One for the "only on bigsoccer could this possibly be even mentioned" file: Video on TV news outlets now of Bush throwing a ball to one of his dogs (presumably as he ponders a nation on the brink of war). At the very end of the clip he walks over and kicks what appears to be a soccer ball. Cue the "Our new national game!!!!!!!!!!!!" threads.
yeah he kicked a soccer ball, but that piece of garbage couldnt even pick up the ball his dog was fetching with his bare hands - what a pat of soft butter - hes gonna kill us all
He has set back international relations 100 years that moron. Let him go settle his vendetta himself.
You ungrateful short-term memoried pothead. Remember 9.11.01? I don't see you posting anything pleading Saddam to disarm--
Let's keep this about the beautiful game and not the unprecedented incompetence of this adminstration opening the way to more not less 9/11s.
look whos talking? miami fusion? grow up - dumbos assertion that sadaam and bin laden are in cahoots is propoganda, a lie for dunderheads - bin laden hates sadaam because he is too 'secular' - 9/11... sadaam... 2 different things - president cant even speak english would blow up the world if he thought it would get him reelected
Please, Mr. Saddam, disarm. Dis-leg, too, while you're at it. The last time countries willingly disarmed without being occupied by the guys that won was in the 1920s -- the Washington Naval Conference -- when the US and several other countries agreed to scrap a bunch of old battleships and limit the number of new ones according to an agreed upon ratio. Etc. Etc. As a New Yorker I remember 9/11 very well. I also remember that no Iraqies took over the planes that crashed and burned our ground. No money trail has been found, either, from Bagdad to al Queda. I'm beginnning to think our foreign policy amounts to: "The whole world hates us anyway, so why not?" And now, back to football.
maybe dubya thought the ball represented the world, and he displayed what he's gonna do with it. too bad he didn't tear something.
Actually, South Africa got rid of their nuclear program without being forced too or anything. it doesnt matter if Saddam is connected to Al Queda. He IS connected to terrorism and he does have WMD that he can give to terrorists. For example his payment to militant islamist groups who operate in Isreal with suicide attacks, money to families of bombers. There is a terrorist camp just south of Baghdad. It has a 737 fuselage that is used to train in hijackings. The man IS a threat and he refuses to comply with UN demands so he's gonna get taken out, as well he should be. (Not to mention his murderous, torturous dictatorship over the Iraqi people is yet another reason to get rid of him) But anyway, back to football
reading some of you clowns is reason enough to validate my vote for Dubya in 2000 and my future vote for him in 2004. I'm glad Geroge doesn't share most the views on this thread Bye Saddam What's the over/under for this being moved to Politics?
When Clinton (Kosovo) or Chirac (Ivory Coast - a few months ago!!!) does it without even trying to get UN approval it is peacekeeping. Where were the protests then? When Bush does it (on the strength of 17 violated UN resolutions, including many authorizing force) it is unilateral imperialism. Now the protestors come out of the woodwork. And Milosivic was far less of a threat to the world than Sadaam. There is simply no comparison. No liberal has satisfactorily defended why they supported Clinton and/or didn't come out in thousands to protest the decision to bomb the snot out of Yugoslavia (including many civilian targets). Because they can't. These protests are rooted in a hatred of GW Bush.
You clowns buying into this right wing fox news propaganda are pathetic. Go read the cover story in this week's Newsweek about this administrations international policies and you tell me if that is healthy for the long term for this country. Stop watching the O'reilly factor and read some unbiased journalism.
Sure - that is at least honest, but why is it that so many Bush haters + war haters gave Clinton the benefit of the doubt so much. There were very few conservatives who did not support Clinton and our troops in Kosovo (we didn't even complain that much about the aspirin factory, the group of tents in afghanistan, the bombing of Iraq!, Somalia, etc) even though the timing was VERY suspect in many of those cases. Even though he didn't consult the UN on many of these ventures? Why are people SO very unwilling to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, when he has actually not used the military in very many places . . . except Afghanistan . . . which was pretty justifiable?
Blah blah blah. Did you support Clinton in . . . Kosovo Sudan Afghanistan Somalia Iraq Haiti Croatia and all of the many other places that he committed our troops during his administration? Usually without UN approval? Can you dispute that he did those things? WHERE WERE THE PROTESTS DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION? And because he didn't deal with Osama Bin Laden after the First World Trade Center Bombing, Embassy Bombings and USS Cole incident . . . because he insisted that Israel release all of the jailed terrorists in their country (including Mohammed Atta) . . . because he allowed Saddam to kick out the weapons inspectors years ago . . . Bush has to clean up the mess.
It think it's pretty clear most of the US protests against the war are really just against Bush. The liberals hate him because he's a conservative. Therefore, they protests disarming a real threat like Saddam. If Clinton wanted to do it, most of them would be in favor of some action. The legitmacy of removing a violent dictator is immaterial to most.
i'm surprised you dont even call them homicide bombers doesnt your idol O'Reilly call them that. Obviously, you've never been to the west bank if your so pro Israel on this. you probably never even left this country like most conservatives and even our dumbest one little Georgie.