I do not trust Saddam Hussein...

Dubya is more dangerous than Saddam. Why because Saddam can be controlled. While Dubya with the awesome might of the US behind him cannot.

Frank- No matter what you think of Bush, he is a sitting President. You may not like his politics, or his way of doing things, but IMO he is not impeachable. There is only one way that you can show your dislike of him, and that is in the voting booth in 2004.

Hussein is another ball of wax altogether. He is a cruel monomanical dictator, who has and would continue to torture and kill whenever he feels threatened personally. He craves power, and if not contained, could be a real threat to his region, and ultimately the entire planet.

Sorry Frank, I think that you are mixing apples and oranges!

Phoenix I disagree
I believe that bu$h is impeachable and has already commited the crimes that call for impeachment. The only reason that he is not impeachable at this moment is because of the radical right control of the entire government.

Let's hope at the very least that the American people learn a lesson from allowing the installation of an unelected person, and ignoring the voter fraud that has taken place in the last two elections. On the Voting issue check out :

Black Box Voting

Check our one of the impeachment Resolutions at this site:
Impeachment Resolution

Here is article VI of Dr Boyle's impeachment resolution. It lists the latest crime commited by bu$h.


ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

I don't want to impeach Bush -- and I am sorry if the term "earliest practicable" was translated to mean that.

We used the power to impeach in a frivolous way with the last president -- and I have no desire to see anything remotely that again.

I think Bush should be removed via the next election. That is, in my opinion, the earliest practicable time frame.

I think Saddam Hussein should be removed by force -- but by virture of the United Nations deciding it must happen.

I do not think we should do it unilaterally -- nor with the endorsement of just a few other countries.

Frankapisa- I agree that Saddam needs to be removed by force. In a perfect world, all our allies would rush to our side. Unfortunately, that is not happening.

I think that the longer we sit around watching the UN debating, ad nauseum, the more time that Saddam will have to put his
nefarious plans into place. I don't think that we have the time to wait!

from what i can discern from other posters i must think Saddam is the second coming of jesus, Bush is the devil incarnate, i am lacking in minimal intellegence, to blind to see, and a raving lunatic drug induced psychotic who happens to also read poety. i am far more colorful than i had previously imagined.

Phoenix

Thank you for your reply. I respect what you have to say. But...

North Korea presents a more real -- and more present danger. Have you thought of why Bush is so hell bent on invading Iraq rather than North Korea?

As regards Saddam, what nefarious plans are you referring to that are so imminent that we must handle them now.

North Korea HAS nuclear weapons -- and they HAVE a delivery system which apparently can reach our west coast -- and its dictator is every bit as much a nut case as Saddam.

So what is so important that we invade Iraq immediately -- even if it means making a shambles of the way we say things are supposed to work -- through bodies like the United Nations.

dyslexia- Nah, you don't have to reach for the medication, yet. IMO Bush is a flawed individual, thrust into ta situation for which he was ill prepared, who thinks that he is doing right, all the time tripping over his feet. Saddam is a devil incarnate wannabe.

dyslexia- Nah, you don't have to reach for the medication, yet. IMO Bush is a flawed individual, thrust into a situation for which he was ill prepared, who thinks that he is doing right, all the time tripping over his feet. Saddam is a devil incarnate wannabe.

Kin i have some of what yer takin', Boss?

No, I don't trust Saddam Hussein but I don't have much more trust in Dubya to pull this off without leaving a mess:




http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/art_of_war.htm

You ask that there be no mess, Lightwizard? It won't work that way - no matter is in charge.

A political and diplomatic mess may be worse than anything. This could include a much tougher resistance and more deaths on both sides than the world is willing ro accept. Bush will find it hard to take credit for diplomacy if the UN does do its job and the inspectors are successful in uncovering and destroying any WMD.

In times of trial, some men rise to the occasion and some men use the situation to serve their own ends. I believe that Shrub used and continues to use 9/11 to further his own designs and those of his cronies. Saddam is just one more brutal tinpot dictator among many, largely defanged, but one who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Meanwhile, al Qaeda, apparently recovered from the wounds suffered in Afghanistan, in 2002 was more active than ever before according to the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

I do not see any reasons for large number of the U.S. casualties in course of the forthcoming war: American technologic superiority is so much obvious that it will be possible to conduct a large part of war by means of "remote control" devices. There were lots of pessimistic scenarios prior of the Gulf War-1 regarding the same things, and none of them became real.

steissd: well for sure techology is on our side, we can kill and destroy with precision remote control, its not nearly so messy.

Well, the projected occupation force of several hundred thousand, assuming it's mere presence doesn't precipitate a holy war, will certainly be a lovely target for any terrorist in the region. And, since Shrub has cleverly managed to effectively isolate us from much of the rest of the world, it's logical to conclude that the burden of said occupation and concommitant rebuilding of the country, in terms of both cost and manpower, will fall squarely on the shoulders of the US. In this situation, it's all too possible to "win" the war and lose the "peace," incurring casualties all the while.

I believe most Americans support Bush because they are uniformed and may be far too trusting of their leadership. We Americans tend to elect politicians based on their personalities rather than on their intelligence or qualifications. This time we may pay consequences for our ignorance. Whatever you may think about Saddam I find the plan for preemptive strikes against countries that have never threatened or attacked us or anyone else very frightening. Americans should take time to think about it as well as informing themselves before taking action they may later regret.