e ... es_role_of
In 1995, Allan Nairn was interviewed on Charlie Rose about his piece in The Nation called "CIA Death Squad," in which he described how Americans were directly involved in killings by the Guatemalan army. He was interviewed alongside Elliott Abrams, who challenged what he was saying.
Elliot Abrams had served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs under President Reagan from 1981 to 1985. This clip begins with Elliott Abrams.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: Wait a minute. We’re not here to refight the Cold War. We’re here to talk about, I thought, a specific case in which an allegation is being made that—of the husband of an American and, another case, an American citizen were killed, and there was a CIA connection with—allegedly with the person allegedly involved in it. Now, I’m happy to talk about that kind of thing. If Mr. Nairn thinks we should have been on the other side in Guatemala—that is, we should have been in favor of a guerrilla victory—I disagree with him.
ALLAN NAIRN: So you’re then admitting that you were on the side of the Guatemalan military.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: I am admitting that it was the policy of the United States, under Democrats and Republicans, approved by Congress repeatedly, to oppose a communist guerrilla victory anywhere in Central America, including in Guatemala.
CHARLIE ROSE: Alright, well, I—
ALLAN NAIRN: A communist guerrilla victory.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, I—
ALLAN NAIRN: Ninety-five percent of these victims are civilians—peasant organizers, human rights leaders—
CHARLIE ROSE: I am happy to invite both of you—
ALLAN NAIRN: —priests—assassinated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan army. Let’s look at reality here. In reality, we’re not talking about two murders, one colonel. We’re talking about more than 100,000 murders, an entire army, many of its top officers employees of the U.S. government. We’re talking about crimes, and we’re also talking about criminals, not just people like the Guatemalan colonels, but also the U.S. agents who have been working with them and the higher-level U.S. officials. I mean, I think you have to be—you have to apply uniform standards. President Bush once talked about putting Saddam Hussein on trial for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg-style tribunal. I think that’s a good idea. But if you’re serious, you have to be even-handed. If we look at a case like this, I think we have to talk—start talking about putting Guatemalan and U.S. officials on trial. I think someone like Mr. Abrams would be a fit—a subject for such a Nuremberg-style inquiry. But I agree with Mr. Abrams that Democrats would have to be in the dock with him. The Congress has been in on this. The Congress approved the sale of 16,000 M-16s to Guatemala. In ’87 and ’88—
CHARLIE ROSE: Alright, but hold on one second. I just—before—because the—
ALLAN NAIRN: They voted more military aid than the Republicans asked for.
CHARLIE ROSE: Again, I invite you and Elliott Abrams back to discuss what he did. But right now, you—
ELLIOTT ABRAMS: No, thanks, Charlie, but I won’t accept—
thank you for posting this about Guevara.
At the end of Clinton's term...I swear to God...the first thing I thought and said was "he kept us out of war for 8 years"
I think enough time has past that most of us can agree that Clinton was a good/decent president. I don't think we could have achieved that same consensus the day he left office.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Godfather.
I really like the Bush Family.
AND I voted for them every time. I still think Clinton was better for the time. What about Garfield ? What did he do? Dwight D. Eisenhower was neato, and so were both Roosevelt's.
Are you letting the media decide your mind? Do you feel like it's "un hip" to think for yourself?
J.F.K. spent a lot of his time cheating on Jakie. How many Kennedy's were corrupt?
I guess Nixon was the Best?
Yahia was born into a Kurdish family. During his education, Latif claimed to have been classmates with Uday Hussein, and that classmates remarked on his resemblance to Uday.[1]
Yahia says he became Uday's double after the Iran–Iraq War had begun. Yahia's unit received a dispatch ordering Yahia (then 23) to report to the presidential palace. Upon his arrival, Yahia was informed that he was to become Uday's fedai (body double) to make public appearances as Uday whenever a dangerous situation was expected. Yahia initially refused to take the job and was subsequently put in solitary confinement. After his imprisonment, Latif agreed to be Uday's double. He was trained for six months to imitate Uday's speech patterns and manner. He underwent surgery and dental work to make their appearances more similar. During the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Yahia was used as a morale booster for the Iraqi troops and sent to Basra posing as Uday to meet with troops.
His relationship with Uday later deteriorated. According to Yahia, the final straw came when a woman Uday was interested in paid more attention to Yahia. Uday shot at him, grazing him. Yahia fled north, where he was imprisoned by Kurdish rebels, being mistaken for Uday. When his captors realized he was not Uday, he was released and granted asylum in Austria in 1992. After Yahia was attacked in Austria, he moved to London in 1995.
On 10 March 1997, Yahia threatened a refugee official in Norway, showing up at his office with a can of gasoline, pouring it out over the floor, and threatening to light it. The official managed to calm Yahia, who fled after half an hour. He was subsequently arrested by the police. He was released before his trial and left the country, first to Germany, then to Ireland.
I wish I could make this stuff up but I read too many books.
Wiki link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latif_Yahia
Is this thread a Bush bashing or is it actually headed someplace? I'll pull out Sister Sarah if I need too....
Way to go.
O.k:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraqis-say ... ssein/4320
'Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.'
BAM....
90% of statistics are made up.
How many respondents out of how many responded positive to the surveyor?
Bye Burnz... I can't take your one sided stuff anymore. You used to be fun?
:wave:
We should ask Dr. Seuss.
they had fun tearing down his images... just saying?
Did you read that on the back of a box of cereal, or on Facebook?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraqis-say ... ssein/4320
Polling Data
Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better today
5%
Better before
90%
Not sure
5%
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfmNxKLDG4
OH yeah
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkCg-3nxT8E
I'm that girl...
Lincoln was good. Stay on topic!
That was staged:
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jul/03/nation/na-statue3
I think the retroactive justification ("Iraq is better off" "Hussein was evil") for the Iraq war is a way people who voted for Bush try to come to terms with their own guilt for voting for him
No one in that picture looks to be having any fun at all. Not one raised arm, not one person jumping up and down, no one joyfully hugging the person next to them.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmRPP2WXX0U
This is from a Russian media source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8gO8ojZh4c
My favorite president was
Taft is usually considered a mediocre president so just out of curiosity what is it that you like about him? Honest question not meant to be snarky.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE