US congressman wants Iraq to repay US for war cost.

[Psyko]

I don't think Iraq should pay...I think Bush should. It was all his **Filtered** fault anyway.

Don't you think it's naive to blame one man for all this crap? Sure he made lots of mistakes but you shouldn't say "It was all his fault! He is bad man". He was a man that just had bigger decisions to make than most ever will and he handled them worse than he could have.

I don't blame Bush for everything that happened. There were inter-agency communication mistakes, and millions of other problems during his time in office. Also, there is now President Obama. What I blame Bush for is moving our troops into Iraq before we had completely handled Afghanistan. For spreading our troops, and our resources, rather thin across the Middle East.

I supported taking action against those who attacked the United States on 9-11, but I did not support the move into Iraq because I felt it was premature, the intel had not been verified, and it looked like a vendetta Bush had against Hussein. As soon as we moved into Iraq, Afghanistan was basically forgotten and our hunt for Al-Qaeda was put on the back burner for "taking out a tyrant". I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but it should have been done better.

He's a former US President, which means he still has a 6-figure salary each year for the rest of his life. I understand compensating a President after they have served for the country, but if said former President is rich on his own money, he doesn't need the nearly $200,000/yr that the government is paying him in non-taxable income. He should give that back to the United States anyway, but I would want it to go toward paying off the war debt.

I believe my previous post was written in haste before a meeting, and I forgot to return and edit it with further information explaining my position.

I'm annoyed every time I see an ignorant american who blames everything on bush (like he 'cause every problem in the US) but it seems you arent one of them after all.

Thank you. I'm glad you pointed it out though, because I also am annoyed by those Americans, and I do not like to come across as one of them.

[Juliette]

I don't think Iraq should pay...I think Bush should. It was all his **Filtered** fault anyway.

Don't you think it's naive to blame one man for all this crap? Sure he made lots of mistakes but you shouldn't say "It was all his fault! He is bad man". He was a man that just had bigger decisions to make than most ever will and he handled them worse than he could have.

I don't blame Bush for everything that happened. There were inter-agency communication mistakes, and millions of other problems during his time in office. Also, there is now President Obama. What I blame Bush for is moving our troops into Iraq before we had completely handled Afghanistan. For spreading our troops, and our resources, rather thin across the Middle East.

I supported taking action against those who attacked the United States on 9-11, but I did not support the move into Iraq because I felt it was premature, the intel had not been verified, and it looked like a vendetta Bush had against Hussein. As soon as we moved into Iraq, Afghanistan was basically forgotten and our hunt for Al-Qaeda was put on the back burner for "taking out a tyrant". I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, but it should have been done better.

He's a former US President, which means he still has a 6-figure salary each year for the rest of his life. I understand compensating a President after they have served for the country, but if said former President is rich on his own money, he doesn't need the nearly $200,000/yr that the government is paying him in non-taxable income. He should give that back to the United States anyway, but I would want it to go toward paying off the war debt.

I believe my previous post was written in haste before a meeting, and I forgot to return and edit it with further information explaining my position.

I'm annoyed every time I see an ignorant american who blames everything on bush (like he 'cause every problem in the US) but it seems you arent one of them after all.

Thank you. I'm glad you pointed it out though, because I also am annoyed by those Americans, and I do not like to come across as one of them.

Glad you two figured it out. I hate to see young lovers fight. More on topic, you brought a good nuance to a shaky statement. Thanks Psy, that made sense.

[Ashu]

Play nice children, no need for name calling.
Bush isn't all to blame, isn't not like he fought the entire war all by himself..

[Juliette]

Play nice children, no need for name calling.

Random, much.

[Ashu]

Yes, the words ignorant, stupid, idiotic and american strike me as offensive. i mean who would you call American? Hurr Hurr.
On point, the Bush agenda, still in use or does Barrack have something else on his mind?

[Juliette]

Yes, the words ignorant, stupid, idiotic and american strike me as offensive. i mean who would you call American? Hurr Hurr.
On point, the Bush agenda, still in use or does Barrack have something else on his mind?

Yes. Re-election. Nothing else. Powerhungry s.o.b.

[Ashu]

Re-electing someone isn't bad, if said person actually did something for the country. Short+long term.

[Juliette]

Re-electing someone isn't bad, if said person actually did something for the country. Short+long term.

A president's single focus should never be re-election. Especially not if he's driving his country into the ground at the same time.

[Ashu]

Re-electing someone isn't bad, if said person actually did something for the country. Short+long term.

A president's single focus should never be re-election. Especially not if he's driving his country into the ground at the same time.

Amen!

[Psyko]

Bush isn't all to blame, isn't not like he fought the entire war all by himself..

This comment really irritates me. Are you implying that American soldiers are to blame for the war? All they did was follow orders and risk their lives (many of whom ended up losing their lives) serving their country.

Re-electing someone isn't bad, if said person actually did something for the country. Short+long term.

A president's single focus should never be re-election. Especially not if he's driving his country into the ground at the same time.

I figure the President only acts as a President for 1.5-2 years out of the 4 years they are in office (depending on the President). They come into Office, they start moving ahead their election agenda, "fix" things they didn't approve of during the previous administration, and after that time period they begin fundraising and working on their re-election strategy/campaign. After the next election is over, they have a few months to stick it to the next guy.

It's a flawed system that does nothing to help the country. If a President does his job properly and the country prospers, that is a solid re-election strategy. He could spend billions on adds and running all over the country doing speeches, but even without that, I would still vote to keep him in office. Unfortunately, no politician actually cares about the job; it's all about winning and being able to get their back scratched by lobbyists who throw money in their lap and pat their head like they are an obedient puppy.

[Ashu]

Policy makers and the General Staff of the Army for not breaking one word against a meaningless war. Of course, when the terrorism train starts going who can stop it? "Freedom" must be "preserved", even with the cost of many lives both military and civilian.

[Psyko]

Policy makers and the General Staff of the Army for not breaking one word against a meaningless war. Of course, when the terrorism train starts going who can stop it? "Freedom" must be "preserved", even with the cost of many lives both military and civilian.

Actually, several higher up military leaders spoke out against the move to Iraq. But it isn't like the entire American Military can go on strike. They've taken an oath to do their duty to the United States and their Commander in Chief. Honor means something to them. Maybe you should do some more research.

You can blame the "establishment" all you like, but just like the CEO of a company, the man in charge (The President) is ultimately responsible for his decisions and the consequences of them.

[Ashu]

If the President of the United States of America ordered the US military to take action agasint say.. it's own people, would the US military do such a thing?
Opposite some reactions and opinions, people in the military don't just "go with the flow" because of orders. The Code of Honor is not to the man in charge, but to the people you are protecting, you serve them, not the guy issueing the orders. It's why Generals get changed and no one is considered without flaw.

[Psyko]

If the President of the United States of America ordered the US military to take action agasint say.. it's own people, would the US military do such a thing?
Opposite some reactions and opinions, people in the military don't just "go with the flow" because of orders. The Code of Honor is not to the man in charge, but to the people you are protecting, you serve them, not the guy issueing the orders. It's why Generals get changed and no one is considered without flaw.

Yes, in drastic situations like the one you mentioned, the military would go against the President. But when the military is ordered to go after a corrupt leader under the suspicion of having weapons of mass destruction, who rules his people unjustly and harbors terrorist organizations (not saying it's all true, but that is the information given at the time), they will follow orders.

I'm not saying they will blindly follow the orders of the American President. There is some judgement involved. But they were under the impression that they were protecting the people of the United States, and other countries as well. That doesn't make them at fault.

Nice try, though.

[Loki™]

Bush isn't all to blame, isn't not like he fought the entire war all by himself..

This comment really irritates me. Are you implying that American soldiers are to blame for the war? All they did was follow orders and risk their lives (many of whom ended up losing their lives) serving their country.

Re-electing someone isn't bad, if said person actually did something for the country. Short+long term.

A president's single focus should never be re-election. Especially not if he's driving his country into the ground at the same time.

I figure the President only acts as a President for 1.5-2 years out of the 4 years they are in office (depending on the President). They come into Office, they start moving ahead their election agenda, "fix" things they didn't approve of during the previous administration, and after that time period they begin fundraising and working on their re-election strategy/campaign. After the next election is over, they have a few months to stick it to the next guy.

It's a flawed system that does nothing to help the country. If a President does his job properly and the country prospers, that is a solid re-election strategy. He could spend billions on adds and running all over the country doing speeches, but even without that, I would still vote to keep him in office. Unfortunately, no politician actually cares about the job; it's all about winning and being able to get their back scratched by lobbyists who throw money in their lap and pat their head like they are an obedient puppy.

Extending the term to 6 years might help a little.