> Gladiator wrote:

> well bush did it, so it does effect him, you can't say that it doesnt ..it's still on the minds of millions

It's been overshadowed, though.  It's no longer in the news.  In spite of your beliefs, it's become a faded memory, so it isn't reflected in the polls.  Those polls are focused on the economy primarily, not Iraq.

Quite simply, yes, it did happen.  But if it was on the minds of millions, it would be in the news and at the forefront of the political campaign.  And if it was on the minds of millions, wouldn't any good news in the Iraq war help the President?  That ain't happening.

> and as far as effects go, i could care less, 4000 american soldiers, and 100s of thousands of innocent iraqis and trillions of dollars fought to protect from something that NEVER existed is reason enough for me to believe that it was a failure, shoulda been focused in afghanistan if anything but nahh i guess that's not worth it if there's no oil there right

1: Then you're really screwed up, to be frankly honest.  If you don't evaluate effects, you potentially justify even more lives lost simply for the sake of morality, which inherently can't be defined in a universal or stable manner.

2: Oh, jeez, not that stupid oil argument again.  Did you ever consider that, especially in economic times such as this when oil is scarce, justification for the war based on oil is actually a legitimate cause?  Consider:

Saddam could have used his oil reserves and political status to manipulate the market.  Look at Iran.  I'm not saying Iran has been trying to manipulate the market, but every time we throw a threat at Iran, or they throw a threat at the US, instability of oil supplies rises, causing an increase in oil prices, benefitting Iran without Ahmadinijad so much as lifting a finger.  Any instability in oil supplies jacks up prices.  That doesn't apply to the current system because the oil production/distribution is actually being protected.

Now, what's so bad about this?  It's called a depression.  We're already seeing the economy in a pretty bad state right now, driven in large part by oil prices.  Further rises in oil prices only make the situation even worse.

I know it's kind of odd, but oil itself is a weapon of mass destruction.

> Gladiator wrote:

> it's still happening though..is it not?? we're still spending millions EVERY day, EVERY day, for a goal that's not really clear, and a goal really really hard to accomplish and people are still dying,

Great.  It's still happening, but it doesn't influence Bush approval anymore.  It's been overshadowed.

As for the effects of the war, let's wait and see how it goes in the future.  Right now, it's too quick to judgement, really.  Long term benefits, such as military bases and an additional Islamic ally, could have impacts in the future that we don't see now.  However, at the same time, long term costs may be seen which are also unexpected.  In other words, let's just wait and see...

> well yeah maybe enemy was the wrong term, i simply meant that china and usa really don't have friendly terms...they're just going by
so are you saying debts are good?

there is no good side to debt PERIOD.

Um... yes, there is.  Maybe you should address my point, rather than simply saying "there's no good side."  I actually provided analysis on this one.  You didn't.

> and instead of reducing the debts are cutting spending, we're still fighting a pointless war, it's nothing more..nothing less

Addressed above.  Let's wait and see...

Um... perhaps because the panda doesn't realize that Fokker agreed with his post, so there was no need to respond.

That's why pandas aren't the dominant species on Earth.

> Gladiator wrote:

> supall i was simply responding to what BW had raised, saying clinton still has a chance..whihc she doesn't
and as far as i'm concerned, the race is over, the fall election has begun...did you see clinton in the media anywhere?
that's old news now..yes on certain tuesdays there might be a little talk, but obama has officially begun his fall campaign, and mccain and obama have already started ripping each others heads off

georgia is a good example for that zarf, correct me if i'm wrong but that's been a repub state?? i forget if it was georgia, or not, i'll look into it later

obama has a good coalition of people
african-american
college graduates
college students
middle-class people
women (he won women in a lot of states, and he won them over a woman..*shocker*)
blue collar workers ( i think after the edward endorsement, adn soon to be clinton endorsement, i think he will get a good enough portion of them)
unions

preety good for an unkown senator

Agreed, it is pretty damn impressive.

Georgia is in that hotly contested South I was mentioning.  It's a swing state, so it's a big win for Obama.

But then again, so are Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi... hell, the entire southeast US aside from Florida, really.

But there's also big African American populations in those states, so it may end up balancing out, which is nice because then we can focus on pure issues, rather than go into these stupid race races.

That would make an awesome t-shirt.

Dubya:
91 to 27 in seven years flat.

1: You can't judge presidents in the short term, because most policies are long term objectives.  Some examples:
Education
Wars
Economic policies
Any alternative energy policy
Environmental policy

It's like if I was to ask a six-year old kid if he approved of the job his mom is doing, shortly after he was told to go to his room without dessert because he didn't want to eat spinach.  Yeah, his mom gets a low approval rating.  But that doesn't mean she's doing a bad job.  It means that the public perception is that she is doing a bad job.  Nothing more, and nothing less.

2: I would argue that a huge portion of that lack of approval is based on issues that Bush can't control.  Most notably, oil prices play a large part, which are rising not due to supply issues but due to increased demand from growing China and India.

3: Hey, Gladiator, tell me how the Democratic congress is doing on approval ratings too.  If Congress is doing shitty on approval (which they are), then the discontent isn't against Bush, but against the government itself, and Bush just happens to be at the forefront.

Gladiator, you still haven't said how the above was considered a dirty tactic in the first place.  Either you're randomly using a baseless argument as a springboard for an attack on Republicans, or you think I'm wrong in my prior statements.  Care to clarify which of these is right?

(Oh, and the Nazi thing is still in question...)

Yay!  You editted me in your list!  I feel important! 

You're leaving?  (There was supposed to be a shocked smiley here, but it turned into a happy smiley.  That really didn't work right...)

Oh well, was fun co-tutoring with ya!  Have fun in real life!

Gladiator, you mean if I show you one dirty tactic by Obama, you're done with him?  Give me a moment (got some other stuff to do, but there's definitely a cheap shot by Obama on the field...).

> hummy wrote:

> An, which exactly is the recruitment thread? I keep overlookin it. 

Go to the main index for the forums.  Click on "Drafting."
Look for the threads mentioning the ICC.  There you go.