|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Bush or Kerry
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: madman55
This is a poll. Vote for one of the following and give me your opinion about the election if you want.
1.John Kerry(The famouse mr. Ed)
2. George Bush(dubya Bush)
3. Neither, Im for a third party.(where ole rossy and nader)
4. None, I don't care who wins, they all suck.
Posted by: taco_fox
You don't need a poll. This forum has a majority in favor of Kerry
Posted by: Bunmiadefisayo
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by taco_fox
You don't need a poll. This forum has a majority in favor of Kerry
|
Hear, Hear!!
Although he wont win, but what the heck! Go Kerry!!!
Posted by: Maverick
Bush
Posted by: FadedMaster
Bush here too. Personally, I think Kerry flip-flops too much. Whatever. Haha, I'm not even old enough to vote yet so my oppinion doesn't matter.
Posted by: Bishop
Myself.
Posted by: taco_fox
Hmm, since when did VB start showing the names of people who voted?
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by taco_fox
Hmm, since when did VB start showing the names of people who voted?
|
You can set that option when you setup the poll.
Posted by: 9:35
This thread will eventually be moved to Rants and Raves, probably since I'll keep asking questions like:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FadedMaster
Bush here too. Personally, I think Kerry flip-flops too much. Whatever. Haha, I'm not even old enough to vote yet so my oppinion doesn't matter.
|
could you explain the negative aspect of "flip flopping," which is a shoddy way of saying someone changed their mind? and on top of that, could you name something besides the Iraq war that Kerry has "flip flopped" on?
edit: voting Kerry for stem cells and international favor
Posted by: Canis Lupus
normally I would've allowed this to stay in Off Topic, but since the poll is showing the names of those who voted, it would be worthwhile to put it in R&R 
Posted by: Canis Lupus
anyway, Kerry here 
Bush has done enough damage to America .. time for a fresh change, even if the opposing candidate isn't as great as I hope he would be (altho he's still better than the incumbent)...
Granted, he doesn't applaud OB-GYNs for giving love to their patients
Posted by: SKYHN
Im voting kerry for a few reasons:
No draft
Stem Cell Research
Can read and speak above a 3rd grade level
To get bush out
But I dont think it will matter, bush will win anyways. A majority of the people in this country have become clouded by him and will vote for him. They think hes a great man, that hes done so much when its so far from that its rediculous. The other influence is that damn Fox News. They need to be taken off the air, it is so bias its unbelieveable. I used to like to visit my grandparents, now I loathe having to go over there, they watch fox news 24/7(And their heavy republicans). And they are so influenced by it that its rediculous. Anything Bill O'Reily or anyone else on that network says, its like jesus wrote it in stone. I find it amazing how we can invade and take over a country who we 'thought' had massive WMD's and ended up not having ANYTHING, while another country has some psycho running around flashing WMD's like a street hooker with a new miniskirt and saying they will use them and the position on them is "Oh well were in talks with them". Not to mention the republican party is the most racist and non-for the people political party in this country. But as soon as you say something like that, or are against the president, your labeled un-american and your opinion is burried in the ground somewhere in Guantanamo bay. Or you get a visit from the FBI.
How many wanna bet we find Osama before the election?
And speaking of flip flops, i remember a video of things dubya said when he was govenor of texas and when he was campaigning for president and then it was compared to what he said after he was elected. Talk about flip floping...(If I find it again, Ill post it, it may even have been posted here)
Posted by: Atlas4
Kerry, cuz in the words of the Daily Show: He's not George W. Bush. I hope some party picks a good candidate next time around. Obama would be nice. Or mebbe Edwards.
Posted by: Gunslinger
I will be running on the OTS.net ticket in the year 2018.
Posted by: 9:35
2018 isnt an election year 
Posted by: Ocean
senate maybe he was referring to
Posted by: IceBreaker
none of the above...
...I'd have loved too...
...it's just that I don't live in the US http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...nt/cont_007.gif
Just a question though: one cannot be president more than twice in a row, however is it possible to serve, say, 3 non-consecutive terms or is that not possible either?
Posted by: taco_fox
no. One person can serve, at maximum, 10 years as president. That's if he was Vice President for under two years when the President died or was otherwise removed from office, and was elected twice afterwards
Posted by: SKYHN
Their making an amendment to allow anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years to run for president(so arnold can run and screw up the whole country instead of just california), so maybe that one might be overturned someday too. And to be honest, 4 more years of Clinton right about now would be real good.
Posted by: redwench
yup. clinton might have had the personal morals to rival the penquin, but at least he managed to keep the US respected and on an even keel.
Posted by: Tecil
I put Bush, as I tend to lean to the right (more Libertarian than anything though), but I've never voted before and I probably won't start this year either.
Posted by: TwiztidJuggalo
bush, i really can't stand democrat and I like Bush
-matt
Posted by: marioze53
The only reason Kerry will lose is because hes matched against an incumbent. Had this been an election year with two rookies running, no one would be getting after Kerry for being indecisive. After youve secured your party thats how you win votes. The problem is that an incumbent has the opportunity to establish himself and show exactly what he stands for. We know what Bush stands for and we know what to expect. Kerry played a good game, but people like me will usually take the sure thing over an x factor.
Posted by: IceBreaker
OK comrades thanks for the info. Yes it's Clinton I was thinking about. A pity he cannot run for office a 3rd time. I liked the fellow (despite his extramarital lapses - all the more so than he apologized, and his apologies were earnest - plus his wife forgave him & has turned the page anyways) - F.D.Roosevelt got elected 4 times - I guess some amendment must have been passed since then - no doubt Clinton might easily have achieved the same feat had he been allowed to :-(
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
We know what Bush stands for and we know what to expect. Kerry played a good game, but people like me will usually take the sure thing over an x factor.
|
It depends on "the sure thing" ;-) Sometimes, it is safer to choose the "X factor" over the "Y factor" (as in: "Y the hell vote for junior?") http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...nt/cont_007.gif
Posted by: taco_fox
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
F.D.Roosevelt got elected 4 times - I guess some amendment must have been passed since then
|
yep, before it became an amendment it was just a precedent thing set by George Washington
Posted by: IceBreaker
Does the majority of US citizens approve of this?
I'm somewhat puzzled as to what could be the grounds for imposing a maximum duration of tenure as President...
Posted by: redwench
er, it was a constitutional amendment put in place because of FDRs reign. if people didnt approve, it never would have made it. hell, most americans are for an amendment re: flag burning, and they cant get that to go through 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
er, it was a constitutional amendment put in place because of FDRs reign. if people didnt approve, it never would have made it.
|
um...FDR was elected 4x in a row, yet the people also endorsed the amendment? http://www.touslessmileys.com/smileys/PPC/ppc_023.gif
Posted by: SKYHN
Doesnt Congress/Senate handle that? I would think some of them would have alternative agendas, such as wanting to run some day
Posted by: redwench
presumably. or they would have put a repeal on the ballot, and voted out the idiots that voted for it in the first place. im not sure [and im not looking it up] when it was put in place, but it would have been some time after his terms, those silly amendments tend to lag quite a bit behind
Posted by: redwench
3 ways, i do believe, to get an amendment:
1. vast majority of both houses of congress
2. ditto of states ratifying
3. popular vote
Posted by: SKYHN
Something I think should be changed is get rid of the damn electorial college and make it popular vote. If only we had that in 2000...
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
Something I think should be changed is get rid of the damn electorial college and make it popular vote. If only we had that in 2000...
|
I think the downside of that is that the candidates will just concentrate their efforts on states with higher populations, while ignoring small states with insignificant numbers...
Anyway, I hope you Bush supporters are ready and willing to get drafted when he gets reelected - it's a good thing, to fight terror, right?
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
I think the downside of that is that the candidates will just concentrate their efforts on states with higher populations, while ignoring small states with insignificant numbers...
|
They already do that with the ones with higher electorial votes though. We would have a different president for the last 4 years if it was by popular vote.
The man qualified for the job would win if it were popular vote.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
They already do that with the ones with higher electorial votes though.
|
I think their intention was that each small state's electoral vote can be a big factor when taken in cumulatively, so candidates can't afford to concentrate their campaigning only on California, New York, Florida, etc, when all the other states' combined EVs can topple those three... makes the candidates consider each state as important instead of just the ones that will get them the most votes (not that they're actually doing that right now)...
But I agree with what you're saying ... majority vote should not be disregarded ... but we have an imperfect system in an imperfect country...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Anyway, I hope you Bush supporters are ready and willing to get drafted when he gets reelected - it's a good thing, to fight terror, right? |
hehe...
http://img67.exs.cx/img67/188/UNCLEBUSH.jpg
Posted by: Ocean
http://webpages.charter.net/ocean/B...ood_profits.jpg
Posted by: Atlas4
Just did a thing on amendments in APUS. 1)2/3 of Congress must propose it and ratify it. 2)3/4 of the states must vote on it and agree. Boom, an amendment is born. It is close to impossible to pull these things off. Electoral ain't goin nowhere with the current administrations. And sos this "gay marriage ban" bullshit, too. Also, just read an article on the fact that a lot of people have been turned away from voting for certain reasons, mainly old Jim Crow-like things. I don't like civil rights being destroyed for evil reasons.
Posted by: 9:35
No, the electoral college won't go away because there isn't a better system to replace it.
Posted by: Bishop
www.kompressorforpresident.com
Posted by: Bix VT
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
I think the downside of that is that the candidates will just concentrate their efforts on states with higher populations, while ignoring small states with insignificant numbers...
Anyway, I hope you Bush supporters are ready and willing to get drafted when he gets reelected - it's a good thing, to fight terror, right? |
I don't know about you, but having just turned 18 myself, I would be proud to serve my country. If I get drafted, that's fine with me. At least I'm getting paid.
And it seems to me that Democrats are the ones that start drafting...Vietnam? who's war? not Bush's...
Besides, Bush has promised not to draft people, and I believe him, he actually sticks to what he says, unlike some people *coughkerrycough*
Posted by: NyGulkuk
I vote Democrat because I think this country can do better by its' mentally ill and otherwise disabled and homeless people. I think it's a damn shame that this is the richest (monetarily) country in the world yet we have homeless people lying in the street; 99% of which are obviously mentally ill and/or defeated by this cruddy system. It is not the poor who import crack, heroine and other addictive drugs; it is rich people who profit the most from these by keeping poor people addicted and enslaved to them.
I also think that poor people who work their asses off should get a break on housing, health care and education over and above what is now available for them. There should be a concerted effort to help the less fortunate among us who don't have a rich daddy to call upon when they are in trouble or in need.
I also respect and admire Kerry for his efforts to end the Vietnam War, which victimized millions of (mainly) poor young men, not to mention the millions of Vietnamese that were victimized by an immoral war.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
Besides, Bush has promised not to draft people, and I believe him, he actually sticks to what he says, unlike some people *coughkerrycough*
|
1. No, Bush does not often stick to what he says
2. As insignificant as Kerry's flip flops are, Bush has flip flopped ten times more than Kerry has. That emergency $25 billion that Bush promised not to tap into until the start of the 2005 fiscal year? Yeah, we just spent the first two billion of it. Bush also promised never to use our troops as an occupying force (they are not trained to do such) and, well, I'll let you figure that out.
Maybe instead of throwing cheap shots like "unlike some people *coughkerrycough*" you could instead back it up with relevant information.
Posted by: NyGulkuk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
1. No, Bush does not often stick to what he says
|
flip-flopper in chief
Posted by: Canis Lupus
yep, looks like a flip-flopper to me but that's general knowledge though (to those without blinders anyway) ...
anyway, I really have a hard time believing anything that Bush has to say, nowadays ... those WMDs still got me reeling... sure, he tells you he won't approve drafting, but how can you really trust the word of a warmonger who bombs a country not tied with terrorism and still insists it is part of the war on terror... at the first sign of another terrorist attack on the US, you can bet your bottom dollar that he'll call for the draft at a drop of a hat... it's the Republican way... and his supporters will love him for it while he sends their sons and daughters off to war, saying "God bless America" and all that crap ... yeah right...
I'm glad you are proud to serve your country. Just make sure you are serving your country, and not someone else's vested interests... then again, how would you know the difference with those blinders on?
/rant
Posted by: Bix VT
I would say that my "blinders" are exatly the same as yours...being non-existant. I look at both sides of the issue, then decide which to support.
As for the WMD issue...
http://www.ramtek57.com/pics/Bwwwwa...d%20Iraqis!.jpg
Posted by: NyGulkuk
You need to think about who caused those mass graves to be dug and filled.
It was shrub senior who told the Iraqis to rise up and we would back their revolution then he changed his mind. This gave Saddam (who the US supported and sold chemical and other weapons of mass destruction) the information he needed to kill the ones who would have been our friends.
Posted by: redwench
since when do we invade countries because of genocide a decade earlier? oh, well, i guess were about due to invade rwanda. somalia in about 9 years. cant wait.
by the way, why wait to be drafted? sign up now if you think the invasion of iraq was a reasonable thing to do.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
I would say that my "blinders" are exatly the same as yours...being non-existant. I look at both sides of the issue, then decide which to support.
|
oh come on...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
As for the WMD issue...
|
yeah, it's been the same Republican rhetoric ... first they claim there were still WMDs (I mean, why shouldn't there, we gave them to Iraq, right?), then when they get embarrased about not finding any, they used diversionary tactics and try to change the subject by saying "well, even if they didn't have WMDs, we were still right to kick their asses coz of all the sorry, poor, defenseless people they killed <insert all sorts of misericordiam arguments here and terrorist propaganda there> and they deserve to be bombed by us, those murdering sons of b*tches, USA military rules, yeah..."
That's the story of the Bush Administration... not admitting they were wrong, and instead saying everyone else who does not agree is wrong ... you're either with us or against us, after all... cowboy diplomacy at its best...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
|
Way to change the subject. Can't stand the fact that your argument of Kerry's flip flopping was overshadowed by Bush's much more comprehensive list, so you move onto a supposedly stronger argument.
Saddam was a horrible horrible man who shouldn't be ruling a country. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD REMOVE HIM, especially at this point in time. When terrorists are driving airplanes into buildings, we don't go after the country that burried the most people in a single hole - that can be last. If you care so much about the War on Terror, why do you shamelessly promote the invading and occupying of a country that had no ties to terror or weapons in which to inflict terror?
Also, if you think tens of thousands of dead Iraqis is means for war, then maybe you should focus on the genocides taking place in Africa right now in which millions of people are being killed, not thousands. If Bush pushed this war on the basis of people that died a decade ago, no one would have fought. Why push that argument now?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
The selling point of the "Iraqi invasion" was the WMDs ... that's what made it "acceptable" to the American people ... but there were no WMDs ... then Bush blames the CIA for faulty intelligence. But guess what, we're still in Iraq, and the government is still saying it is part of the war on terror... so, uhm, wtf?!
But let's give credit where credit is due - Bush is a genius ... The words "war on terror" is the best and most successful arsenal our government has developed to keep us in line... it makes Americans cringe and give up their freedoms and ability to think, and all this is done without having to raise a finger. Better than any H-bomb in history, and less messy... ain't that a freakin irony
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
But let's give credit where credit is due - Bush is a genius ... The words "war on terror" is the best and most successful arsenal our government has developed to keep us in line... it makes Americans cringe and give up their freedoms and ability to think, and all this is done without having to raise a finger. Better than any H-bomb in history, and less messy... ain't that a freakin irony |
Theres a book I'm reading about this called "All The President's Spin" by the guys over at spinsanity.com, undoubtedly the best partisan-free look at fact spinning in politics. Positive wording is a major part of the book, and the spinsanity.com editors did a fantastic job pointing out how sucessfully this administration has marketed their policies to the public. "The War on Terror," "Operation Iraqi Freedom," "Operation Afghani Freedom," "No Child Left Behind," "Patriot Act," and so on. The great thing about these policies, at least for Bush, is the implied un-American labeling of anyone who opposes them. Saying "I oppose the Patriot Act" will sound a lot more un-American to the general public than "I oppose Act 1399.1-H." No blame is passed upon them for strategically naming their policies in a way that makes opponents unpatriotic or uncaring.
I think the main point of the book is how this trend has been used by every president over the past half century, but never has it damaged a working democracy like this administration has.
Posted by: Bix VT
I may not agree with the reason they gave for the war, but I'm happy with the outcome. I'm not arguing that we didn't find any WMDs, that would be futile.
Personally, I think that we were right to take saddam out of power.
Also, my main reason for voting for Bush is because it would make my every-day life easier, and he (for the most part) has the same veiws of "the issues" as I do.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Unfortunately, that's what most Americans think... the War on Terror plan has worked its magic...
We still have soldiers dying there every month btw, more dead after the war than during the war, so I hope you're happy with that outcome too...
Posted by: 9:35
I'm gonna ask this question again to Bix VT because it still needs to be addressed:
Why are you discrediting John Kerry as a flip flopper when George Bush has been proven to flip flop on dozens of more issues than Kerry? Shouldn't you, by that logic, discredit Bush even more?
Posted by: NyGulkuk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
I may not agree with the reason they gave for the war, but I'm happy with the outcome. I'm not arguing that we didn't find any WMDs, that would be futile.
|
How did you like the outcome of the two beheadings (so far) this week?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
Personally, I think that we were right to take saddam out of power.
|
Maybe so, but I don't think the Iraqis are very happy at this moment, with the "no-go zones" and the daily suicide/homicide bombings. The peace is not going very well if you haven't noticed. "Mission Accomplished" is a great slogan, but it's not a true one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
Also, my main reason for voting for Bush is because it would make my every-day life easier
|
How is shrub making your life easier? Are you a rich guy or a polluter, maybe work for Haliburton?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
and he (for the most part) has the same veiws of "the issues" as I do.
|
Do you want your (and everyone elses') great-grandchildren paying your deficit? Do you like pollution? I don't understand...
Oh wait, you might hate abortion as all normal people do. I hate it too, but guess what, it was going on long before it was legal and it will go on long after it becomes illegal (if it does), back when it was illegal girls and women died of infection or by bleeding to death. I think it should be as rare as possible but legal. Men shouldn't even have a say in this issue.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
but I'm happy with the outcome.
|
we dont know the outcome yet. we are still fighting there, and will be for some time. in 5 years, you can judge the outcome.
Quote:
|
Personally, I think that we were right to take saddam out of power.
|
and if someone decides to take bush out of power? statistically speaking, hes not much better than saddam atm. civilian deaths, incarceration without legal representation, torture of prisoners......
Quote:
|
and he (for the most part) has the same veiws of "the issues" as I do.
|
now see, thats whats important. you can leave all the rest out, since that is how youre supposed to vote.
Posted by: Bix VT
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NyGulkuk
How did you like the outcome of the two beheadings (so far) this week.
|
It's better than however many people Saddam would have had killed...I think a conservative estimate would be 10.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NyGulkuk
I don't think the Iraqis are very happy at this moment, with the "no-go zones" and the daily suicide/homicide bombings. The peace is not going very well if you haven't noticed. "Mission Accomplished" is a great slogan, but it's not a true one.
.
|
Sure, if you believe everything Dan Rather tells you...
I know several people who have been over there and seen first hand that the majority of Iraqis are far happier now than 2 years ago. These are, of course, people who are in the military and don't really know anything...just a bunch of jar heads.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NyGulkuk
How is shrub making your life easier? Are you a rich guy or a polluter, maybe work for Haliburton?
.
|
I make very little. fewer taxes help me out a lot. And yes, I am a polluter. I drive to work, I brethe air, and I light up fireworks on the 4th. But I don't smoke, drive an SUV or burn my trash, dump in rivers and all that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NyGulkuk
Do you want your (and everyone elses') great-grandchildren paying your deficit? Do you like pollution? I don't understand....
|
I don't like pollution, that's why I do my part by driving a ULEV. As for the deficit...I have mixed feelings. Our military needs the supplies and upgrades, but the deficit is getting a bit high...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NyGulkuk
Oh wait, you might hate abortion as all normal people do. I hate it too, but guess what, it was going on long before it was legal and it will go on long after it becomes illegal (if it does), back when it was illegal girls and women died of infection or by bleeding to death. I think it should be as rare as possible but legal. Men shouldn't even have a say in this issue.
|
I don't think it should be illigal, but I think that it shouldn't be a "convenience" thing. I think it should be allowed in the case of rape, or if the woman is in any actual physical danger. But certainly not just because they failed to take sufficient precautionary measures.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
we dont know the outcome yet. we are still fighting there, and will be for some time. in 5 years, you can judge the outcome.
|
touche. I'll get back to you then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
and if someone decides to take bush out of power? statistically speaking, hes not much better than saddam atm. civilian deaths, incarceration without legal representation, torture of prisoners......
|
Bush did not order those civilian deaths, unlike saddam. Bush did not torture any prisoners, nor condone it, unlike saddam. as for incarceration...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
now see, thats whats important. you can leave all the rest out, since that is how youre supposed to vote.
|
I thought you'd see it my way
Posted by: marioze53
Alright Bix Im here to help...
Quote:
|
and if someone decides to take bush out of power? statistically speaking, hes not much better than saddam atm. civilian deaths, incarceration without legal representation, torture of prisoners......
|
How can you even begin to compare the two? Its clear that the move into Iraq was a questionable, if not foolish decision. But to compare him on terms with Saddam? I must be missing something. Civilian casualties are an inevitable factor of any war. Post invasion, the only thing Bush is guilty of is ignoring military advisors by not commiting ENOUGH soldiers to Iraq. IMO, his advisors screwed him over the first time by telling him to commit to Iraq in the first place. He thought they were wrong for a second time so went against their advice. Had he listened to them the second time, the situation in Iraq wouldnt be nearly as bad...
Incarceration w/o legal rep? Ever heard of Guantanamo Bay? The government has provided alleged terrorists many of the same legal rights as American citizens!
Since when is the President of the United States responsible for the torture of prisoners? Do you honestly believe that Bush told those prison guards to take those horrible pictures? Did he want one for his desk in the oval office?
Bush's foreign policy isnt his strong suit just because of an affective marketing campaign. There are so many plausible reasons to attack Iraq (i.e. vicious dictator, mass murderer, past enemy, oil, etc.). Whether or not the war was waged for the wrong reasons, the point is, the world will ultimately be better off without Saddam Hussein. Id equate our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan with the rebuilding of Germany and Japan. (How were to go about adapting democracy to a society that seems to contradict many of its fundamental values is another matter.) If were going to go Bush-bashing, lets stick to the things that Bush has really screwed up, say the homefront for instance...
Posted by: redwench
not every prisoner that was tortured in iraq under saddam was "interrogated" under his direct orders, or even the vast majority of them, yet we hold him accountable. you cannot have it both ways, either bush is responsible as commander in chief for what the army does or saddam wasnt responsible for anything except what he directly ordered.
you dont think saddam said "i feel bloodthirsty today, ill go kill a bunch of kurds", do you? he bombed who he wanted dead, and didnt much care who else was around. pretty similar.
lets see, guantanamo bay finally allowed hearings for prisoners (with an appointed military representative, no civvies allowed) after the supreme court ordered them to. it wasnt voluntary, and a military hearing with a military representative is hardly the same rights as a normal citizen charged with a crime. but actually, i was refering to suspected terrorists in this country that were denied contact with family, a lawyer, or the family dog. some of them citizens that have been held for years now without trial.
you cannot equate iraq and afghanistan with germany and japan. germany and japan attacked us, we didnt decide the leaders needed to be removed because they were bad men.
Quote:
|
the world will ultimately be better off without Saddam Hussein.
|
thats debatable. if we get lucky, yes. if were unlucky, its going to be a far worse mess. he provided stability and cohesiveness to a country that is not only tribal, but has many religious factions that hate each other. we might sneer at that as an accomplishment, but its no laughing matter to the people that live in constant fear of car bombings outside of police stations and mosques. weve replaced lawful evil with chaotic evil, at least for the time being.
Posted by: Bix VT
Very well, under that logic Bush is accountable for the soldiers mistakes. However, the difference being that as soon as it came to Bush's ears that this was happening, he put a stop to it. saddam...well...
I think that if saddam was running our country instead of Bush, the ground troops would have come a lot later, after nuke after nuke had been sent over there. very efficient, very clean, no losses for the home team. But Bush isn't like that, he actually cares about humanity, even *gasp* those of a different race, religion, and laguage!
I don't agree with the holding people without trial however.
Posted by: Ocean
removing saddam hussein might have been good. and he was a bad man. and terrorists are bad
but it wasnt worth the cost we paid and are still paying due to these reasons:
-this war's civilian casualities are pissing off more and more in the muslim world everyday, and creating more angry hatred-motivated terrorists, because no majority outside of america considers this war necessary.
-it is damaging our credability to do it without global support.
-we dont have the money to strengthen our homeland defense, employ better airport screeners, purchase cargo ship scanning equipment, tighten our borders, etc.**
-the american dollar is plummeting and interests rates will skyrocket due to excessive debt.
-george bush does not have any proof that more than 1000 americans would have died and that more than 7000 americans would have been injured, if the war had not taken place and saddam were to still be in power, yet he constantly claims america and americans are safer because of the war.
** apearently there were 2 bills that requested 87 billion dollars for iraq, the first said the money should come from repealing the rishest 1% tax cut. the second said the money will come from, essentially, credit. neither specifically delegated exactly how the money should be spent. john kerry voted affirmative for the first bill. and the second bill passed with a 51 majority vote.
----------------------------------------
George Bush has made unintentional linguistic mistakes that were repeated excessively in islamic media (Crusade, Bring it on!, and many other religious references that give justification to muslims that this indeed is a religious war)
bottom line: democrats see a flaw with the "WAY" the war on terror has been fought, and are do not see a significant connection between the IRAQi war and 911. and believe the resources spent on iraq could have yielded better results.
no one is saying saddam was good, or being against terrorism is wrong. or we shouldn't fight terror around the world, or that the americans that died shouldn't be honored. hence these are not the issues, but george bush answers every question as if these are the issues. and for him to believe or even say that these are the issues, is a gross oversimplification, and negligent in being a leader by not giving americans the information they need to actually fight and stand up against terrorism.
being a consistanly optimistic cheerleader does not equate a winning coach.
Posted by: IceBreaker
oh yes, Bush does “care about humanity” - so much so in fact that he actually signs death warrants even when there is enough proof to clear the inmate of all guilt;
I guess during his tenure as governor of Texas, that was his idea of being the State’s chief…Executive http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_087.gif
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
since when do we invade countries because of genocide a decade earlier? oh, well, i guess were about due to invade rwanda. somalia in about 9 years. cant wait.
|
Come now! These may be rogue states too, but you’re forgetting the main criterion – and none of the abovementionned countries abound in oil. Same goes for North Korea – nuclear weaponry developed at the expense of the people, but then again no matter how many civilians are being sacrificed, there are simply no oil wells;
So surely, these regimes can’t be that bad (…)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Civilian casualties are an inevitable factor of any war.
|
One 9 year-old boy named Ali lost his parents, siblings, in short his entire family, along with both his arms & legs in an allied bombing. Did Fox News ever mention this little “detail”?
And we’re talking about a unilateral war here, never forget. Do you perchance deem these civilians deaths acceptable by sole virtue of the fact that the Pentagon labelled them as mere “collateral damage”?
And yes, Saddam’s days as a dictator are over, and that is a good thing. But are the Iraqis better off? Yes, perhaps Iraqi citizens have somewhat greater freedom of speech – but you may want to check out this article as well as this one. And now let’s see – one of the very first things the occupation, sorry I mean “liberation” forces did when taking over Iraq was to DISARM the civilian population (thus leaving it vulnerable to crime & looting that became rampant in the post-war security vacuum) - a method used by many a dictator such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Idi-Amin or Mao-Tse-TseTung upon their ascent to power. They then proceeded to arm the Iraqi police – many of whose agents actually served under Saddam’s regime;
thus in the end we have: an Iraqi police force that applies THE SAME methods as those used to under the aegis of Saddam’s regime, working hand in glove with an occupation force that has been found to strip the Iraqi civilians of their most basic rights & dignity on numerous occasions: notwithstanding their barging into civilian households in the dead of night – a Gestapo tactic that quickly became commonplace – the all too notorious Abu-Ghraib prison’s reputation as a temple of torment remains unshaken.
so it appears that the operation “Iraqi freedom”’s only consequence, if not it’s purpose, was the replacement of a hostile dictatorship…with a friendly dictatorship (friendly towards the Bu$h Admini$tration - of course ;-)
How convenient…
Posted by: IceBreaker
And on the same note:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
That's the story of the Bush Administration... not admitting they were wrong, and instead saying everyone else who does not agree is wrong ... you're either with us or against us, after all... cowboy diplomacy at its best...
|
Ah but it gets worse: others have actually taken to following in their wake, as attested by Putin’s recent crackdown on democracy: his plans to tighten control would involve doing away with the elections by popular vote of the governors – instead, the candidates would be chosen by the Duma (“russian congress”) – and the little post-soviet democracy that Russians enjoyed will have been short lived. This heralds the advent of a new order – or rather, a return to an older one – a throwback to the time when the russian people cowered under the weight of the Kremlin’s iron fist.
USSR – the empire strikes back…at the people. And this time around, looks like it’s there to stay…
And the “reason” behind this overhaul? *Surprise* *surprise* why the Fight Against Terrorism of course Over 300 civilians were killed, and their deaths only served to cement a leader’s stranglehold on power. Now am I the only one to have an uncanny sense of déjà vu?
Posted by: redwench
yup, a lot of countries are using "the war on terror" to essentially repeal civil liberties and rights that people fought long and hard to get. Russia, India, and the UK spring to mind, although there are more. Great, were a world leader again!
Posted by: 9:35
ATTN BIX: Why are you avoiding this question?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
I'm gonna ask this question again to Bix VT because it still needs to be addressed:
Why are you discrediting John Kerry as a flip flopper when George Bush has been proven to flip flop on dozens of more issues than Kerry? Shouldn't you, by that logic, discredit Bush even more?
|
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
And yes, Saddam’s days as a dictator are over, and that is a good thing. But are the Iraqis better off? Yes, perhaps Iraqi citizens have somewhat greater freedom of speech
|
uhhh maybe you don't quite understand what makes a middle-eastern "better off"
Its not free speech. Its not women's rights. In the middle east, religion is valued over every other faucet of life. They live by the standard that this life is a test for the next life, which is their freedom in eternity. Most people would rather see their sister walking down the street in a burqa than to have freedom of speech; I don't expect you to understand this, Icebreaker, seeing as your only 'source' of information is a single disgruntled ex-muslim.
On a different note, I believe more Iraqi citizens were killed in the timespan of two American wars than in Saddam's entire dictatorship. If you don't think the Iraqis can use this to equate the Bush family with Saddam, you're wrong.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
uhhh maybe you don't quite understand what makes a middle-eastern "better off"
Its not free speech. Its not women's rights. In the middle east, religion is valued over every other faucet of life. They live by the standard that this life is a test for the next life, which is their freedom in eternity. Most people would rather see their sister walking down the street in a burqa than to have freedom of speech;
|
um...actually I was talking on a general note, ie. about what makes a human better off
But if the iraqis didn't value their freedom, then I guess that was even MORE of a reason not to intervene there, don't you think?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
I don't expect you to understand this, Icebreaker, seeing as your only 'source' of information is a single disgruntled ex-muslim.
|
yes, I guess a bunch of devoted muslims is a lot more reliable than that of a single person who's also been on both sides of the fence...
But I do understand this, I just don't deem it acceptable - and perhaps you may want to recheck the other thread you so kindly "ported" over here, where the whole talk about islam began: I posted excerpts from the Coran which you seem to have conveniently overlooked...
=> and as a sidenote, I don't know how this even became a thread on Islam (not that I mind, quite the contrary - all the more so than both Bush and the islamists uphold primitive, right-winged ideas & principles, so as I recall once saying, bashing one whilst standing up for the other is taking a somewhat contradictory stand isn't it?)...
...but you seem to forget that Iraq, even under Saddam, was a secular State - at least in theory...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
um...actually I was talking about what makes a human better off
But if the iraqis didn't value their freedom, then I guess that was even MORE of a reason not to intervene there, don't you think? |
You can't put all humans in one group when it comes to values. The freedoms and lifestyles that democratic states employ on their citizens may be more valued than it would be in a muslim state, therefore you can't assume that all humans will be better of with certain freedoms.
Quote:
yes, I guess a bunch of devoted muslims is a lot more reliable than that of a single person who's also been on both sides of the fence...
But I do understand this, I just don't deem it acceptable - and perhaps you may want to recheck the other thread you so kindly "ported" over here, where the whole talk about islam began: I posted excerpts from the Coran which you seem to have conveniently overlooked...
=> and as a sidenote, I don't know how this even became a thread on Islam (not that mind, quite the contrary ;-) but you also seem to forget that Iraq, even under Saddam, was a secular State - at least in theory...
|
you're assuming a "bunch of devoted muslims" are my only source. See, I know you're still clueless on this issue because you somehow think the thoughts of one person defines the entire muslim religion because you flat out said so. Funny how someone who takes jabs at Fox News for misinforming its viewers, yet, you're one of the most misinformed people when it comes to muslims and can't seem to say enough about them!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
You can't put all humans in one group when it comes to values. The freedoms and lifestyles that democratic states employ on their citizens may be more valued than it would be in a muslim state, therefore you can't assume that all humans will be better of with certain freedoms.
|
are you implying that those living in an islamist state, say Iran, are better off with the Shariah? That those living in Ireland are better off living in a state governed by catholic cant? If that is the will of the people (is it), then so be it perhaps...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
when it comes to muslims and can't seem to say enough about them!
|
in a way, you got that right...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
you're assuming a "bunch of devoted muslims" are my only source. See, I know you're still clueless on this issue because you somehow think the thoughts of one person defines the entire muslim religion because you flat out said so. Funny how someone who takes jabs at Fox News for misinforming its viewers, yet, you're one of the most misinformed people
|
and you're parting from the premise that this person is my only source of information. Notwithstanding the fact that I live in a neighbourhood where over 96% of the population is of muslim confession (like I said in the other thread) I also cited the SOURCE of the religion itself - do you perchance have a more reliable source to suggest?
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
are you implying that those living in an islamist state, say Iran, are better off with the Shariah? That those living in Ireland are better off living in in a state governed by catholic cant? If that is the will of the people (is it), then so be it perhaps...
|
Thats a loaded question. Hundreds of countries have been ruled by religious groups, dictators, and regimes that are arguably abusive. Our role in the War on Terror is not to free people from oppression, but to take out countries that harbor a threat towards us, be it terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Iran is one of these countries, but Ireland is not. What do you expect me to say, that we should attack Ireland because you don't agree with how they're ruled?
Certainly, Saddam was not a favored ruler in Iraq. But I can guarantee you that a higher percentage of Iraqis disagree with an American occupation RIGHT NOW than they ever did under Saddam. Heh, news stations stopped showing that statistic when the number rised above 95%.
Posted by: 9:35
i forgot something
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But if the iraqis didn't value their freedom, then I guess that was even MORE of a reason not to intervene there, don't you think?
|
yes, that is one of the increasing number of reasons why this war was a bad idea
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Thats a loaded question. Hundreds of countries have been ruled by religious groups, dictators, and regimes that are arguably abusive. Our role in the War on Terror is not to free people from oppression, but to take out countries that harbor a threat towards us, be it terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Iran is one of these countries, but Ireland is not. What do you expect me to say, that we should attack Ireland because you don't agree with how they're ruled?
Certainly, Saddam was not a favored ruler in Iraq. But I can guarantee you that a higher percentage of Iraqis disagree with an American occupation RIGHT NOW than they ever did under Saddam. Heh, news stations stopped showing that statistic when the number rised above 95%.
|
um...yes, AND? So it would seem you agree then - so what exactly is your point?
Basically, you repeated what I said a couple of posts ago, when I stated that the Iraq war only resulted in one dictatorship being replaced by another - for your convenience, here's the link (2nd quote down, starting with the "Ali case" - plus the 2 links I enclosed therein regarding violations of human rights during the occupation)
Oh, and as for the case regarding Ireland, no reason for a anyone to intervene there, either. BUT my point was, the irish themselves should stand up against this system (as should have been the case in Iraq, for that matter) - IF they oppose it, naturally
Posted by: Canis Lupus
http://www.tolitz.com/images/ots/whatitsallabout.gif
Posted by: IceBreaker
Interesting question: which if the two do you guys think would, if elected president, pose a greater threat to democracy: Bush Jr. or Pat Buchanan? (I don't know if P.B is running for presidency, but let's just suppose he is -)
Posted by: Bix VT
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
ATTN BIX: Why are you avoiding this question?
|
you know, it's really good that you put that in large font because I was definately skipping all of your posts.
no, seriously, I was.
In response, I'd have to say that if you're basing that on the website that was posted, I'm sure I can find more websites than George W can count saying that Kerry is worse...
Plus, it seemed to me that the majority of those changes were fairly far back in the past (2 ~ years), and for the better.
Posted by: redwench
buchanan is a worse wacko than bush. and by that i mean there is something seriously wrong with his brain.
Posted by: Ocean
buchanan definately was, but the interviews with him lately ive seen have changed my opinions. he still might be EXTREMELY socially repressive (i never see his views on those issues anymore) but his view in the war on terror makes alot of sense. i wouldnbt vote for him due to his social agenda, but he is compitent on the war on terror.
so i kinda would consider him hard to reference now. buchanan of old seems ignorant compared to buchanan of new.
a quote from him:
Quote:
|
In 2003, the United States invaded a country that did not threaten us, did not attack us, and did not want war with us, to disarm it of weapons we have since discovered it did not have. ... Those of us who were called unpatriotic for opposing an invasion of Iraq and who warned we would inherit our own Lebanon of 25 million Iraqis were proven right." The war in Iraq, he says, is "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years."
|
more adept logic from his book here:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=40274
Posted by: redwench
he thinks god actually speaks to him. and his sociopolitical views are asinine to the say the least. that he makes sense on iraq is somewhat disturbing, but even a broken watch is right twice a day.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Hehee...
We invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction!
But they didn't have any.
Well, uhm, we invaded Iraq coz it was tied to terrorists!
But the 9/11 commission said they weren't
Well.. well, we invaded Iraq coz Saddam was a BAD BAD man killing innocents!
But there are worse men than Saddam, why didn't you invade their country?
Well, uhm, shut the f*** up, you unpatriotic liberal turban lover! You bleeding-heart democrat! You terrorist!
Oh, so that's the real reason...
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bix VT
you know, it's really good that you put that in large font because I was definately skipping all of your posts.
no, seriously, I was.
In response, I'd have to say that if you're basing that on the website that was posted, I'm sure I can find more websites than George W can count saying that Kerry is worse...
|
uh, no, I'm not basing my post on a link that was mentioned *AFTER* I made the post. Just go ahead and try to show me where Kerry flip flopped more than Bush, and your argument will gain some merit.
And yes, you were skipping my posts.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Hehee...
We invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction!
But they didn't have any.
Well, uhm, we invaded Iraq coz it was tied to terrorists!
But the 9/11 commission said they weren't
Well.. well, we invaded Iraq coz Saddam was a BAD BAD man!
But there are worse men than Saddam, why didn't you invade their country?
Well, uhm, shut the f*** up, you unpatriotic liberal turban lover! You bleeding-heart democrat! You terrorist!
Oh, so that's the real reason...
|
If there is violence, we are winning because it shows they are desperate. If there is no violence, we are winning because we have brought peace. If the violence is a large attack, it shows they are so weak that they need to focus their manpower and resources on spectacular attacks in order to exaggerate their importance and it shows we are winning. If the violence is a series of small attacks, it shows we are winning because they have been reduced to fighting small battles. If parts of the country aren't under our control, it shows we are winning because they have consolidated into pockets of resistance because they know they have lost most of the war. If the violence is spread out across the country, it shows we are winning because the attacks are spread out instead of having any sort of organizational focus that could take the country out of our hands. If foreign fighters are involved, it shows we are winning because the Iraqis support us and only outside troublemakers are keeping things going. If domestic fighters are involved, it shows we are winning because the old regime is fighting for its last gasps because it knows it can't win open and free elections. If we can't hold open and free elections in every community, it is because we are winning and those obstacles are a last ditch attempt to block democracy. If other regimes are opening up, it shows that taking a hard line on Iraq was essential to forcing reform. If other regimes are closing themselves to the world, it shows that a hardline on Iraq was right because these regimes can't be trusted and are revealing their true colours. If the person on the street opposes America, it is because we are winning and evil regimes only prop themselves up through misinformation and bogeymen. If the person on the street supports America, it is because we are winning over their hearts and minds. If we can't find weapons of mass destruction, it shows we are winning because we prevented an evil man from acquiring them. If we find weapons of mass destruction, then we were right all along and thank god we are winning the war against them. If terrorists strike our allies, it shows we are winning that they are hurting enough to have to try and scare them out of a winning coalition. If the terrorists don't strike our allies, it is because we are winning and new security measures have been working and being part of the coalition is paying off.
If something is wrong, it shows that we are right.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
um...yes, AND? So it would seem you agree then - so what exactly is your point?
|
uh, no I don't agree with anything, and no they wern't replaced with another dictatorship. You asked if Iran was "better off" with its current party. Better off than what? Like I said, it was a loaded question.
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
We invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction!
|
Alright lets be honest. In all likelyhood the war in Iraq was for oil. But why? Because Haliburton is an evil corporation looking to exploit someone elses limited resource for billions of dollars? Or was it because there is a market for it in the United States?
Understand that foreign oil has fueled this countries economic success for a long time. As long as its coming from overseas instead of our own precious oil fields in Alaska we could care less. Wed rather save our wildlife preserves, trees, etc. and import, than produce our own oil... that is the liberal argument isnt it? The reason the rich look to make such an enormous profit off of this conflict is because we are willing to paying for it. When we chose capitalism, we chose oil. I hate it, but the world is thus.
The truth is, its our fault not shrubs. He simply made us aware of our dependence on oil (hell were fighting a war over it!). Americans dont really want to hear that though do they? To gain favor with the public however, we need a noble excuse to get involved, since we refuse to believe we could possibly go to war for such horrible reasons.
You want to stop an oil war from happening again? Take shorter showers. Wear a sweater in the winter instead of jacking up the thermostat. Buy a hybrid. If you can convince 300 million Americans to do likewise, I assure you this wont happen again.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
uh, no I don't agree with anything, and no they wern't replaced with another dictatorship. You asked if Iran was "better off" with its current party. Better off than what? Like I said, it was a loaded question.
|
you mean 'Iraq' - and my question was:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
are the Iraqis better off?
|
that was clear enough - I meant "are they better off than with Saddam's regime?", obviously. Better off when it came to freedom of speech, privacy, social welfare, Human Rights, access to unbiased information, and so on...you know, the usual issues that Amnesty International deals with...
...to which I answered: no, the iraqi are not (much) better off, if at all. And yes, the new Iraq is not a dictatorship - officially. But in the light of post-war events, this looks an awful lot like a de facto dictatorship doesn't it... Is it a democracy? Elections are alledgedly due in january, so time will tell - as will the results (if elections there are) - AND the way the elections are carried out Am I pessimistic about it? Yes I am.
By the way, you may want to read this article I found on the cnn website.
Elections may ot be held quite as planned. And the purported reason? Why, security concerns of course. "Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist"... a broken record, yet the tune still seems all too trendy...
Sure, elections aren't really compromised - yet. But then again, that's how it always begins isn't it? Notice a slight discrepancy between the title (which states 'four fifths' bold & clear) and the 1st line in the 1st paragraph, where Rumsfeld mentions 'three-quarters' or 'four-fifths' (hmm...how long till the next article speaks of two thirds or one half?)
The slightest stain is always small - till it spreads..
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
The truth is, its our fault not shrubs. He simply made us aware of our dependence on oil (hell were fighting a war over it!). Americans dont really want to hear that though do they? To gain favor with the public however, we need a noble excuse to get involved, since we refuse to believe we could possibly go to war for such horrible reasons.
|
See, that's what gets me everytime: "it's not our dear presiden't fault, it's our fault! He is blameless, he just opened our eyes to the terrible truth! He doesn't need to change, we are the ones who should change!"
We're talking about the freakin president of the country, for god's sakes. When Clinton was in power, Republicans made a whole deal about immorality and why the commander-in-chief of the most powerful country in the world (sic) should be impervious to such sins. There were no underlying justifications about "Clinton making the country aware of our obsession with other people's personal lives." Many Americans have superiority complex, and anything that makes supposedly more powerful people weaker than they are makes them feel good. But no, it was about Clinton having extramarital affairs and *GASP* lying about it! Oh my god! What a travesty to the American democratic system! A president who LIES about shtupping someone!
Anyway, back to your "defense" of Bush. There's that Republican rhetoric again - avoiding the issues that matter and bringing up someone else's shortcomings in order to mask the apparent impotency of the present administration.
Everytime Bush says "war on terror" I cringe. It has become a very sad, and funny, word to me, not unlike someone saying "q'apla!' or "may the force be with you" or even "I'd like fries with that!" It's now a cliché ... everytime Bush wants something done, all he has to do is attach "war on terror" and the American public buys it. You say WE need to change so that OUR PRESIDENT won't take advantage of us. That is a pretty shortsighted way to go about it. What do you think we have been saying about this administration, and about the American way of life, from the start of this thread? WE are willing to change, but many of YOU won't.
Blaming the American people for eating the lies of a person who is supposed to be the country's ROLEMODEL is an attempt to avoid the issue at hand - should Bush continue doing what's he's been doing for another four years? You want him to stay in office, yet you admit he's been taking advantage of the American people, at the expense of American lives. HELLO!? And you want PEOPLE to change? Talk about irony...
I want better leadership. I want America to be considered the good guy again. You can't expect to change a country's people if the country's leadership is taking advantage of them. Those who were willing to change are often called "liberals", or other "unpatriotic" expletives only Republicans can come up with coupled with freedom fries...
You blame the American people and not Bush. I blame Bush for the mentality of the American people. A country is only as good as its leadership, and I can tell you now that we are a very CRAPPY country right now. Don't get me wrong, I still love this country, but liking is not the same as loving...
of course, the usual GOP reply to that is "then get out of this country, you unpatriotic liberal!"
(sorry, just making a preemptive strike, hehe)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
You want to stop an oil war from happening again? Take shorter showers. Wear a sweater in the winter instead of jacking up the thermostat. Buy a hybrid. If you can convince 300 million Americans to do likewise, I assure you this wont happen again.
|
You want to stop the flow of dead American soldiers in Iraq, or any further "wars" in the next four years? Get Bush out of office. If you can convince 300 million Americans to do likewise, I assure you this wont happen again.
Oh wait, we have no way of knowing that, right? Same goes for what you said...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Well, uhm, shut the f*** up, you unpatriotic liberal turban lover! You bleeding-heart democrat! You terrorist!
Oh, so that's the real reason...
|
http://www.touslessmileys.com/smileys/PPC/ppc_040.gif Not even that, ala$ http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...nt/cont_007.gif
Posted by: INeedHelp
i don't know if any one has seen this...http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/dsbush.html
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
you mean 'Iraq' - and my question was:
|
I was answering this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
are you implying that those living in an islamist state, say Iran, are better off with the Shariah? That those living in Ireland are better off living in a state governed by catholic cant? If that is the will of the people (is it), then so be it perhaps...
|
but whatever, I guess in your little world you meant Iraq, and I should have just, you know, figured it out on my own. You were saying?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
I was answering this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
are you implying that those living in an islamist state, say Iran, are better off with the Shariah? [...]
|
but whatever, I guess in your little world you meant Iraq, and I should have just, you know, figured it out on my own. You were saying? |
um...right - welcome to my little world then, for I was answering this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
therefore you can't assume that all humans will be better of with certain freedoms.
|
and yes, you should have figured it out on your own..
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
|
Blaming the American people for eating the lies of a person who is supposed to be the country's ROLEMODEL is an attempt to avoid the issue at hand - should Bush continue doing what's he's been doing for another four years?
|
The point laggy is that Bush IS a rolemodel for the United States. Lets assume for a moment that President Bush was directly responsible for faulty intel, that the CIA or his administration had absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact is that half of the country still supported Bush after it was made clear that Iraq probably never had WMD's!
In general, Americans want to be lied to. Liberation for Iraq? Removing a tyrant from power? They were positive side effects or maybe even excuses, but the fact remains thats not why we commited to fight that war. We know it was for the oil. If Americans (in terms of majority) want to continue to be lied to, then maybe Bush is the man for the job. Apparently that is the case (as of yesterday) as he leads John Kerry in the polls by .9%. Perhaps hes not the positive rolemodel you want, but he is the one setting an example.
Quote:
|
You want him to stay in office, yet you admit he's been taking advantage of the American people, at the expense of American lives. HELLO!? And you want PEOPLE to change? Talk about irony
|
Do the ends justify the means? As a swing voter Ive struggled with this question for a while. Regardless of Bush , Cheneys, or the administrations intentions I think that tearing down Iraq will ultimately prove to be in the United States best interests. Then again, I would have also voted to go into Rwanda or the Sudan. Granted, there would have been American casualties. But it makes me sick to think that we are more concerned about 1000 American soldiers than 200,000 Kurds! What makes someone an American? A green card and an SSN? The problem is that people are dying! I could care less what country they come from or migrated to. The question to be asked is have we prevented more deaths (current or future) by going into Iraq than have already occured? I believe the answer to that question is yes. I wish this country would fight for the right reasons. But all we can hope for are positive side effects due to wrong motives.
Quote:
|
I want better leadership. I want America to be considered the good guy again. You can't expect to change a country's people if the country's leadership is taking advantage of them.
|
I couldnt agree with you more. But John McCain wasnt on the ballot.
Posted by: Ocean
he was untill his poll number dipped extensively due to swift vote veterans for truth ads against him.
oh and 9:35, awesome post here
http://www.opentechsupport.net/foru...82&postcount=82
Posted by: Bix VT
Quote:
| |
