Bush Leads World with "Get Tough" anti-bird flu strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

3,030 actually. And your point was that Osama hated Sadaam more than the US - attacking the US would pretty much invalidate your conclusion, making my statement pretty consistent with your point.

---

Not so. Osama killed Americans, he didn't kill America. My point is that he is fighting a concept in our case, and he needs us to survive. That jab may have hurt, but it was just a jab. He needs us to jab at for his power base. He doesn't need Saddam to jab at, in fact, Saddam was a threat. We can only kill him, at which point, the game is over (for him). Saddam could steal his power. For so many people in the world, that's a greater threat than death itself.

Americans and America are not the same thing. Osama fights (and probably hates) America, but Osama probably doesn't even KNOW more than a handful of Americans. He's fighting a concept, but the existence of the concept gives him something to fight, and the fight gives him the power and influence he has. I certainly don't know the man, but what would he be without us? He may not think about it, but without us, he'd be just a petty warlord punching at clouds. We can kill him, but we can't seem to diminish him. Saddam could have done both.

Now, he might not think it through like that, nor might Bush, but keep in mind that the dead from 9/11 are significant mostly to the ones who lost loved ones. They are mostly symbols to those who didn't know them, and they are less than that to those who are not involved in either way, or who are involved in their own troubles. Does the Iraqi mourner who just lost his brother to a car bomb really care about 9/11?

Based on that, how does Osama see the dead from 9/11? Pawns in a power struggle? Numbers on a page? People? Symbols? I'd be willing to bet that he was more concerned about Saddam than the thousands he killed in the US. Who DID concern him more? We probably won't get to ask him.


By the way, I thought the latest 'official' body count was 2,800-2,950. Doesn't really matter, but it does seem to bounce around. Are there multiple 'official' counts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Not so. Osama killed Americans, he didn't kill America. My point is that he is fighting a concept in our case, and he needs us to survive. That jab may have hurt, but it was just a jab. He needs us to jab at for his power base. He doesn't need Saddam to jab at, in fact, Saddam was a threat. We can only kill him, at which point, the game is over (for him). Saddam could steal his power. For so many people in the world, that's a greater threat than death itself.

Americans and America are not the same thing. Osama fights (and probably hates) America, but Osama probably doesn't even KNOW more than a handful of Americans. He's fighting a concept, but the existence of the concept gives him something to fight, and the fight gives him the power and influence he has. I certainly don't know the man, but what would he be without us? He may not think about it, but without us, he'd be just a petty warlord punching at clouds. We can kill him, but we can't seem to diminish him. Saddam could have done both.

Now, he might not think it through like that, nor might Bush, but keep in mind that the dead from 9/11 are significant mostly to the ones who lost loved ones. They are mostly symbols to those who didn't know them, and they are less than that to those who are not involved in either way, or who are involved in their own troubles. Does the Iraqi mourner who just lost his brother to a car bomb really care about 9/11?

Based on that, how does Osama see the dead from 9/11? Pawns in a power struggle? Numbers on a page? People? Symbols? I'd be willing to bet that he was more concerned about Saddam than the thousands he killed in the US. Who DID concern him more? We probably won't get to ask him.


By the way, I thought the latest 'official' body count was 2,800-2,950. Doesn't really matter, but it does seem to bounce around. Are there multiple 'official' counts?

---

Wow, just wow. I'm quoting your thread to preserve it in the event you come to your senses and realize what you've posted, then edit it.

Lest you forget, their was more than one (or two) events that day. The total comes to 3030 by the most accepted accounts. I would wager it's even higher given the likelyhood of "unknown" victims being among the dead. ie: homeless hanging out in the alley next door; undocumented workers in the building etc.

Quote:

---

Saddam could have done both.

---

Wow. So he has your vote, then.

Quote:

---

keep in mind that the dead from 9/11 are significant mostly to the ones who lost loved ones. They are mostly symbols to those who didn't know them, and they are less than that to those who are not involved in either way, or who are involved in their own troubles

---

There are tens of thousands of service members that would gladly argue that point with you. Not to mention the rest of America behind them. That is the most appalling thing I've ever read on this board. I'm shocked that you would even say it and it sickens me. You have certainly shown your true colors and I feel sad for you.

In hopes of not being banned, I'll leave it at that. I'm embarassed for you, Shaggy.

Right, and the 5.000 something innocent Iraqis (probably double that number) that died in the last war are just, shall we say trivia? Unlucky victims? Or do you prefer collateral damage? Nicely distant so that you don't have to think about it much...

Only innocent Americans count, right?

And I still would like to see real proof of the claims before the war. Real mind you, not opinions, hearsay, suspicions and/or dodgy sources/documents/websites; real proof that would stand up in court.

But I guess that's something of an informational unicorn right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

There are tens of thousands of service members that would gladly argue that point with you. Not to mention the rest of America behind them. That is the most appalling thing I've ever read on this board. I'm shocked that you would even say it and it sickens me. You have certainly shown your true colors and I feel sad for you.

In hopes of not being banned, I'll leave it at that. I'm embarassed for you, Shaggy.

---

OK, let's then mourn the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (and remember, most of them have been killed by the US forces) killed during and after the Iraqi invasion. I agree with Wally wholeheartedly. The 9/11 has been completely blown out of proportion, just because the US, as a country and in the international context, has a blown-out-of-proportion ego. The 9/11 should have probably served as the pin which busted the balloon, but it seems to have inflated the ego out of all control. The most appalling thing I have read on the forums is all the pro-Bush members moaning about 9/11 as if it was a national catastrophe equivalent to a World War, when in fact it was simply a rebuke to the bullying tactics adopted by the US all over the world. I am sickened by the fact that people like you, who seem to value every American life lost as something to be very sorry about, don't seem to care about how many lives you take in the foreign lands. I am sure the civilians dying in Iraq and in Afghanistan would simply be shrugged off as an unavoidable circumstance of the war. Which probably means the Americans can't fight a war properly if they can't differentiate between their enemies, or that they simply don't care who they shoot. And then you shouldn't be complaining if other nations or individuals thought the same about the American lives and mounted further such attacks onto your country, its people and establishments. Going by your way of arguing, it seems perfectly justifiable what happened on 9/11. For you the Iraqis don't count, so the Americans shouldn't count for Al Qaeda, right?

And the US forces still can't decide when to shoot and when not. The latest news on BBC cites an Iraqi family being slaughtered by the US forces at a checkpoint. Now I know you will reply with the much-used rules of engagement, suicide blasts and all that bull's hit. The point is, if the US hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place, all this bloodshed would have been avoided, so the US is directly responsible for any civilian deaths in Iraq.

Put this all mess inside Iraq together with the secret CIA prisons set up in the European nations and the secret CIA flights taking captives from Afghanistan to those prisons and elsewhere, Guantanamo Bay and the whole legal paraphernalia the US government has prepared to only protect itself and you have not a global cop as the US was portrayed a few months back, but a global hooligan. I would say there's no difference between a mafia don and George Bush at present. Only the mafia don would probably have more honesty and integrity than Bush.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

However, I think Bush's actions on several things, such as his statements on Terri Shiavo (or however you spell that), faith based initiative, court appointees, etc. may have been based on his religious beliefs

---

Indeed. The President should have stayed out of this, but of course he couldn't.

To the various questions, didn't Bush ban gay marriages because it was not right? According to whom? I have no problem with gay marriages, it's their life and they should live it how they wish to. The church is simply panicking because there are now twice as many civil marriages as church weddings (at least in the UK it is)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Not so. Osama killed Americans, he didn't kill America. My point is that he is fighting a concept in our case, and he needs us to survive. That jab may have hurt, but it was just a jab. He needs us to jab at for his power base. He doesn't need Saddam to jab at, in fact, Saddam was a threat. We can only kill him, at which point, the game is over (for him). Saddam could steal his power. For so many people in the world, that's a greater threat than death itself.

Americans and America are not the same thing. Osama fights (and probably hates) America, but Osama probably doesn't even KNOW more than a handful of Americans. He's fighting a concept, but the existence of the concept gives him something to fight, and the fight gives him the power and influence he has. I certainly don't know the man, but what would he be without us? He may not think about it, but without us, he'd be just a petty warlord punching at clouds. We can kill him, but we can't seem to diminish him. Saddam could have done both.

Now, he might not think it through like that, nor might Bush, but keep in mind that the dead from 9/11 are significant mostly to the ones who lost loved ones. They are mostly symbols to those who didn't know them, and they are less than that to those who are not involved in either way, or who are involved in their own troubles. Does the Iraqi mourner who just lost his brother to a car bomb really care about 9/11?

Based on that, how does Osama see the dead from 9/11? Pawns in a power struggle? Numbers on a page? People? Symbols? I'd be willing to bet that he was more concerned about Saddam than the thousands he killed in the US. Who DID concern him more? We probably won't get to ask him.


By the way, I thought the latest 'official' body count was 2,800-2,950. Doesn't really matter, but it does seem to bounce around. Are there multiple 'official' counts?

---

I would hope you kept your arguments simple and preferably illogical for the pro-Bush members to follow ;)

By the way your argument has a very striking similarity with the Harry Potter story. Have you ever read it? I remember Dumbledore (Harry's school principal) tells Harry almost the same thing about the villain of the story. I am sure that's very true as well, and am sure nobody, neither Osama nor Bush have thought through the whole conflict in this way.

On another note, when you said you wouldn't get to ask Osama about it, have you paid any thought why the US forces can't capture Osama still, after invading Afghanistan nearly four years ago? Don't you think Pakistan has a greater and more covert role to play here?

Demotivator, what's your explanation about Iran being targeted for the nuclear technology it possesses, but the chief architect of the plan, Abdul Qadir Khan who is a leading nuclear scientist from Pakistan, and the government of Pakistan itself, has gone scot free? (I think I also read this same person is behind North Korea having nuclear technology as well...)Without as much as being mentioned in the same breath as Iran and its nuclear ambitions? Surely it amounts to double standards, as I would expect AQ Khan smuggled out of Pakistan much the same way as others in some secret CIA flight and land in Guantanamo Bay to answer a range of questions? Ah, I forget Pakistan is a "buddy" of the US :) So while the US wants to portray Iran and North Korea as rogue nations pursuing nuclear plans for allegedly making weapons, the source of these plans and the country which orchastrated these transfers of technology remains safely tucked away, secure in the knowledge that being buddy with the US means they are safe no matter what they do? Somewhat takes the punch out of the whole anti-Iran and anti-North Korea argument, don't you think?


Yeah, white phosphorous. How could I forget that? That's a classic case of the US arrogance. They simply refuse to ratify anything which will restrict their actions and then go ahead and do it purely in their own interest, showing blatant disregard towards other people and then try to justify their actions under the pretext that they haven't ratified some agreement?

Same goes for Kyoto protocol as well. The message seems to be the US will do anything and everything to ensure it is at the top, and others shouldn't even try it, because the US won't remain at the top.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Indeed. The President should have stayed out of this, but of course he couldn't.

To the various questions, didn't Bush ban gay marriages because it was not right? According to whom? I have no problem with gay marriages, it's their life and they should live it how they wish to. The church is simply panicking because there are now twice as many civil marriages as church weddings (at least in the UK it is)

---

About the Terry Shiavo matter, it was a debatable issue anyways. Even in India people are seeking permissions to voluntarily end their lives if they are already terminally ill. But the religion has never played a part in those debates (despite India having so many religions). The debate centres around only two issues: The medical ethics which say a patient must not be allowed to die if he can survive medically, and the person's own wish to have a peaceful death without prolonging a struggle he doesn't want to fight. To those who want to point out the rats in Indian hospitals, maybe you should take a leaf out of how the people have managed to keep the religion at home and not brought it out into the government ;)

I simply can't understand why these issues must be looked at always from either a Republican or a Democratic viewpoint. To me there seem to be two reasons: The people are so primitive they can't live without a particular religion, or that they are so free from the religion they are confused and can't decide what's good or bad from them. And I wouldn't want to think the US is in any one of these conditions.

.

My personal opinion is that it is up to the individual, it is their life after all. The problem was that the religious fanatics started branding her husband as a heathen which of course started the whole media circus. What people did not seem to accept was the he was doing what she had asked him to. Her parents wanted to keep her alive against her will, which is wrong. It should be up to her and only her. What really disgusted me was when the crowds accused him of murdering his wife for her money!?! That made me sick. It was her wish, why can't people respect the wish of a consenting adult????

Anyway, we are diverting from topic here...

Quote:

---

didn't Bush ban gay marriages

---

Now I can see why there is such a hatred for bush over there. You are being told lies.

Quote:

---

OK, let's then mourn the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians (and remember, most of them have been killed by the US forces) killed during and after the Iraqi invasion.

---

I don't think you have any evidence what so ever to back this claim.

While the US military strives to minimalize civilian casualties, the insurgents/terrorists actually target civilians and use them as shields.

This war could be over now if we had just used the same tactics Saddam Hussein did: level towns and neighborhoods that are causing you problems. But then we don't do that.

Who is to say what would have given the maximum number of Iraqi civilian dead: removing Saddam or leaving him in place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Now I can see why there is such a hatred for bush over there. You are being told lies.

---

Hatred? I hate nobody, I just think he is not a good leader. As for being fed lies, perhaps, but nevertheless it is obvious that the christians have more sway with him than other religions, which is wrong

Quote:

---

This war could be over now if we had just used the same tactics Saddam Hussein did: level towns and neighborhoods that are causing you problems. But then we don't do that.

---

We have no way of knowing whether or not this is true. Extreme violence has been used to attempt to suppress uprisings in the past. In some cases it has worked, in others it has failed (WWII France, Chechnya, soviet Afghanistan, to name a few).

I would not care to advocate this strategy, nor would I suggest that it would work. We should refrain from it as much because it won't work as because we would like to be more moral.

Ah yes, there is apparently a difference between a dead American and a dead "rest of the world'... thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:

---

There are tens of thousands of service members that would gladly argue that point with you. Not to mention the rest of America behind them. That is the most appalling thing I've ever read on this board. I'm shocked that you would even say it and it sickens me. You have certainly shown your true colors and I feel sad for you.

In hopes of not being banned, I'll leave it at that. I'm embarassed for you, Shaggy.

---

I can't say I'm impressed with this.

Frankly, it sounds to me that you are hoping to speak for the people of this nation in expressing your outrage that somebody would consider the situation objectively rather than nationalistically. Since it is vital to your argument, that you disagree with me, I can understand your point, but it would be better to leave the people out of it. They don't support you, they don't even know you. To think that the few hundred million Americans (including me) would join together to rally to your argument goes against reason. Some of us don't blindly follow the flag, but try to see all sides of issues. You want to dismiss Osama, I want to know what motivates him. How many great military leaders have asserted some form of "know thine enemy". I can think of one corporal who felt that only hating your enemy was sufficient.

I'm off on holiday now. I expect this to be settled by the time I get back. :wave:

I'll be off on holiday soon, I don't expect my stomach to be settled by the time I get back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Now I can see why there is such a hatred for bush over there. You are being told lies.

---

Enough!

Hatred is a strong word. To love is to die for someone to hate is to have them killed.

9/11 is an affront, it's an atrocity, and no-ones arguing about that. 7/7, albeit on a vastly smaller scale, fits into the same category.

Being that there is a love of metric and measurement in today's imperical (not a spelling mistake) secular society then I would really like to hear your reasoning of the justification of >27k Iraqi civilian dead.

Until you can justify it, if I were you I'd shut up.

[After a nasty bout of gastroentiritis (don't eat the lobster) I'm back!!]

GO YRWYDDFA! GO YRWYDDFA! GOOOOOOOOOOOO YRWYDDFA!
:lol: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I don't think you have any evidence what so ever to back this claim.

While the US military strives to minimalize civilian casualties, the insurgents/terrorists actually target civilians and use them as shields.

This war could be over now if we had just used the same tactics Saddam Hussein did: level towns and neighborhoods that are causing you problems. But then we don't do that.

Who is to say what would have given the maximum number of Iraqi civilian dead: removing Saddam or leaving him in place?

---

Well, if you expect me to give you the dead Iraqis as proof, I am afraid I won't have any proof for you. If you want to check the figures, you can go to any news site of your choice and dig up the info. Or use google if you want. If you are too lazy or ignorant to do it yourself or simply ignore, here's a link: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Here's a quote from the main page:

Quote:

---

This is a human security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military action by the USA and its allies. This database includes up to 7,299 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.

---

So prior to May 1, 2003 itself, the Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of the US and the so-called coalition forces crossed 7000, more than twice as much as were killed in the 9/11 incident. Sadly they were all Iraqis and not Americans, though they too were more interested in going about their own merry business and were killed for no fault of their own. Since then the count has been rising and if the recent reports on the various websites are to be believed, the civilian deaths have crossed 30000 mark already and are increasing. And if you are talking about suicide bombings, they are all happening because the US is occupying a foreign country, so the responsibility for them falls directly on the US forces.

There has been no independent verification by the UN or another body of whatever raids and attacks the US forces have conducted from time to time in Iraq. I am sure there are a lot more civilian deaths taking place than are being reported.

While the US military strives to minimize civilian casualties, they forget that they have no business being in Iraq in the first place and then shooting on innocent civilians at their own will and the so called rules of engagements. The recent killing of an Iraqi family near a US checkpoint is a glaring example your ground forces don't care about killing anyone for whatever reason or for no reason. Have you also forgotten the shooting at the vehicle carrying an Italian hostage which killed the Italian negotiator? Or numerous other civilian killings at roadsides and checkpoints because your soldiers simply became too trigger-happy to follow any rules of engagements?

I am sure if the world were to call for any independent investigations into all these deaths, the US forces and the US government would simply NOT COOPERATE. While they have the right to tell every other nation to do whatever they feel right, they are not bound by the same laws, clearly.

Well if you just went flattening the buildings and killing everybody off, at least the pain and suffering of the poor Iraqis would have been shortened. Instead of years and years of toiling and death hanging on their heads, they would die instantly. That really was a brilliant idea which as usual your president missed. Too bad....

And if you left Saddam alone, I am sure 90% of those civilian deaths would not have occurred. Your statement simply implies your nation, your government and your forces do not want any responsibility over their actions.

Can I ask what evidence you have to back Bush's claims for the Iraqi invasion? Where are the WMDs? What happened to the 60-minute claim? Where are the links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda? What happened to the aerial snaps Colin Powell used to argue his case in the UN general assembly and were disputed by the UN inspectors as being incorrect? With each passing day it seems the lies told by Bush and Blair are being uncovered, your vice-president's chief of staff is being tried for lying to the senate and almost everyone from Bush down has been accused of tampering with the evidence and misrepresenting the evidence to plead the case for war. Or maybe these are all Democratic lies? Surely the democrats smugged the WMDs out of Iraq just to prove Bush false?

It's just a case of a poorly planned international heist going wrong from the start.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

Now I can see why there is such a hatred for bush over there. You are being told lies.

---

Well, sorry dude, it seems Bush and the US government is hated everywhere and with more vigour every day, so looks like your attempt at humour was missed. Where are the joke symbols now? A few years back there was talk of marking a comment as a joke if it was to be taken as a joke... Maybe we should really act on that....

.

Nah sod it let's bomb al-jazeera If I were al-gore I'd be very scared . . . . ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

GO YRWYDDFA! GO YRWYDDFA! GOOOOOOOOOOOO YRWYDDFA!
:lol: :D

---

Why thanks for the support ;) How's the snow in those backwater 17th century, coal-mining, my mother's my sister, hick welsh valleys this morning, anyway? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Being that there is a love of metric and measurement in today's imperical (not a spelling mistake) secular society then I would really like to hear your reasoning of the justification of >27k Iraqi civilian dead.

---

You meant Imperial, didn't you? ;)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Why thanks for the support ;) How's the snow in those backwater 17th century, coal-mining, my mother's my sister, hick welsh valleys this morning, anyway? ;)

---

Almost as thick as the English ;)

Honeybee, he did not mean imperial but he did spell it incorrectly. He meant emprical (Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Almost as thick as the English ;)

Honeybee, he did not mean imperial but he did spell it incorrectly. He meant emprical (Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment)

---

OK, I was just trying my hand at humour :( The US has been accused of being imperial because of the Iraq invasion.

Guess I am not the only one that's slow to catch the humour ;)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

I'm off on holiday now. I expect this to be settled by the time I get back. :wave:

---

Well if you do expect this to be settled by the time you are back, I think this settles it:

http://chronicle.com/free/2005/01/2005012701n.htm

This study puts the figure of Iraqi civilian deaths as a direct or indirect result of the US invasion at close to 1,00,000. Please note this includes factors other than armed violence, such as malnutrition or lack of medical supplies. Do the 1,00,000 dead Iraqis outweigh 3000-odd dead Americans? I would like you to answer that question. These deaths are comparable only to the worst in the human history such as the holocaust or the genocides in the African countries such as Rwanda or DR Congo.

And as to your question on leaving Saddam in power, I guess if you could save 1,00,000 innocent civilian lives, you would vote for Saddam to stay in power. Would you not?

The stark truth is the Iraqi deaths don't count. They are disposable material in the US war on oil.

.

I meant imperial, but changed the word to imperical which does not actually exist in a dictionary to imply the intended pun.

And yes, it's never very amusing when you have to explain it; if indeed it was amusing before.

But like the gradual complexity of the species the English language is a marvellous tool to invent new stuff with.

You understood my meaning so it is irrelevant that the word does not actually exist.

AAaaaaanyway. Back to the original topic of Bush himself.
Moeur would like us to settle this thread by the time he comes back. I think as we are all professionals in our own right we can agree that we are correct (Bush is a bad leader) and Moeur is incorrect.

Settled?
:D

I concur

Quote:

---

1,00,000.

---

What is this number? You quote it twice, like it means something, but I sure don't know what. Is there some other kind of measurement system I haven't heard of, or did you leave out a zero, or add in a comma?

Moeur and Demotivator haven't been around it seems. Therefore, we can say:

The right appears to have left.

Just taking a break - many many beers lead to posts I might regret. :D

Not to mention the fact that the "discussion" has strayed yet again. Seems now it's about civilian casualties for some reason. Not sure where that came from.

Anyhoo - a day or so left before the dreaded return to work. :mad:

Trying to enjoy it while I can. I'll leave you lefties to continue stroking each other until Monday morning. :p

stroking is best done from the left :afrog:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Bush Orders Mass Bald Eagle Slaughter To Stop Spread Of Bird Flu

Should Other nations follow suit?
Do Other Nations HAVE National Birds?

---

Lies, I tell 'ya!
Nothing but Lies! Lies! Lies!!!

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Something Else

Lies, I tell 'ya!
Nothing but Lies! Lies! Lies!!!

:lol:

---

It is nice to see this thread return to its original topic after more than 100 replies. I say we cull all people and let the birsds get on with it :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

It is nice to see this thread return to its original topic after more than 100 replies.

---

That's what happens when you put Bush into the title.... ;)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Bush Orders Mass Bald Eagle Slaughter To Stop Spread Of Bird Flu

Should Other nations follow suit?
Do Other Nations HAVE National Birds?

---

To answer your questions:

No we should not follow suit as the man is a fool
No the UK generally has flowers as their emblems (Rose - England, Thistle - Scotland, Daffodil - Wales, four-leaf clover - Ireland)

We have the Pigeon and we control their population by running them over with buses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

AAaaaaanyway. Back to the original topic of Bush himself.
Moeur would like us to settle this thread by the time he comes back. I think as we are all professionals in our own right we can agree that we are correct (Bush is a bad leader) and Moeur is incorrect.

Settled?
:D

---

You know they said the same thing about Winston Churchill at the time when he was shooting off his mouth about doing something about those pesky Germans. Everyone thought Neville Chamberlain was a great leader; he was very popular at the time when he made his "peace in our time" speech. History of course showed a very different picture. Winston was right, and Chamberlain looks like a complete and utter fool. History will show whether Bush is good or bad, I don’t think it can be decided now. So in a sense neither of you are correct as current events have yet to play themselves out.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

You know they said the same thing about Winston Churchill at the time when he was shooting off his mouth about doing something about those pesky Germans. Everyone thought Neville Chamberlain was a great leader; he was very popular at the time when he made his "peace in our time" speech. History of course showed a very different picture. Winston was right, and Chamberlain looks like a complete and utter fool. History will show whether Bush is good or bad, I don’t think it can be decided now. So in a sense neither of you are correct as current events have yet to play themselves out.

X

---

A remarkably civil post for you X! Where have you been?

Yeah, I was beginning to worry, what with you staying out of this one and all. I actually agree with you completely on this one.

The vantage point I would like, but will not get, will be in about 100 years. Every strong partisan thinks that their favorite will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents ever. BALONEY! Brits probably can't name more than one or two US presidents from the last century, and not more than a handful of Americans could name anything done by most presidents other than recent ones.

For instance, everyone knows Lincoln, but how many remember Johnson? He was the one impeached by republicans in the house (he was republican himself) and kept his seat by one vote in the senate, a closer margin than Clinton, but who remembers? Furthermore, who remember why? It wasn't one of the prouder moments in our history.