This requires some honest thought and will take an intelligent answer.........
204325
George Bush\n\n      Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation\n\nRead the sentence carefully. You didn’t hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. It’s the official US FBI definition of terrorism.  In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!\n\nAPPLYING THE DEFINITION\n\n    *\n      George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory.  The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.\n    *\n      The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.\n    *\n      The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership.  These motives were unquestionably political and social.\n\nSo, what part of the FBI definition of “terrorism” do the voters of the United States not understand?  And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize?  Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.\n\nTherefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity.  What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today?  Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office?
597005
Nice point, I hope some people actually think about what you're trying to say, and not just answer your nearly rhetorical question.
8140
CCs has a good answer, please award a 'best answer' accordingly.
188011
not yet but have thought about it
491331
Yeah.. haha... think about how intelligent this makes you look.... HAHAHA
210773
I think you need to collect your thoughts, and re-write your question, because I have no idea what you're trying to ask here.
252764
Any chance you could ask an intelligent question?
138475
Nice generalisation. The sharing of true facts can never harm people, But i do have to kind of agree with you on the reason some of the questions are asked. I would hope that people use common sense and answer the more risky questions with tact and diplomacy, With knowledge comes responsibility
526200
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, let me think about it for a minute!!!
631081
It depends on how the question is worded and what its about. If I know the answer, and I see that the person asking the question hasn't received the answer, then I might answer it. Because for me this thing is an open form, plus I don't have anything against any "group" so if my answer is honest and factual, hey, its OK to post it. On the other hand, there are questions that are either loaded or matters of the heart based on a particular faith. Those I mostly leave alone, especially the loaded ones, figuring that they don't really want an honest answer or that they honestly need a heart answer from someone like-minded. But, that's just me. ~ Peace & Blessings ~
150715
My answer is short and to the point.....I totally agree. Thank you so much!!!It's about time someone said it!!!
563264
and the question is...
413628
Yes I have thought about it,answering questions is more important.
159244
I think there are more than two factors....and you answered your own question.
135406
Very good point, I couldnt' agree more.\n\nDon't you just hate people who leave stupid answers to honest questions......see your first reply.\n\nPerhaps the moderators could hold a members' survey ????
485361
I'll leave my answer here thank you . \nIt's a mind over matter thing .
506633
You should do the question yourself, rather than cheat. Use your brain, you can figure out the answer.