Bush or Kerry, who do you choose

[Dezzick]

woll you vote for bush or kerry, or do you want someone else as president of the USA?

[TheBB]

Probably Kerry...

Edit: It should be mentioned that I can't vote in the USA though.

[Ender]

Kerry. Bush is an unintelligent draft-dodging warmaker asshole, who enjoys destroying the economy and health care. Way to go Bush! But I'm too young to vote.

[Battlecruiser]

Kerry, but I am too young to vote. But atleast my parents are going to vote for Kerry.

[Modred]

Darn this six months before my birthday.

Anyway, I would vote for Bush. Why, you ask? Well, I say we can either go with a Bush who pushes for US militarism across the world or a Kerry who pushes for US globalism across the world. Either way, we end up splattered across the world. I say let Bush attempt to finish what he started and see if he can pull a rabbit out of his hat.

If you would like a more intelligent answer, please tell me and I might validate myself (and also recruit some help ;))

[Markpyro]

i really dont mean to flame but KERRY IS A FUCKING ASS LIAR!!!!!!! *takes deep breath* meh, nobody is perfect

[LordAhriman]

I'm a conservative, but I'd vote for Kerry considering we have soldiers dying in Iraq for literally no reason. Getting Saddam was a noble objective, and worth a war, but there have been just too many fuckups.

[hammocksleeper]

Michael Badnarik is who I will most likely vote for.

[Killphill]

I'd vote Kerry, why beacause its the alternative to Bush. But sadly I can't vote cause im underage and live in a different country. The death toll from Irac is over 900 for the americians and God knows how many Civilians and Iracys (sorry how do you spell that?) died.

[Grom_Icecream]

I'll vote for Latham. Hes the Aussie alternative. If anyone knows our current prime minister is John Howard, and hes a total knob. If i was american i would probably vote for Kerry, but who knows.

[Ender]

Darn this six months before my birthday.

Anyway, I would vote for Bush. Why, you ask? Well, I say we can either go with a Bush who pushes for US militarism across the world or a Kerry who pushes for US globalism across the world. Either way, we end up splattered across the world. I say let Bush attempt to finish what he started and see if he can pull a rabbit out of his hat.

If you would like a more intelligent answer, please tell me and I might validate myself (and also recruit some help ;))
I hate to be mean, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Why? Because you are gambling with our nation's leadership and future, just so you can see if Bush CAN do something right. What if he doesn't? What if he messes up? We are all screwed then, just because you wanted to see IF he can save his and our ass.

Good move!

[Ragnarox]

I don't like either of them that much but I believe Kerry is the lesser of two evils.
KERRY ALL THE WAY!

[Nahotnoj]

well, i really dont know enough about the topic to have a real justified stance, so until i know more, im going with kerry as thats what my family is.

MP, what do you mean he is a liar? ive heard this from other people too...

[Dezzick]

I've not had time to look at this thread but when i did, lol ! anyway, even though i'm underage and live in england, i'd vote for kerry (bush is evil, he stopped black people from voting for kerry :o !!

[Forerunner]

Kerry: He's not Bush. Damn Iraq...

[Dezzick]

Like duh! It'sa bit obvious. :rolleyes:

[Mattimeo]

Time to break out the old whuppin' stick.

Worst president in history?

(The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the editor.)

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.
They complain about his prosecution of it.
One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in US history.


Let’s clear up one point:President Bush didn’t start the war on terror.
Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.
Let’s look at the “worst” president and mismanagement claims.

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.
He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
Over 2,900 lives were lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us,
President Bush has liberated two countries,
rushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda,
put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

Worst president in history? Come on!

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.



We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

Keep in mind that before the Democratic primaries the numbers of American soldiers killed in Iraq was far far less than it is now. Up till then we were winning the war, but all the negative rhetoric since then has emboldened the terrorists and convinced them that they are winning. There are a lot of brave American soldiers lying in their graves right now due to the selfish desires of politicians seeking power and fame. how sad!!!!

Our military is GREAT!

~Don't Panic

Now while you digest that, chew on this. You cannot argue that the economy is failing, unemployment is down from 6.1% one year ago to 5.4% today. The GDP has grown 4% in the last year. The economy is on the rebound. Bush was handed a recession by Clinton. Bush was hit by the 9-11 attacks because Clinton left him unprepared. So Bush goes and fixes the economy and puts us on the road to solving terror instead of throwing money at despots and hoping the problem will solve itself. Bush has had the courage to stand up to opposition and do what's right, not because it's popular but because it is right. John Kerry has never had the spine to do that. He changes his position on the issues all the time to please people. He claims to be the war-candidate and then he claims to be the anti-war candidate. He votes for the war then agaisnt the war. We need Bush as our president.

~Don't Panic

[Modred]

I hate to be mean, but that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Why? Because you are gambling with our nation's leadership and future, just so you can see if Bush CAN do something right. What if he doesn't? What if he messes up? We are all screwed then, just because you wanted to see IF he can save his and our ass.

Good move!

Note the disclaimer. I know that wasn't an intelligent response, and posted that I was aware of its silllyness. You just told me something I knew before you even read it. Thanks for wasting our time.

Also, why don't I just vote for Kerry because he isn't Bush. That's a great reason also. I should always vote for a candidate because he isn't the other candidate. I don't even have to do any research to find out why I dislike the other candidate. Everyone else does, and I have to do the "in" thing. So let's all vote KERRY!!!

[riBd]

FDR led us into World War II.
Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,




an average of 112,500 per year.This person needs to read up on their FACTS. Jesus CHRIST. I'm in ninth grade and I know better!

Japan attacked pearl harbor.
We went to war with them.

Even with all this, FDR was going to have a hard time bringing Germany into the war with us.

But this guy's main point in the above statement is BULLSHIT. TOTAL BULLSHIT. Hitler declared war on us (in one of the idiotic moves that became his downfall) before we did on him. Thus, this person is already spewing bullshit, and I'm only one major argument in.



Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,333 per year.
Um, we were fighting a proxy war with Russia. It sucks, I know. I'm not saying this was a just or right cause, but we certainly weren't fighting North Korea, we were fighting Russia and the spread of communism.




John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.
Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,
an average of 5,800 per year.
Well, again, it's not like we were attacking Vietnam. We were defending against Russia and the spread of communism.

However, this war was unjust and should not have happened.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.President Bush went to war with Iraq the same way.

Bosnia never attacked us.
Neither did Iraq.


He was offered Osama bin Laden’s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.
Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
I'm not doubting your proof for this, I just didn't know of it. Could you cite an article, or something?
Over 2,900 lives were lost on 9/11.

In the two years since terrorists attacked us,



and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
What? Who?


We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.
Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.
Because the 9/11 was the first time we've been attacked on our own soil. Any president can see the need for tighter security.

Comparing the Iraqi death toll to others is like comparing the Mexican death toll to the American one in WWII. We encountered very, very, very little resistence in organized military form, and since then it has been all guerilla/bomber casualites, and that's not his "excellent" presidency at work. That's just the fact that insurgents can't kill that many people as vietnam guerillas or any other oraganized military force could.



It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.
That was a 51 day operation.
The war against Iraq itself was won easily and quickly. But we're not fighting against Iraq. We are fighting against Iraqi insurgents, and terrorism, and those are still at large.





We’ve been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time
than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.And we didn't find any...



It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard
than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.
As I have already said: The war against Iraq itself was won easily and quickly. But we're not fighting against Iraq. We are fighting against Iraqi insurgents, and terrorism, and those are still at large.



It took less time to take Iraq
than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
It's not like we've ever taken Iraq. It's a guerilla war. Sure, our troops are making good progress on the charts, have great kill ratios, etc etc.. but it's a guerilla war, not another WWII, where there are clear fronts and armies. We're going to keep taking casualties from insurgents.




Keep in mind that before the Democratic primaries the numbers of American soldiers killed in Iraq was far far less than it is now. Up till then we were winning the war, but all the negative rhetoric since then has emboldened the terrorists and convinced them that they are winning. There are a lot of brave American soldiers lying in their graves right now due to the selfish desires of politicians seeking power and fame. how sad!!!!
So.. the terrorists are being bold... because we want to utilize the two party system? What do you want us to do? Not vote for another president and argue for which one is better?

Now while you digest that, chew on this. You cannot argue that the economy is failing, unemployment is down from 6.1% one year ago to 5.4% today. The GDP has grown 4% in the last year. The economy is on the rebound. Bush was handed a recession by Clinton. Bush was hit by the 9-11 attacks because Clinton left him unprepared. So Bush goes and fixes the economy and puts us on the road to solving terror instead of throwing money at despots and hoping the problem will solve itself. Bush has had the courage to stand up to opposition and do what's right, not because it's popular but because it is right. John Kerry has never had the spine to do that. He changes his position on the issues all the time to please people. He claims to be the war-candidate and then he claims to be the anti-war candidate. He votes for the war then agaisnt the war. We need Bush as our president.I will not argue that our economy is failing.

But I will argue this: Clinton, nor no other president, could possibly have helped Bush, or anyone, prepare for 9/11. It was a suprise to us all, and a rude awakening. But not a rude awakening that suddenly Clinton should be blamed for because he didn't "prepare us". How would you suggest he go about doing such a thing?

Bushis also a fundemental Christian. (aka: extremist) Now, I would normally not care, but he lets religion get in the way on many of his political values. And that is not acceptable.

Kerry, in this case, is the lesser of two evils. Not a great president, but better, in my mind, then Bush.

[spastic-ninJa]

Okay people, this is how I see the facts, coming from a neutral country; and, although I do not speak for all of the world, I know for a fact that many people, internationally, share my opinion. President Bush is a warmonger; however, this fact alone would not make him unique amongst American facts. The fact is that he took over the role of President from a successful diplomat who generated a lot of respect for the US from his actions: Bill Clinton.

Sorry, Mattimeo, but that letter is amazingly biased. It is useful, but not overly so. First off, Pearl Harbor was BOMBED: RAZED to the water. It was OBVIOUS who was attacking: Japanese. This is FAR different to Bush's campaign in Iraq. Al-Qaida is a vast network which spans most of the continents of the world. Japan is in one place: North-West Pacific. What effect does this have, you say? Well, PDR knew his opponents far better than Bush knew Al-Qaida. Also, the Germanic-Japanese alliance could have controlled the world: America HAD to intervene sometime.

Vietnam and Korean wars: basically, America wanted to stop the spread of communism. It could not attack Russia or China openly (think of the consequences), so decided to choke the world of communism. These wars were badly planned, but waged for the right reason.

About the war in Bosnia: The US military were DEFENDING Kosovo from the Serbs. This is a just action; many thousands of lives would have been lost had the Americans not tried to help in the conflict. Also, they DID have backing from the UN, so quoting that Clinton went against the UN's suggestions is incorrect.

The fact is that terrorism has been going on for a LONG time. The PLO has been responsible for many, many terrorist attacks, as has Al-Qaida more recently, but they had not been hunted down until Bush came into power. The Iraqis hate the Bush family, which started from George Bush Senior's campaign into Iraq in the Gulf war. However, you must note that the actions between father and son are remarkably different; during the Gulf War, Iraq was threatening to attack Saudi Arabia: a great ally of the US. Aiding Kuwait was just, but the push into Iraq was marginal, at best. In reality, America's campaign was about money: oil in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabian investments in the US.

Now, Jr. Bush calls his war the "War against Terror." Now, I wholly respect a war against the people of this world who make it a living hell for many innocents, but how has Iraq got anything to do with this? Saddam LOATHES Osama, and would have no reason whatsoever to side with him and his terrorism. Saddam was a dictator, and would have had to have been removed at some stage in time, however, Bush lacked subtlety. It is true that the US has military organisations such as the SAS, correct? What are they used for, if not for removing people such as Saddam's personal guards and assassination? So far, I have yet to see a "War against Terror." So far, all I've seen is: "War against Iraq." You may say that American Intelligence has been searching for Al-Qaida representatives since Bush came into power, and this is the "War against Terror," however, the Israelis have been doing this since 60's ->

Under Bush's rule, he has basically pulled the finger against other international powers, by stating things such as: "If you're not with us, you're against us." How the hell does this make a good politician? America and the UN were a power that could crush anything when Clinton was in power: they were a coalition. Now, America is on its own, with little support from other countries. Good work Bush!

About "We believe that Iraq is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction:" A) they didn't exist; statements such as this were propoganda so that people would support the US' military campaign. B) If Iraq had any, they would have received them from USA, most likely. C) USA has 12,500 "in existence." Most likely the military has more in hiding. Proof (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-2.html#usa)

Iraq could have been in possession of very few weapons at most, and were invaded because of suspicions (and oil, of course).

Conclusion: Bush's actions may have resulted in the least amount of lives lost in contrast to other wars, but they were waged for good causes -- the "War on Terror," as I have pointed out, was not.

[Vhaeraun]

If I had to choose Bush or Kerry for president, I would kill them both and become the first self-proclaimed emperor of the USA

[cloudara]

That would be cool Vhaeraun...

meh, I have to choose Kerry, that redneck needs to get his ass into Iraq

[Modred]

Saddam LOATHES Osama, and would have no reason whatsoever to side with him and his terrorism.
Saddam also loathes the Bush family. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. While I'm not saying there was a connection between Saddam and al-Quaeda, simply ruling it out because of the religious-secular fued is as stupid as believing Saddam had weapons of mass destruction simply because his nation had the capabilty to produce them.

About "We believe that Iraq is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction:" A) they didn't exist; statements such as this were propoganda so that people would support the US' military campaign. B) If Iraq had any, they would have received them from USA, most likely. C) USA has 12,500 "in existence." Most likely the military has more in hiding.

A) Point taken. However, there is also no scandal involving manipulating intelligence to create propaganda. If we take everything at face value, the intelligence agencies provided conclusions, as they are paid to do, and those conclusions were wrong, as they often are. It comes with the job. If Bush manipulated this data to sway public favor for invading Iraq, please show us some proof. Other than Michael Moore.

B) That is an assumption with no evidence. Thank you for that baseless piece of information. I suggest that before you make grand assumptions, you find something to back up your facts and theories. Note that the Iraq war which you oppose was started off of assumptions. Calling the kettle black, are we?

C) The amount of nuclear weapons that the US has in existence is irrelevant to the situation in Iraq. Was Iraq ever in a nuclear arms race with the USSR? No. The US was in such a position during the Cold War as that if it did not keep a similar stockpile to that of its eastern foe, the imbalance could have lead to conventional war. What you forgot to mention was that the US has built over 70,000 nuclear warheads, over 58,000 of which have been dismantled. At it's peak, in 1967, the US nuclear program had around 32,500 warheads in it's arsenal. From that time on, nuclear reserves have been diminished consistently, although not without minor problems. At the current time, only 8700 of the 12500 are on active service, with the remainder being retired weapons or those awaiting dismantling. According to your source, the numbers I have just used are also higher estimates than other sources. Compare, 32,500 active nukes to 8700. The US has more nukes waiting to be dismantled at this time than Iraq could have ever produced. If that isn't an attempt at making the world safer (by removing nuclear weapons), then what do you call it?

As for Bill Clinton, I have one words: Somalia. Neither of those were exactly what you would call successful military action. Both had noble goals. Is taking out Saddam not a noble goal? How is helping the poor who are oppressed in Somalia different than helping the oppressed in Iraq? The fact that we ran home from Somalia?

It is arguable that Clinton withdrew American forces before Somalia could evolve into a conflict that would take more American lives. A wise move, but if he was unwilling to finish the job that the American forces were sent to do, why did he send them in the first place?

Bush, rather wrong or right, has mostly stood by his own decisions and is taking a large amount of flak for it.

Now lets take a look at Kerry.

Kerry supports the troops, and voted for the war in Iraq. He also voted against the $87 billion to support the troops, after he voted for it. I think the best explanation is that he voted against it because he wasn't a deciding vote and simply disliked that some of his ideas weren't put into it. One thing down.

Now, for Kerry's votes against military expansion. The recommendations for shrinking the military were made by then Sec. Defense Dick Cheney. Kerry simply voted along with the general consensus that a large military was no longer necessary in a post-Cold War world. So, that is explained as well.

Pretty much everything Kerry has been accused of can be explained like that. In that case, what are we to use to make a judgment of him? Please respond.

[Xx_bender_xX]

who would i vote for? Ralph Nador. Why. Because Bush and kerry are both full of poo:P (im serious)

[spastic-ninJa]

As for Bill Clinton, I have one words: Somalia. Neither of those were exactly what you would call successful military action. Both had noble goals. Is taking out Saddam not a noble goal? How is helping the poor who are oppressed in Somalia different than helping the oppressed in Iraq? The fact that we ran home from Somalia?
Please read my post about Bush's "War on Terror".

There is a complete difference between Somalia and Iraq. In Iraq, there is one ruler; one dictator. In Somalia, there were definite leaders, but there was a seemingly-endless stockpile of angry, ruthless fanatics who could lead the rebels. Kill one, another takes his place. In Iraq, killing off Saddam's family using special orgainsations like the SAS would have been far more effective. The country finally would have employed one -- hopefully decent -- leader. End of story.

Now, sure this "War on Iraq" was done for the right reasons, but not even Bush knew what he was doing. HE was waging the "War against Terror;" this is FAR different to his military campaign in Iraq.

Please note that, with the exception of Somalia, this "War on Terror" was all posted in my first post...

------------

Point taken. However, there is also no scandal involving manipulating intelligence to create propaganda. If we take everything at face value, the intelligence agencies provided conclusions, as they are paid to do, and those conclusions were wrong, as they often are. It comes with the job. If Bush manipulated this data to sway public favor for invading Iraq, please show us some proof. Other than Michael Moore.
Except that the media accidentally did the governments dirty work for them. Most American citizens get their info off of the media, correct? Well, the media portrayed many things for/against the "War on Iraq" that did not exist, such as WMD.

------------

Now Modred, with regard to B), it was not complete bullshit. Do you remember the incident when the USA gave a helluva lot of Anthrax to one of the Middle-Eastern countries, only to have fears of anthrax attacks in the USA? Well, how different is that to handing over a couple of nuclear weapons? The intent is exactly the same... terrorism in the States. I would not rule out the handing over of nukes by America as the greatest possibility.

Also, please don't get all huffy about my "grand assumptions," as they DO mean something, as explained above.

------------

With reference to C), why the hell did America need so many warheads in the first place against the Soviet Union? There comes a point in time when the amount of nuclear warheads becomes irrelevant. 8,700 nuclear weapons would destroy the world beyond repair, which is the same feat that 70,000 could accomplish. Also, there are nuclear developements in Israel, Russia and surrounding countries, and Pakistan, to name a few. America does not control any of those countries, and will need to keep many of its nukes in reserve to stop these countries doing anything drastic.

------------

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.Okay, Suddam hates Osama, who hates Bush, who hates Saddam. Therefore, based on that cliche, Saddam is friendly with Bush, because they both hate Osama, but Osama and Saddam are friends, because they both hate Bush. Contradictory statement?

As for the religion, in the Middle-East, religion is at the top of the food chain. People despise each other for no reason other than the religion they practice. It took the Middle-East 30 years of warfare to accept Israel as a country, and this conflict orignated from conflicting religions (and screw-ups on the British behalf); do you think it would take a lot less time for Osama to accept Saddam, and vice-versa? Notice also that, to Osama, the common enemy is not Bush, although he hates Bush; Osama originates from Saudi Arabia: an ally of America.

------------

Bush, rather wrong or right, has mostly stood by his own decisions and is taking a large amount of flak for it.
I respect Bush's decisions, but not the manner in which he executes them, as I have stated before...

Also, ANY president could declare war on a far more inferior country and leave it in his Defence Minister's hands to wage the war. What makes a good preisdent is one who will make good decisions, initiate them with competence, and be a public role model. In my mind, Bush did not initiate his decisions well at all.

------------

I've also not said anything about who I would vote if I could vote, and if I lived in the States. I have basically said that I do not respect Bush's execution of his actions. The reason for not talking about Kerry is that I do not have much knowledge of him -- he is not portrayed very often in the local media. So, as of now, I cannot reasonably respond about Kerry, but I would appreciate any good links that reasonably sum him up from a neutral perspective.

------------

BTW: If Kerry is as bad as Bush, I will be worried. Shouldn't the USA, being the most powerful nation in the world, have decent candidates that the public likes and those who will make good decisions, like Jimmy Carter, for instance.

[King_Templar]

Well, I feel something of a loner in saying that I want Bush as president. And not just because I am a republican from a republican family. Of course, seeing as I should support my position, I will. For one thing, I'm a Christian. I admire someone who doesn't hide their faith, even if they are persectuted for it. Remember, the US was founded on the Christian faith. It is my belief that without it, the country will turn into a place of immorality and corruption.

Anyway, as for the War on Iraq, I think that it was the best choice. Before I discuss this further, I just want to pose this question: Do you believe in the existence of true evil? If you do not, then I believe that you decieve yourself. Something that I had on a prior signature of mine was:
You cannot destroy that which isn't. If there is no peace, how can you destroy it? And if there is evil, there is no peace, for what can love both violence and peace? Therefore, the only way to obtain peace is to slay evil.
Doesn't that make some sense? I think it does. And I believe that Saddam Hussen was evil. Thus, I believe that the Iraq war was justified. As far as the WMD thing, I would like to point out that Saddam Hussen himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Look at all the people he had killed? Does that not qualify as mass destruction?

Also, one point I'd like to make about Jimmy Carter: He is responsible for Iran not being an allie of ours. He had the shaw (something like that. Can't remember the exact name and stuff at the moment) do things that eventually led to his overthrow. Iran could have been a US allie. Instead it is not.

And one final note, I think that the UN has gone the way of the League of Nations. Don't know what the League of Nations was? Read up on your history. It was a "league of nations," so to speak, that existed between World War I and World War II. I don't think it helped much. Also, I do think that there should be some more action against North Korea.

Anyway, I know I haven't addressed all issues, such as the economy, and if I failed to mention some issue, it is most likely because I don't know enough about it.

[spastic-ninJa]

Jimmy Carter was alone among American presidents for respecting both sides of an argument, as proven by the Arab-Israeli wars, and his part in the Camp David Peace Accord. Also, Bush has turned his back on the UN and powerful EU countries; it is not that rare for US presidents to forgo alliances. (So what if my president history is sketchy; most of the things I have heard about Carter was good; I have heard nothing good for Kerry or Bush.)

------------

I have said it before, and will say it again: there was nothing wrong with removing Saddam Hussein, but the manner in which he was removed was sceptical, at best. There was control when Saddam was in power; now, looting and rioting is becoming commonplace. How much harder would it have been to remove Saddam and his family quietly, and place a 'puppet' ruler in power?

------------

Immoralty and corruption? Please take a look at a few facts:

Handgun deaths: 10's of thousands of people are killed in USA from handguns per year. HERE (http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/facts/handgun.shtml) are some statistics about handguns. Please note that it is biased for the removal of handguns, but you cannot argue with blatantly true statistics.

Slavery: next time you drink orange juice, think of this: 80% of American juice comes from Florida; the majority of fruitpickers in Florida are slaves. They are underfed, and cannot leave because they are in debt, and their masters force them to work for many years. Information from National Geographic - September 2003.

Prison: Approximately two million people are in prison in the USA. If that many people are imprisoned, then there is definitely something wrong; approximately 725 people per 100,000 US citizens. Link (http://aspin.asu.edu/hpn/archives/Dec99/0401.html)

Homeless: Approximately 2.3 million people will experience homelessness over the year. I would like to find a definite value, but will check later. Link (http://www.helpusa.org/statistics/)

If that's not immoral, then I don't know what is.

[King_Templar]

Um, I wasn't saying that the nation wasn't already immoral. I'm saying that it may very well become more so. Anyway, my history on presidents isn't that great either. And as far as guns are concerned...well...I think that they are something that should have a certain amount of background checking. And licensing and stuff. But that is a different issue. Anyway, I have to say that I am biased, we all are. For example, some people can easily say that the whole reason that we even HAD a war with Iraq is because France and Germany's not backing the US, and thus giving Saddam a glimmer of hope. Ah, but there it is. I'm not saying that i agree with or disagree with that statement, by the way.

[Modred]

With reference to C), why the hell did America need so many warheads in the first place against the Soviet Union? There comes a point in time when the amount of nuclear warheads becomes irrelevant. 8,700 nuclear weapons would destroy the world beyond repair, which is the same feat that 70,000 could accomplish. Also, there are nuclear developements in Israel, Russia and surrounding countries, and Pakistan, to name a few. America does not control any of those countries, and will need to keep many of its nukes in reserve to stop these countries doing anything drastic.
If the amount of nuclear weapons is irrelevant, why did you bring it up? As for why America needed the nukes to stand off the Soviet Union: There was this little event in history called the Cold War which amounted a massive race for domination of military, economic and educational issues, even domination of space. The militarism was the most dangerous aspect, and if one side were to have a significant advantage over the other (say the US had 32,000 and the USSR had 51,000) then the imbalance would create a false sense of superior military power which creates a false surge in nationalism which leads to war.

Okay, Suddam hates Osama, who hates Bush, who hates Saddam. Therefore, based on that cliche, Saddam is friendly with Bush, because they both hate Osama, but Osama and Saddam are friends, because they both hate Bush. Contradictory statement?
I must point out that once again, you are basing your information on generalizations. Have you actually read a news article from a reputable source that gave solid evidence that Saddam and Osama hated one another? Or are you simply focusing on religion again?

Except that the media accidentally did the governments dirty work for them. Most American citizens get their info off of the media, correct? Well, the media portrayed many things for/against the "War on Iraq" that did not exist, such as WMD.
The media, if you will recall, largely made a large deal out of the opposition of France, Russia, and Germany to the War in Iraq. That is hardly promoting the war effort of this administration. There are certain things the media could have done to present more accurate data on WMD...by having their own people inside on either the UN Inspection Team or an Iraqi insider. But unfortunately, they had neither and relied on the same data that the administration did, which I have already pointed out was a conclusion that was based on inaccurate information.

In Iraq, killing off Saddam's family using special orgainsations like the SAS would have been far more effective.
It appears you are underestimating Saddam and overestimating both the SAS and American counterparts (Rangers and SEALs). Saddam had at least four, it is estimated possible ten, doubles who's sole purpose was to emulate Saddam. They appeared at public functions, had meetings with diplomats, and did everything expected of a leader. Kill one, we have another. The chance of killing the real Saddam with covert action was almost zero.

Also, consider this. Given the incredibly sensitive nature of an assassination, the US would be forced to deny any involvement, so any soldiers killed would be unknown, unthanked, and most likely condemned by most of the world, including America. That's supporting our troops. </sarcasm>

Also, ANY president could declare war on a far more inferior country and leave it in his Defence Minister's hands to wage the war.
Presidents do not have the power to declare war. In fact, the US has not declared war since declaring war on Germany and Japan in 1941.

Okay, Suddam hates Osama, who hates Bush, who hates Saddam. Therefore, based on that cliche, Saddam is friendly with Bush, because they both hate Osama, but Osama and Saddam are friends, because they both hate Bush. Contradictory statement?
You fail to understand the saying. It means that those who would ordinarily not cooperate will work together to defeat a common foe. Therefore, any of your ideas could have worked, but considering the US's relations with the Taliban and Saddam's Iraq, I don't picture either of those groups joining up with the US to defeat the other.

Notice also that, to Osama, the common enemy is not Bush, although he hates Bush; Osama originates from Saudi Arabia: an ally of America.
The fact that Osama comes from Saudi Arabia is irrelevant. His family has also made public statements that they do not support him, as has the government of his home country. You are right, Bush is not Osama's enemy--America and westernism in general is. But as the leader of America, Bush is the counterpart for the leader of al-Quaeda, being Osama.

Please note that, with the exception of Somalia, this "War on Terror" was all posted in my first post...
You forgot Bosnia also.

I've also not said anything about who I would vote if I could vote, and if I lived in the States.
Then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. My replies to your arguments have been to defend my choice for Bush. If you are simply anti-Bush but do not have a choice for the election, perhaps you should find one of the various Bush-bashing threads and we can continue this there.

Also, one point I'd like to make about Jimmy Carter: He is responsible for Iran not being an allie of ours. He had the shaw (something like that. Can't remember the exact name and stuff at the moment) do things that eventually led to his overthrow. Iran could have been a US allie. Instead it is not.
Quite right you are. The Shah of Iran at that time was little more than a figurehead for a US puppet state. Eventually, the Iranian people revolted and terrorists attacked the US Embassy, resulting in atrocious violence and the withdrawal of all US Diplomatic relations for decades. The cleria of Iran set up a theocracy as they believed that there was no better government than following the will of Allah. Besides, a theocracy allows the clerics to control what occurs, as they must simply say that something comes from Allah and it is accepted. While I do not believe modern Iran is quite that corrupted, the potential for such corruption is equal to that performed by the Catholic church during the Middle Ages.

[spastic-ninJa]

Modred, this is the Intellectual Roundtable, so it is fine for me to post against Bush, provided I produce something of Kerry. I have had my say on Bush, and have asked you for evidence/links of Kerry, so you cannot say that all I am trying to accomplish is 'Bush-bashing'. You are obviously enlightened about American politics, whereas most of my information revolves around Bush.

I am also not enlightened as to the amount of candidates that stand for president. I already know of Bush and Kerry, and, from what I've heard, neither are a fine choice of president. Also, note that in the very first post, we can choose neither. Therefore, I choose neither, until I have proof that will make me decide that I dislike one more than the other, if that's okay for you.

------------

About the amount of nuclear weapons, Iraq would have had to have been incredibly foolish to take on the USA with its mediocre supply of nukes (if in fact they existed). Even the most evil of military tacticians would think twice before bombing America; they would get retaliated against a hundred-fold. That's if they avoided America's defence systems in the first place.

------------

You forgot Bosnia also.Since when? It is in the fourth paragraph of my post replying to Mattimeo.

------------

For why the USA didn't need to match the Soviets' amount of nukes:

Well, considering that the USSR collapsed because of a failing economy (the population was starving; simple items' prices were inflated), I would say that USA had a huge advantage in that war.

Consider this: Would you, as a starving member of the Soviet Union, with no money, join a military war against USA? You have no faith in your government whatsoever, nothing has been done about the terrror that your country faces, and, daily, your friends and family die from poverty.

So let's say that the USSR declared all-out war on USA, because of a greater quantity of nuclear weapons. People with the strength left to fight would riot, not engage in battle with the USA. No proof needed for this; think of what you and your family would do in these circumstances.

------------

Please do not underestimate the power of religion. Religion intensified the conflicts between Pakistan-India, Nthn Ireland-Rep. Ireland, and Israel-Arabs. None of these conflists have stopped outright, and each have been waged for many years. Why should Saddam and Osama get along at all, with these conflicts as proof of the power of religion. It may well be a generalisation, but there is a lot of religious proof to back my belief.

------------

Please, if you join the SEALS or Rangers, you cannot expect to achieve much public recognition, until retirement perhaps, I would presume. When you sign up for these orgainsations, you are immediately placing yourself in harm's way, and you should be prepared to acknowledge that, if you do die in combat, you will not receive much/any public acclaim. Does this seem reasonable enough to assume?

------------

Another scenario: would you, as Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, wish to endanger yourself by associating yourself with Osama bin Laden, anti-US terrorist, unless you wished to bring the wrath of USA down upon your country? Not only that, but you hate his guts. (Now, no-one can prove this hatred for Osama save Saddam himself, so I'm sorry, no links.)

Also, it would be so easy to turn over Osama to USA if you were Saddam, would it not? The benefits would be astronomical: a) America is off your back for a while; b) you've gotten rid of a foe -- Osama (which is worth a lot, really, with all of the terrorism that Osama employs).

So no, I don't fail to understand the saying, as I have said that I knew about the whole 'common enemy' thing. (I realise my comment about Saudi Arabia was a bit rough and hasty, but I hope I have cleared up my statement with this post.)

------------

Did USA declare war on North Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq in the first war on Iraq? My apologies if they didn't, but there were offensive military campaigns in all of those countries. My point is: Bush somehow linked Saddam to "War on Terror" and then liberated Iraq.

------------

About Jimmy Carter: yes, my knowledge of US presidency is rough, but most of the things I have heard about him have been good. Anyway, he is not the topic.

------------

King_templar: Thanks for that info of Carter. I had almost no prior knowledge of that conflict, and I had no idea about his part in the Iran feud. I also agree with your UN/ League of Nations statement. They adopt far too much of a sit-back-and-watch approach for my liking, and for the good of the world.

------------

Modred: you obviously know a lot of this topic, but there's a few things I want to ask of you in the future.

A) PLEASE read all of the info in my posts, otherwise don't respond. For example, you asked for info of Bosnia, when I had already posted it in a paragraph in one of my first posts. I've also had to repeat the difference between "War on Terror" and "War on Iraq" quite frequently, too.

B) When you've asked for proof, I have supplied it. I ask for information of Kerry, because otherwise I cannot conduct a debate, yet you fail to supply any. This would be fine, but you go on to say that I should join a 'Bush-bashing' thread, which I find unreasonable, considering I have been courteous in providing links and whatnot. So, could you post links for info on Kerry, else refrain from saying this is 'off-topic' and whatnot (which you did, just not in those words).

C) This occurs for both of us: IE: When you stated 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' I immediately knew that you were refering to the common enemy (which was obvious because I posted on it), yet you said that I did not understand where you were heading with the statement. Please read between the lines and such, as I will endeavor to do in the future.

Now, please note that I have nothing against you personally, so please don't take this to heart, but I would like you to consider my requests.

Thanks.

[GiaDragoness]

Okay, Suddam hates Osama, who hates Bush, who hates Saddam. Therefore, based on that cliche, Saddam is friendly with Bush, because they both hate Osama, but Osama and Saddam are friends, because they both hate Bush. Contradictory statement? My god, dont you guys play StarCraft at all?! lol.

What I have seen:

Seriously, from what i have read/heard/seen on internet, the whole thing started in the gulf war when US gave nukes to iraq when they were under attack from iran or whatever. So now, when 9-11 came along, bush, instead of going after osama, thought that he might ally with saddam, who last we knew, was in control of a nation that had nukes. Osama and Saddam are two people who actually hate eash other as posted. As something i have read, Osama bin laden once attacked the world trade centers, and because the attack failed, our government didn't pay it much if any mind. Another thing i heard is that we, the USA, are holding a guy right now who knows where to find bin laden, but the government is refusing to accept it.

What I dont get:

What i dont get is why the hell are our troops still over there just sitting around dying? Why has osama bin laden, who bombed our towers, not our primary target? Why don't we either pull our troops out, as they have done their job and gotten saddam out, (who, by the way, was a terrible dictator, but really was of no priority for us to go get.) or we send in a whole bunch of our guys and stuff in, track down EVERY LAST SONNAFA BITCH over there who shoots at us, or just reroute our guys to go after bin laden?

From my point of veiw:

America is great isnt it? Great at helping everyone esle out even when it's not our concern? While this is the christian thing to do, yes, i agree, one thing that gets on my nerves the most is that we are so ready to go over and send 640 billion dollars off to some country who had just bombed us, instead of using some of that on the people over here who are starving in the streets, freezing to death during winter, are beng shoved out of their homes because they cant afford anything because they have no jobs, etc.? I think it is a serious problem when send our soldeirs off into iraq, even though the UN inspectors said they couldnt find any damn weapons or anything, now we look like idiots. After 9-11, we had alot of people willing to rush to america's aid. Now, because of incompotence, we have damn few.

Under the camera lens:

Rebmember how we were in such a rush to get Clinton out of office because, OMG! He had sex with another woman and lied about it! Now I bet he's either crying, laughing his ass off, or both at the same time about now. To be fair, I never really noticed any super bad points about clinton myself. Whether it's because i did'nt care neough about politics to keep up too much, or that he really did'nt do a whole lot of screwing up as much as other unnammed presidents did. The only thing he really screwed up on was getting caught by paperazi. (In my opinion, those guys are about as fucking evil as terrorists if not more so.) We rushed to get Bush into office and now look what happened. It may be a but hypocritical to say so, but if we rush to get someone else into presidency, how much worse are they going to do? If anyone has looked at Kerry latly, he does'nt seem to take these elections too seriously, which will be his downfall. He thinks everyone is so sick of bush, they will vote for him hands down. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I would want someone who can get that overconfident in office, pride has led to enough of a downfall of proud "empires" of man as it is.

Resulting conclusion:

Although i might regret saying it later, or eat my words later, i would say it's probably wisest to go with Bush. He's been humbled a bit by opinion others hold over him, and his mistakes as well. He may not be, but it's best he try to finish his work before handing it to the next guy, because our problems have only just begun. I have no quams about christian veiws in politics. If you ask me, we could always use a bit more of the spirit of Christ in this world. It's really sad when people hesitate to do the right thing, however, its a damn tragedy when they do something without thinking it through either.

BTW, I have found a rather interesting video of newsclips and such, about the war in iraq. It's like, an hour long, but if i can get my freind to upload it to his website, i'll give you guys the link.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[spastic-ninJa]

Kekeke, Gia, please note that I DO understand what Modred was getting at: ally against the common enemy and whatnot. In my opinion, none of them were the common enemies of each other.

------------

Put simply, I agree with everything you have written, Gia, except for having Bush as president, which I cannot come to a conclusion about.

I also agree with adopting Christian morals in a country such as USA; they sure as hell need it, considering the problems I brought up earlier. I just don't like it when one religion is considered 'superior' to another, as was the case in Iraq with Saddam as dictator, when memebers of one religion were not entitled to complete their holy rites in Iraq.

------------

What I think the USA government is doing with its troops in Iraq is this: they have removed a powerful dictator, and now all Iraqis are free to do whatever they want: looting, praying, rioting, you name it. I think that the government wants a sense of control in Iraq with Saddam gone. The thing I don't understand is how they linked bin Laden to Iraq to Saddam to WMD...

------------

Also, it would be great if you could get your friend to upload that video :)

[Modred]

Did USA declare war on North Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq in the first war on Iraq? My apologies if they didn't, but there were offensive military campaigns in all of those countries. My point is: Bush somehow linked Saddam to "War on Terror" and then liberated Iraq.
As I previously stated, the United States has not fought in a declared war since World War II. Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have all fallen under special piece of legislation that allows the president to use the US Military for certain policing actions and addressing immediate threats. I personally think that this should not be allowed, as it allows for a "war that isn't a war," such as the current conflict in Iraq, to continue against the wishes of Congress, who represent the wishes of the people.

About the amount of nuclear weapons, Iraq would have had to have been incredibly foolish to take on the USA with its mediocre supply of nukes (if in fact they existed). Even the most evil of military tacticians would think twice before bombing America; they would get retaliated against a hundred-fold. That's if they avoided America's defence systems in the first place.
Nations such as Iraq and Iran would never come to a nuclear standoff with the US, as you said, it would be suicide. However, there are ways to "sneak" nuclear materials into another country. The simplest way is via diplomatic pouch. During the cold war, it was speculated that the Soviets used such a method (diplomatic pouches are immune from searches) to smuggle the parts for a nuclear weapon into D.C., so that if the US launched a nuclear strike, the President and Pentagon could be wiped out before the situation escalated...somewhat the ultimate payback. To this day, the CIA has not confirmed that this occurred, however they have repeatedly claimed that there was no way to know it had not. Even nations that we have negative relations with could use such a method.

Well, considering that the USSR collapsed because of a failing economy (the population was starving; simple items' prices were inflated), I would say that USA had a huge advantage in that war.

Consider this: Would you, as a starving member of the Soviet Union, with no money, join a military war against USA? You have no faith in your government whatsoever, nothing has been done about the terrror that your country faces, and, daily, your friends and family die from poverty.

So let's say that the USSR declared all-out war on USA, because of a greater quantity of nuclear weapons. People with the strength left to fight would riot, not engage in battle with the USA. No proof needed for this; think of what you and your family would do in these circumstances.
Apparently, you not only lack knowledge of US History, but also of modern history.

In response to part the first: The economy of the USSR was the strongest in the world, at least for industry, during the time period in which the US had it's largest nuclear stockpile. The USSR was no where close to collapse and by the time its economy was ailing as you mention, both the US and USSR were taking measures to reduce their nuclear arsenals.

Part the second: Military service was forced. It was not voluntary as it currently is in the United States. Those who did not wish to serve their "great country" had two options. The first was to disappear into the Gulag prison network. This is the infamous prison system for political prisoners and dissedents that began in Moscow and extended to Siberia. Very few of its prisoners were ever freed. The second option was to join the military, and defect to the "West" as soon as possible. However, to get into such a position in which the NATO nations would accept your defection would take years.

Part the third: The USSR used harsh police and military tactics against it's own populace. Those who were suspected of working with foreigners or who were from foreign countries were placed under heavy surveilance. As soon as percieved a threat, the citizens were arrested, the foreigners deported. Those who chose to riot would face the Soviet Military. Considering the armamanets available to the average Soviet Citizen (nothing), the incentive to loot is very small.

My main point about the USSR here is that the citizens lived in fear, something much similar to Saddam's Iraq, only much better organized. Fear and the threat of losing their life and loved ones compelled the average Soviet Citizen to comply with the government. Your analysis of human nature is invalid in the given situation.

Anyway, we are quite far off topic. Let's skip to something more relevant...like what we think should be done about Iraq and terrorism.

[spastic-ninJa]

USSR's economy was not at all balanced, which was the reason for their downfall, which Gorbachev's plea to the US government portrays. They may have had billions of dollars worth in their military, but then why, oh why, would they suddenly try to stop the Cold War? Because their people were dying. Citizens didn't have any money, and the prices of commonplace items such as food skyrocketed. Poverty struck the USSR, which is why a) Gorbachev tried to stop the Cold War; and b) the Soviet Union collapsed. Gorbachev wanted to stop the race for military and space supremacy, because he knew that the Union was pumping far too many resources into the military.

You said it yourself. The Soviets' industry was the most powerful in the world. However, 100's of thousands of people died because they weren't being fed. That is why communism is screwed; all of the economy is in the government's hands, and what they choose to do with it results in dire consequences for the country. This is the problem with havng too much power in too few people's hands.

The fact is, people were losing their loved ones daily; sure, they lived in fear, fear of the death of their friends/family, but this was already happening, due to poverty. How can you possibly argue with the fact that 1,000's of people died daily? People had nothing left to lose in USSR: their family, friends, wealth, all gone.

Believe it or not, I do understand modern history, thanks for stating otherwise. [/off-topic]

------------

I think that USA is commited to having troops stationed in Iraq, because, having removed a powerful dictator, the nation's populace has gone from being completely controlled, to having free reign throughout the country. US troops have to stay in Iraq; otherwise, riots, murders, and looting would become commonplace. Bush is committed, which may be one advantage of having him as president.

About terrorism: well, according to Gia, the government has the means of locating bin Laden in no time, so removing him would be a step in the right direction. The Al-Quaida network is so vast and spread out that it would be nigh impossible for the government to flush out the majority of its members, so I wouldn't be sure of what to do on that front.

[Mattimeo]

I'm probably going to make a double (or triple) post just to explain to all you people who blindly hate Bush why your arguements are bullshit.

]This person needs to read up on their FACTS. Jesus CHRIST. I'm in ninth grade and I know better!

Japan attacked pearl harbor.
We went to war with them.

Even with all this, FDR was going to have a hard time bringing Germany into the war with us.

But this guy's main point in the above statement is BULLSHIT. TOTAL BULLSHIT. Hitler declared war on us (in one of the idiotic moves that became his downfall) before we did on him. Thus, this person is already spewing bullshit, and I'm only one major argument in.

And how is Hitler's declaration of War on us any different from Saddam's proclamation that he would destroy the United States? Saddam supported terrorsts and there were obviously terrorists in Iraq because they are attacking us now. I'm sure all those terrorists just rushed into the country without us knowing even though the first thing we did was to secure the borders so Saddam and his supporters couldn't get out.

Um, we were fighting a proxy war with Russia. It sucks, I know. I'm not saying this was a just or right cause, but we certainly weren't fighting North Korea, we were fighting Russia and the spread of communism.

And you make this arguement even though communsim was a failed system that could never have expanded anyway. Iraq is part of the larger war on terror, not on Al Quaeda specifically but all terror. You cannot argue that terrorists weren't safely in Iraq when we went in per my previous arguement. The arguement you make to defend Truman works both ways.

Well, again, it's not like we were attacking Vietnam. We were defending against Russia and the spread of communism.

However, this war was unjust and should not have happened.

See above

President Bush went to war with Iraq the same way.
Neither did Iraq.

So do you condemn Clinton for his actions? Or do you admit that Bush was right in going itno Iraq.

I'm not doubting your proof for this, I just didn't know of it. Could you cite an article, or something?

Try the 9-11 Comission report.


What? Who?

Saddam Hussein maybe? hmm?

Because the 9/11 was the first time we've been attacked on our own soil. Any president can see the need for tighter security.

Comparing the Iraqi death toll to others is like comparing the Mexican death toll to the American one in WWII. We encountered very, very, very little resistence in organized military form, and since then it has been all guerilla/bomber casualites, and that's not his "excellent" presidency at work. That's just the fact that insurgents can't kill that many people as vietnam guerillas or any other oraganized military force could.

Liberals are calling this war "Bush's Vietnam" are you denouncing that comparisson (which Kerry and Edwards have also made) or will you allow me to compare the wars?


The war against Iraq itself was won easily and quickly. But we're not fighting against Iraq. We are fighting against Iraqi insurgents, and terrorism, and those are still at large.

We were fighting agaisnt Saddam Hussein and his army. We defeated that army quickly and easily. Now we're working to make Iraq safe for its people by putting a democratic government in and removing the terrorists that are attacking us which is not as deadly as people (read: Kerry and Edwards) make it out to be.

And we didn't find any...

The article's point was that we aren't giving enough time for the WMDs to be found. Not that we've found any. Besides, we have found proof of Saddam's attempts to get these weapons. Also, Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people and in the Iran-Iraq war so don't try to say he never had them or couldn't get them again.

It's not like we've ever taken Iraq. It's a guerilla war. Sure, our troops are making good progress on the charts, have great kill ratios, etc etc.. but it's a guerilla war, not another WWII, where there are clear fronts and armies. We're going to keep taking casualties from insurgents.

You say it's a guerilla war yet you won't let me compare it to Vietnam? Make sense here.


So.. the terrorists are being bold... because we want to utilize the two party system? What do you want us to do? Not vote for another president and argue for which one is better?

The terrorists are being bold because Kerry and the liberals have convinced them they are winning when they are most obviously not. If we send a mixed message and argue with ourselves we tell the terroists that by attacking us they can get Kerry in the White House and us out of Iraq. Then the terrorists will take over and instead of Hussein you have Al Sadr.

I will not argue that our economy is failing.

Ah, he see's the light.

But I will argue this: Clinton, nor no other president, could possibly have helped Bush, or anyone, prepare for 9/11. It was a suprise to us all, and a rude awakening. But not a rude awakening that suddenly Clinton should be blamed for because he didn't "prepare us". How would you suggest he go about doing such a thing?

Clinton could have prepared us by capturing Bin Laden when he had the chance and not cutting our intelligence budget and allowing the CIA and FBI to share intelligence.

Bush is also a fundemental Christian. (aka: extremist) Now, I would normally not care, but he lets religion get in the way on many of his political values. And that is not acceptable.

Bush uses religion to guide him in his life. You cannot fault him for having a guiding force in his political views. It's much better than Kerry who will do whatever is popular. He brags about voting for Iraq during the primaries to distance himself from Dean and get the more moderate democratic voters. Then he brags about not voting to fund the troops he authorized Bush to use so he will get the radical anti-war base of the party in the election. He has no moral guidance in his life and in this time of change when moral courage is so important we cannot have a president with no moral courage guiding us.

Kerry, in this case, is the lesser of two evils. Not a great president, but better, in my mind, then Bush.

A very smart person once said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil."

~Don't Panic

[Modred]

USSR's economy was not at all balanced, which was the reason for their downfall, which Gorbachev's plea to the US government portrays. They may have had billions of dollars worth in their military, but then why, oh why, would they suddenly try to stop the Cold War? Because their people were dying. Citizens didn't have any money, and the prices of commonplace items such as food skyrocketed. Poverty struck the USSR, which is why a) Gorbachev tried to stop the Cold War; and b) the Soviet Union collapsed. Gorbachev wanted to stop the race for military and space supremacy, because he knew that the Union was pumping far too many resources into the military.

You said it yourself. The Soviets' industry was the most powerful in the world. However, 100's of thousands of people died because they weren't being fed. That is why communism is screwed; all of the economy is in the government's hands, and what they choose to do with it results in dire consequences for the country. This is the problem with havng too much power in too few people's hands.
Now I will repeat your request to "please read my posts." When the US had it's largest nuclear stockpile, being when the Cold War was closest to becoming a true conflict (the mid-60s), Gorbachev was not in power, the USSR was not failing, and the threat of war was very real. As I stated, you either do not understand modern history, or you refuse to look at the time period you inadverdently stepped into.

Anyway, I agree with you that the US must stay in Iraq to prevent anarchy. While there is a fledgling Iraqi Army and Police Force, I do not believe that either of them could properly maintain the security of Iraq by themselves. They simply do not have the manpower, weaponry, or training. Given time, money, and a chance they could assume control of their country's security, however the intereim Iraqi government is walking a tight rope and no real action will be taken until true elections occur.

[Mattimeo]

Okay people, this is how I see the facts, coming from a neutral country; and, although I do not speak for all of the world, I know for a fact that many people, internationally, share my opinion. President Bush is a warmonger; however, this fact alone would not make him unique amongst American facts. The fact is that he took over the role of President from a successful diplomat who generated a lot of respect for the US from his actions: Bill Clinton.

He is not a warmonger, he is a man who believes in what is right and is not afraid to act on it. Unlike some presidential Candidates I could name *COUGH* kerry *COUGH*

Sorry, Mattimeo, but that letter is amazingly biased. It is useful, but not overly so. First off, Pearl Harbor was BOMBED: RAZED to the water. It was OBVIOUS who was attacking: Japanese. This is FAR different to Bush's campaign in Iraq. Al-Qaida is a vast network which spans most of the continents of the world. Japan is in one place: North-West Pacific. What effect does this have, you say? Well, PDR knew his opponents far better than Bush knew Al-Qaida. Also, the Germanic-Japanese alliance could have controlled the world: America HAD to intervene sometime.

You want to talk about RAZED? Go to 1 and 2 World Trade Center, then talk to me about razed. More people died on September 11th

Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Death toll 2200
http://www.defraudingamerica.com/pearl_harbor_sequences.html

Total Deaths All 9/11 Attacks 3,030
http://www.september11news.com/911Art.htm

And we had less right to attack terror in the middle east than we did to attack Japan? Explain this. And about the German-Japanese alliance, you say that makes us right to attack Germany. Well Iraq also supports terror, were we then right to attack Iraq? Hmm?

Vietnam and Korean wars: basically, America wanted to stop the spread of communism. It could not attack Russia or China openly (think of the consequences), so decided to choke the world of communism. These wars were badly planned, but waged for the right reason.

Replace Korea and Vietnam with Afghanistan and Iraq and replace communsim with terror. I wouldn't argue that they were badly planned but the resemblance is unmistakeable.

About the war in Bosnia: The US military were DEFENDING Kosovo from the Serbs. This is a just action; many thousands of lives would have been lost had the Americans not tried to help in the conflict. Also, they DID have backing from the UN, so quoting that Clinton went against the UN's suggestions is incorrect.

Clinton had backing of the UN? Prove it.

We were DEFENDING the Iraqi people from a despotic dictator who had killed 300,000 of his own people.

The fact is that terrorism has been going on for a LONG time. The PLO has been responsible for many, many terrorist attacks, as has Al-Qaida more recently, but they had not been hunted down until Bush came into power. The Iraqis hate the Bush family, which started from George Bush Senior's campaign into Iraq in the Gulf war. However, you must note that the actions between father and son are remarkably different; during the Gulf War, Iraq was threatening to attack Saudi Arabia: a great ally of the US. Aiding Kuwait was just, but the push into Iraq was marginal, at best. In reality, America's campaign was about money: oil in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabian investments in the US.

What's your point? It seems to me that you're just supporting my point that clinton was soft on terror.

Now, Jr. Bush calls his war the "War against Terror." Now, I wholly respect a war against the people of this world who make it a living hell for many innocents, but how has Iraq got anything to do with this? Saddam LOATHES Osama, and would have no reason whatsoever to side with him and his terrorism. Saddam was a dictator, and would have had to have been removed at some stage in time, however, Bush lacked subtlety. It is true that the US has military organisations such as the SAS, correct? What are they used for, if not for removing people such as Saddam's personal guards and assassination? So far, I have yet to see a "War against Terror." So far, all I've seen is: "War against Iraq." You may say that American Intelligence has been searching for Al-Qaida representatives since Bush came into power, and this is the "War against Terror," however, the Israelis have been doing this since 60's ->

See my above post for an explanation about how we know Iraq supported terror. Anyway, did Bush call it a war on Al Quaeda? No, he called it a war on TERROR. Therefore going into Iraq was a legitimate part of this war. If Saddam Hussein was assasintated it would create a power vacuum for a terrorist cleric such as Al Sadr to step in. This needed to be executed as an organized war, not as a covert assasination atempt.

Under Bush's rule, he has basically pulled the finger against other international powers, by stating things such as: "If you're not with us, you're against us." How the hell does this make a good politician? America and the UN were a power that could crush anything when Clinton was in power: they were a coalition. Now, America is on its own, with little support from other countries. Good work Bush!

When did Bush say that? When? What speech? I want a source. The UN and America were a coalition because Clinton was too soft on terror and despots to do anything about it. The UN is a highly ineffectual program which hardly ever takes any action. France and other countries have a right not to support us because Saddam never vowed to kill them. It's America's intrests at stake here and I'm sorry but America comes before the UN. If somebody said they were going to kill you and you told the police and they wouldn't do anything would you just say, "I guess he wasn't going to kill me anyway." and sit there? No, you'd try to stop him in any way you could.

About "We believe that Iraq is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction:" A) they didn't exist; statements such as this were propoganda so that people would support the US' military campaign. B) If Iraq had any, they would have received them from USA, most likely. C) USA has 12,500 "in existence." Most likely the military has more in hiding. Proof (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq7-2.html#usa)

Could you quote something out of that article that proves that we gave weapons to Iraq? I looked through it and could find no such proof.

Conclusion: Bush's actions may have resulted in the least amount of lives lost in contrast to other wars, but they were waged for good causes -- the "War on Terror," as I have pointed out, was not.

Are you saying that terrorists were more just in their slaughter of 3,000 civilians than the Japanese were in their bombing of a US military base? The War on Terror is as just as any of the wars you mentioned and should be fought. That's why we need to elect the one presidential candidate that will fight the war, George W. Bush.

~Don't Panic

Please read my post about Bush's "War on Terror".

There is a complete difference between Somalia and Iraq. In Iraq, there is one ruler; one dictator. In Somalia, there were definite leaders, but there was a seemingly-endless stockpile of angry, ruthless fanatics who could lead the rebels. Kill one, another takes his place. In Iraq, killing off Saddam's family using special orgainsations like the SAS would have been far more effective. The country finally would have employed one -- hopefully decent -- leader. End of story.

Now, sure this "War on Iraq" was done for the right reasons, but not even Bush knew what he was doing. HE was waging the "War against Terror;" this is FAR different to his military campaign in Iraq.

Please note that, with the exception of Somalia, this "War on Terror" was all posted in my first post...

See my other post about why you can't pass of the War on Terror as unjust. Terror is even more dangerous than Japan or Communism.


Except that the media accidentally did the governments dirty work for them. Most American citizens get their info off of the media, correct? Well, the media portrayed many things for/against the "War on Iraq" that did not exist, such as WMD.

Are you blaming Bush for what the media said? The people who matter are the congresspeople who should not be swayed by the media, unless you concede that Kerry and other democrats make their decisions based on what it popular, not what is right which means they shouldn't run this country.

Now Modred, with regard to B), it was not complete bullshit. Do you remember the incident when the USA gave a helluva lot of Anthrax to one of the Middle-Eastern countries, only to have fears of anthrax attacks in the USA? Well, how different is that to handing over a couple of nuclear weapons? The intent is exactly the same... terrorism in the States. I would not rule out the handing over of nukes by America as the greatest possibility.

Also, please don't get all huffy about my "grand assumptions," as they DO mean something, as explained above.

Proof please? This is a pretty big accusation to be taken at face value.

With reference to C), why the hell did America need so many warheads in the first place against the Soviet Union? There comes a point in time when the amount of nuclear warheads becomes irrelevant. 8,700 nuclear weapons would destroy the world beyond repair, which is the same feat that 70,000 could accomplish. Also, there are nuclear developements in Israel, Russia and surrounding countries, and Pakistan, to name a few. America does not control any of those countries, and will need to keep many of its nukes in reserve to stop these countries doing anything drastic.

It was an arms race, we needed to build up because the Sovet Union was building up.

Okay, Suddam hates Osama, who hates Bush, who hates Saddam. Therefore, based on that cliche, Saddam is friendly with Bush, because they both hate Osama, but Osama and Saddam are friends, because they both hate Bush. Contradictory statement?

As for the religion, in the Middle-East, religion is at the top of the food chain. People despise each other for no reason other than the religion they practice. It took the Middle-East 30 years of warfare to accept Israel as a country, and this conflict orignated from conflicting religions (and screw-ups on the British behalf); do you think it would take a lot less time for Osama to accept Saddam, and vice-versa? Notice also that, to Osama, the common enemy is not Bush, although he hates Bush; Osama originates from Saudi Arabia: an ally of America.

The common enemy is America. Bush's enemy is terrorism, something Hussein and Osama were both proponents of.

I respect Bush's decisions, but not the manner in which he executes them, as I have stated before...

Bush's decision was to fight the war on terror which you call "unjust." Do you recind that statement or do you admit that you don't respect Bush's decisions?

Also, ANY president could declare war on a far more inferior country and leave it in his Defence Minister's hands to wage the war. What makes a good preisdent is one who will make good decisions, initiate them with competence, and be a public role model. In my mind, Bush did not initiate his decisions well at all.

In your mind. But as we have already shown the War on Terror has been executed extremely well. So make up your mind, do you dissagree with his decisions? Or do you disagree with the fine way in which they ahve been executed?

BTW: If Kerry is as bad as Bush, I will be worried. Shouldn't the USA, being the most powerful nation in the world, have decent candidates that the public likes and those who will make good decisions, like Jimmy Carter, for instance.

Jimmy Carter was a spineless moron that let Iran fall to the Ayatola. If anybody gave the weapons you claim we gave to Iraq it was Carter.

~Don't Panic

EDIT: I'm tired, more to come tomorrow.

[spastic-ninJa]

Modred, I apologise for misreading the date (1967), and the reason for our differing points of view is probably because I was arguing the wrong time-period. As for 'refusing to look at the time period', I would hardly call my misreading a 'refusal'. What would be the logic in stating irrelevant facts if I knew that they were already irrelevant? I should hope that you think more of me than that, Modred ;)

------------

Mattimeo, to be quite frank, I really don't saviour anything about this debate. Modred's posts were intelligent, and I enjoyed reading/ rebutting them, however I did not appreciate the snide remarks such as "I don't know modern history" and sarcasm etc., when they were obviously not needed, yet I could live with them. Mattimeo, as for your opening sentence, you have portrayed yourself as arrogant, and prove nothing by it. Modred and I have come to an agreement/conclusion, as illustrated by his short previous post, and yet you claim my posts to be 'Bush-hating bullshit'. If this is all you see from my posts, then it is your problem, not mine. Also, you have basically repeated everything that Modred has said, and I don't feel like reiterating myself. Quote from Catallus: nil nimium studeo, Mattimeo (Caesar), tibi velle placere. Based on this quote, this will be my last post on this topic, as I have nothing more to prove.

One last thing for everyone to think about, and I should have said this from the very start: One government does not have the authority to engage in warfare with another country ('liberation'). The UN did not back USA's military campaign into Iraq, therefore, USA had not right to move into Iraq. It is also not USA's right to remove a dictator from a country. That is solely up to the UN. Conflicts go on everywhere in the world, and USA's decision to participate in some of these conflicts has been subjective and inconsistent under Bush. Korea had UN's backing, Somalia did, and Kosovo did. Vietnam and Iraq didn't, and they, coincedentally, were the most criticised of America's conflicts. You want proof, Mattimeo, then look it up for yourself -- official documents will back my statements. Bush angered and endangered ties with EU, UN, and many other governments. Therefore, I would never appreciate seeing him as president, even if it meant that Kerry was in power.

Finally, thank you, Modred, for an intelligent and an enjoyable debate :)

[hammocksleeper]

One last thing for everyone to think about, and I should have said this from the very start: One government does not have the authority to engage in warfare with another country ('liberation'). The UN did not back USA's military campaign into Iraq, therefore, USA had not right to move into Iraq. It is also not USA's right to remove a dictator from a country. That is solely up to the UN. Conflicts go on everywhere in the world, and USA's decision to participate in some of these conflicts has been subjective and inconsistent under Bush. Korea had UN's backing, Somalia did, and Kosovo did. Vietnam and Iraq didn't, and they, coincedentally, were the most criticised of America's conflicts. You want proof, Mattimeo, then look it up for yourself -- official documents will back my statements. Bush angered and endangered ties with EU, UN, and many other governments. Therefore, I would never appreciate seeing him as president, even if it meant that Kerry was in power. I don't give a f*ck about the UN, the only reason the UN has authority is because we gave it to them. The UN doesn't mean shit, we created them. Why should we listen to them if we have better judgement? Anyways this is a matter to be discussed at more sober times...

[Mattimeo]

So this is it, I actually was acusing the other poster of blindly hating Bush, you seemed to be an intelligent person however misinformed. But then I ask you to prove the "facts" that you presented and you place that burden on me. Well I have news for you. The burden of proving claims falls on the person who makes them, not the person who doesn't believe them.

Mattimeo, to be quite frank, I really don't saviour anything about this debate. Modred's posts were intelligent, and I enjoyed reading/ rebutting them, however I did not appreciate the snide remarks such as "I don't know modern history" and sarcasm etc., when they were obviously not needed, yet I could live with them. Mattimeo, as for your opening sentence, you have portrayed yourself as arrogant, and prove nothing by it. Modred and I have come to an agreement/conclusion, as illustrated by his short previous post, and yet you claim my posts to be 'Bush-hating bullshit'. If this is all you see from my posts, then it is your problem, not mine. Also, you have basically repeated everything that Modred has said, and I don't feel like reiterating myself. Quote from Catallus: nil nimium studeo, Mattimeo (Caesar), tibi velle placere. Based on this quote, this will be my last post on this topic, as I have nothing more to prove.

Then perhaps you are in the wrong thread. My replies to your arguments have been to defend my choice for Bush. If you are simply anti-Bush but do not have a choice for the election, perhaps you should find one of the various Bush-bashing threads and we can continue this there.

I see, so I'm calling you a Bush-basher (which I don't recall saying except to RiBd) while Modred is having an intelligent argument with you. It seems to me that you're just running out of the discussion when you see that your claims that the War on Terror is unjust have been refuted and you don't have a leg to stand on. Do you have "nothing more to prove" because what you were trying to prove has been shown to be incorrect?

I will meet one of your requests, I will give you some information on John F. Kerry.

Kerry was on the Sentate Intelligence Committee for 8 years. During those 8 years he missed over 75% of the meetings. Now you might say that the meetings weren't important because no major attacks were taking place, but in the year after the first WTC bombing Kerry attented none of the meetings. Zero, zilch, nada. It seems to me that intelligence might be pretty important after a major terrorist attack. Kerry also voted to cut our intelligence funding by 6 billion dollars. He voted against every major weapons system we now use. Kerry is not the right person to be a war-time president, and that it what the next president will be. We are at war, a war on terror, no matter whether Kerry thinks so or not.

One last thing for everyone to think about, and I should have said this from the very start: One government does not have the authority to engage in warfare with another country ('liberation'). The UN did not back USA's military campaign into Iraq, therefore, USA had not right to move into Iraq. It is also not USA's right to remove a dictator from a country. That is solely up to the UN. Conflicts go on everywhere in the world, and USA's decision to participate in some of these conflicts has been subjective and inconsistent under Bush. Korea had UN's backing, Somalia did, and Kosovo did. Vietnam and Iraq didn't, and they, coincedentally, were the most criticised of America's conflicts. You want proof, Mattimeo, then look it up for yourself -- official documents will back my statements. Bush angered and endangered ties with EU, UN, and many other governments. Therefore, I would never appreciate seeing him as president, even if it meant that Kerry was in power.

A nation's first and foremost job is to protect its own intrests, not to do whatever the UN says. The UN has been proved in the past to be a highly ineffective body which takes very little action due to the fact that everybody on the security council must agree. You say that one nation can't do whatever they want but apparently one nation has the right to tell another nation what it can and can't do. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

I am dissapointed in your actions reguarding my arguments against you. I was looking forward to an intelligent debate. I thought I had found somebody who didn't just blindly hate Bush like everybody else I see out there. I was even thinking of putting that in my first post arguing against what you had said, and it seems now that I should have. However, you can't run and hide just because somebody shows you that you're wrong. You need to either show that person why they are wrong or admit that you were wrong. You don't just attack that person personally and run away crying. That's not what this forum is for.

~Don't Panic

[riBd]

Yeah, I didn't find Mattiemo's response to be bad... he's just defending an argument he feels strongly about, I do the same thing.

On the other hand, he did puncture some holes in mine that will need patching. Jerk. :P

[Mattimeo]

Just doing my job :)

~Don't Panic

[GiaDragoness]

Wow, we have some nice good moves here in the analytical department, looks liek the only real thing that would set anything final is some cold hard facts. Well, I got in touch with my freind, and there are two things wrong, one, he can't upload anymore than about 12 megabytes ti his pages (damn geocities). Second, I can't email it to him or anyone else because even yahoo only lets you mail up to about 10 megabytes. This movie is almost an hour long, and is about 45 meg. Anyone have any ideas how i can get this out so you guys can see it? Do you think i could get neoX to upload it on his site, kupatrix? Seriously, it's about 45 megabytes, if anyone has anyideas how i can get it onto the web(hopefully for free) i'll be glad to hear it.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Demosthene5]

Wow, we have some nice good moves here in the analytical department, looks liek the only real thing that would set anything final is some cold hard facts. Well, I got in touch with my freind, and there are two things wrong, one, he can't upload anymore than about 12 megabytes ti his pages (damn geocities). Second, I can't email it to him or anyone else because even yahoo only lets you mail up to about 10 megabytes. This movie is almost an hour long, and is about 45 meg. Anyone have any ideas how i can get this out so you guys can see it? Do you think i could get neoX to upload it on his site, kupatrix? Seriously, it's about 45 megabytes, if anyone has anyideas how i can get it onto the web(hopefully for free) i'll be glad to hear it.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

Peer to peer file sharing. I prefer WinMX, and its free.

[Dezzick]

2 words - BUSH SUCKS! (for more proof check out bushgame.com, also, thanks for making one of my threads so long :D )

[Aqo]

http://www.ebolaworld.com/mainpage02.html
Bush: "well... what was wrong with her?"
English Governor: "I don't bloody know, can't take a joke out of bloody ramekin"
Bush: "hey I know! let's make some fake calls!"
English Governor: "Bloody okay!"
Bush: "let's call Al gor, he's so funny"
*entering a number to the phone*
Al Gor: "Hello, this is Al Gor, this is not a recording, I really sounds like that"

XD

[GiaDragoness]

Thank you aqo for such a useless post, (i didnt even get the damn joke) and thank you demo, for a suggestion, but no link. :concern:
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Aqo]

Thank you aqo for such a useless postseems like you didn't pressed the link XD

oh wait, after you press the link press the picture of bush, than watch those movies to see "who bush really is"
duh duh duh!

[apocalypse11]

i'll go for Bush,eventhough i'm not allowed to vote....hmmm..:rolleyes:

[GiaDragoness]

seems like you didn't pressed the link XD

oh wait, after you press the link press the picture of bush, than watch those movies to see "who bush really is"
duh duh duh!
I clicked the link, and the flash movie was'nt working right. In any case, my point was is that, that was a very useless post. Still is since the movie shows up, but none of the buttons it displays does a damn thing.

:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[Scipio7777777]

I would vote for bush,

Kerry got 3 purplehearts in Vietnam and did not serve a day in the hospital

As a noncom but still a reservest US naval officer he went secretly to Paris while the war in Vietnam was still going on and met with the north vietnamese which is treason your not supposed to do this while we are at war

And my favorite quote from him "I actually voted for the 87 billion dollars before i voted against it"

He also told the black causcas that Bush had suppressed the black vote in flordia against gore. this is a complete lie the civil rights commision that investigated this incedent found no supression and that commision was full of liberals

kerry says he is anti rich and looking out for the poor man where as in fact his wife Teresa Heinz has in excess of 1 billion$

kerry has voted agaist something like 95% of all military equipment this includes the AEGIS missle system, the Vulcan Phalanx, The Tomcat Var. A and Tmmcat var. D, the M1A1, M1A2, kevlar vests for troops, armored humvees, etc..........

[GiaDragoness]

Am i the only one who does'nt give a famn whether or not someone has sevrved in the military, as long as they have the full skill set needed to properly run a country? I don't see what getting shot in veitnam and winning three awards(or faking the whole thing dependning on the veiw) would have to do with being a president. The only reason i don't want to vote for kerry is due to what i have heard, he is flip flopping, and generally doing everything in his power just to get into office and i fear he has no real desire or backbone to do a damn thing that we need done where it needs to be. Sadly, this leaves us only with a guy who has already fucked up quite a bit. So we have to figure out who will generally make the smaller/less frequest screw-ups of the two, kinda sad and scary huh?
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

[singo]

Am i the only one who does'nt give a famn whether or not someone has sevrved in the military, as long as they have the full skill set needed to properly run a country?
ye gods, competent politicians? thats the last thing we need. The only thing I fear more than an evil leader is a truly good one.

Decent people dont want to run a country. wanting to be president should autimatically disqualify that person from doing the job

I don't see what getting shot in veitnam and winning three awards(or faking the whole thing dependning on the veiw) would have to do with being a president. The only reason i don't want to vote for kerry is due to what i have heard, he is flip flopping, and generally doing everything in his power just to get into office and i fear he has no real desire or backbone to do a damn thing that we need done where it needs to be.
lol, sounds like every other politician there has ever been


So we have to figure out who will generally make the smaller/less frequest screw-ups of the two, kinda sad and scary huh?
:smash: Smashy Smashy! :smash:

not really, in ANY election you have to chose between the lesser of two evils (see my first point)



Any wonder I dislike democracy?

[Scipio7777777]

Originally Posted by GiaDragoness

Am i the only one who does'nt give a famn whether or not someone has sevrved in the military, as long as they have the full skill set needed to properly run a country? I don't see what getting shot in veitnam and winning three awards(or faking the whole thing dependning on the veiw) would have to do with being a president.What having served in Vietnam shows us is his lack of morals, ehtics, character, and backbone. He got scared in Vietnam so he decided fake his way out.

[Draix]

Well, i do not like either of them. They both seem like idiots, but ill have to go with kerry because he will do some things that i think will help mankind like stemcell research.

[singo]

he likes stem cell research?

id go him then.....not that my opinion makes a difference......im a brit :P

[Wicked_Statue]

What having served in Vietnam shows us is his lack of morals, ehtics, character, and backbone. He got scared in Vietnam so he decided fake his way out.At least he served in a war, bush didnt, Kerry is way better, bush is an imperialist, he is gonna invade iran, then north korea and then maybe france

[Demosthene5]

he is gonna invade iran, then north korea and then maybe francehahaha the american dream. This is nuts, but that dosn't make it less funny. Good one statue. But then again, how surprised would I be if he claimed they were associated with the devil and launched an attack...

Since high school ive been with my girlfriend, and her mother has palarysis. When bush made the decision that stem cell research was somehow immoral(how is curing disease and illness immoral?) and that it should stop, her family was crushed. So for me, stem cell research is very important and bush being against it doesnt sit well with me. Him being just the way he is also doesn't sit with me, being a little bit too much traditional american slackjaw and dragging the country along for his wagon ride into the back woods. I dont know much about Kerry, so I dont know if hes going to be any better so ive got alot of research to do before november. What a mess!

btw I dont give half an inbred-assclown's testicle who fought in what war when they were younger. Are we looking for a killer to lead?

[Thereisnocowlevel]

Its not even as if the president is that powerful. They have some clout, but only as much as Capital Hill or the Supreme court...of course those branches don't get nearly as much publicity as the presidential elections do, which seems a bit strange...still, I guess it makes sense since the Supreme Court and Congress are made up of many people, while the president is the one head of the entire executive branch...

[Scipio7777777]

i would have to say that i am for stemcell research but that is not a deciding issue for me my three biggest ones are foreign policy ( war on terrorism mainly), lower taxes because i like to keep the money i earn at my job, and if the person running is a lier or a honest person

So based on these i will have to vote for bush

(if i could)

[Ninja-Pirate]

i would have to say that i am for stemcell research but that is not a deciding issue for me my three biggest ones are foreign policy ( war on terrorism mainly), lower taxes because i like to keep the money i earn at my job, and if the person running is a lier or a honest person

So based on these i will have to vote for bush

(if i could)
In what way does whether or not the person running is a "lier" make you influence Bush? There are any number of things he promised in his campaign that were bold-faced lies. And for the second, unless your job puts you in the upper tax brackets, Kerry's stance on taxes won't really affect you.

[hammocksleeper]

And for the second, unless your job puts you in the upper tax brackets, Kerry's stance on taxes won't really affect you.
Perhaps not directly, but it will undeniably affect everyone.

[Scipio7777777]

let me clarify kerry is a lier and a flipflopper whereas bush is not name one instance where bush has lied

as for taxes kerry would not really affect me until i get rich

but his high taxes for the rich will affect my parents (therby affecting me) if he wins

[Ninja-Pirate]

When has Kerry lied? You need to stop listening to Republican propoganda. Flip flopping? As in he admits he is wrong and is not too stubborn to change his mind? How terrible! There was an article in the Wall Street Journal around the time of the DNC that discussed how Kerry always looks at multiple angles when deciding policy, and is not too good to change his mind.

As for Bush's lies, well:

He promised to pay down the debt if he was elected. Now we have record deficits.
He promised to help fund college education for those who needed it. Then he cut funding for student loan programs.
Bush said he released his public records. He didn't.
Bush said he never did cocaine. He did.

There are many, many more examples of both campaign and personal lies.

[EdvardMunch]

Bush flip-flops too!

At least according to this site: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263

[Demosthene5]

Bush flip-flops sounds like brand name of very uncomfortable sandals...

[Dezzick]

If you want some proof on why to vote for kerry, click here (http://www.bushgame.com)

[hammocksleeper]

Bush flip-flops too!

At least according to this site: http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
Lying, which is what is described on that site, is not the same thing as flip-flopping.

[Scipio7777777]

Bush said he never did cocaine. He did.

No he did not

When has Kerry lied?
he lied when he said that Bush was going to supress the black vote in thie election because he did it to al gore

Flip flopping? As in he admits he is wrong and is not too stubborn to change his mind?
to clarify flipflopping doesan't mean changing your mind on an issue because times have changed. or altering your position after discovering new information. thoughful and well informed people revise their opinions though not nearly as mush as political oppurtunists.

flipflopping means altering your view to conform to the latest gallup poll. telling proabortion NARAL one thing and the Catholic bushop another

john kerry is not a mind changer he is a flipflopper
lets look at his record

THE PATRIOT ACT
in october 2001 kerry voted in favor of it
in august 2003 kerry was still defending it i quote him at a meeting in manchester new hammpshire "most of it has to do wiht improving the transfer of info between the CIA and the FBI and it has to do with things that really were quite neccesary in the wake of 9-11"
However as rival howard dean continued to gainground among dems. by attacking the law kerry realized that he was oon the wrong side of the issue for democrats so 4 months later he was attacking the law
FLIP FLOP

THE FIRST GULF WAR
here are exerpts from 2 letter john kerry sent they were published in the New Republic

the first is dated Jan 22 1991
the second Jan 31 1991
1"thak you for contacting me to express your opposition to the early use of force by the US agaist Iraq Ishare your concerns"
2"thank you very much for contacting me to exprees your support for the actions of president bush in response to the iraqi invasion of Kuwait. from the outset of the invasion i have strongly and unequivicaly supported preident bushes response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established in Iraq wiht our military deployment"
FLIP FLOP

ETHANOL

acording to Congressional Quarterly he voted twice agasit tax breaks for ethanol
he voted agaist ethanol mandate
he voted twice agsit the liavbility of ethanol making it equal in price to regualr gas

However when he got to Iowas where ethanol is one of the biggest issues people there support He said in a campaign speech on 11/24/03 televised on MSNBC that "I'm all for ethanol and i think its an overall important ingredient for fuels
FLIP FLOP

MILITARY EXPERICNCE
in 1992 when draft dodger bill clinton was running agaisnt bush senoir kerry attacked busk on the senate floor for suggesting that hte president should be someone who has served in the military.

Noe in 2003 kerry has shoved his military expericne in the spotlight so musch it appears that is the only thing he is running on

[Basan]

If I were an U.S.A. citizen... I'd vote 4 Kerry, that's 4 sure!

Let's see where I've got those famous quotations of Bush 2 support my opinion...
Crap! I've deleted the thing... but 1 I remember.
It was sorta 'The best way 2 end forest fires is by cutting down all the trees.'. After a smart remark like this, he just got right through my wrong side. That n' the Kioto environmental agreement, where he just pulled the States out, then preventing it 2 reach the common goals set years be4!

4 me a President who has the space 4 rent between it's ears (tagged by me), isn't a good politician 4 starters... :P

[Scipio7777777]

4 me a President who has the space 4 rent between it's ears (tagged by me), isn't a good politician 4 starters... Bush is not stupid he went to harvard business school okay that means he is a pretty high watt buolb beacuse that is very hard to get into (though i will admit he needs to take some speeking classes)

[Ninja-Pirate]

Do you honestly believe that a man who scored in the 1200s on his SATs qualified for Harvard business school on his own?

[Kopaka]

Interesting. How about neither? Reason: Bush created the Iraq thing, so no Bush. Kerry is confusing and doesn't know what to talk about and is only hitting Bush's record, so yeah.

[LordAhriman]

Flip flopping? As in he admits he is wrong and is not too stubborn to change his mind? How terrible!
Flip flopping as in changing your position on the Iraq war around four or five times, practically in rapid succession.

[Kopaka]

Yeah, and then wanting troops there, and then not.

[Scipio7777777]

Do you honestly believe that a man who scored in the 1200s on his SATs qualified for Harvard business school on his own?
not that i don't belive you but where did you see/hear this from i always had heard he had a high sat score?

[Kopaka]

That might be a nice thing,

[riBd]

I don't get this whole "saying the wrong words thing"

Oh, ha ha, Bush misspoke like, three times. He's so stupid!

Oh, no, Bush misspoke another time, WHY IS HE OUR PRESIDENT IF HE KEEPS MISSPEAKING.

It's not that big of a deal. I'm not saying he's a good prez, I don't think he is, but you certainly can't base your entire argument on a couple accidental words.

[Scipio7777777]

That might be a nice thing,
?????


I dont think bush is stupid though i can see why people think he is in the way that he speaks

[Ninja-Pirate]

[url]http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html[url]

I'm not really sure how the scores then correlate to scores now, so I'm not sure how much good that will do. However, my point was thus: In High School and College, Bush was a partier, and he got into the places he did because of his family. I'm not arguing that he isn't smart or anything, but I don't think you can point to his schools and say that he is smart. Had his last name not been Bush, he would not have gone to Andover, Yale, or Harvard.

[Scipio7777777]

thanks for the source

as for bush being a partier i think you are right from what i know bush was a partier dirnker but then he cleaned up his life

and im sure his name did help getting places but it was not every thing

[Basan]

Getting back on the I.Q. matter... I don't recall where I've heard / seen this but it was stating that from all Pres in office, the latest Bush was the 1 with less I.Q., not reaching 100. And if I'm not mistaken, 100 to 120 is the average population score.

No matter wich President u have in office, that most of his opinions are backed up from accessors personel. He could be dumb as a doornail, but still look somewhat clever.
Other of his (Bush's) poor choices are the staff he's surrounded! As the matter of fact, crappy would be better.
See the Rumsfell actin' all God-like, that Afro-American lady (don't remind her name) saying that they've missinterptreted the intel on Iraq (n' were jumpy 'bout it) n' the the fact of Powell being contradicted many times by Rumsfell himself, only 2 name a few. Powell 2 me is maybe the best of this lot, 'cause he knows when 2 give is arm up when he messes! ;)

The intel contradictions on the Saddam's possession of mass destruction arsenals was a laughin' riot... just 2 don't say it was pittyfull!
The related investigation comission that is only 2 start their work after the elections, him stating that he could've been missleaded in2 striking Iraq... Pff, need I say more!?! :P

I see the Daily Show (a couple of months delayed) with that comic fella n' u know that they pick on ALMOST everything they can... either be it right wing, left, penguins emigratin' 2 the North Pole, etc.
They pick more with Bush due 2 him messing stuff constantly, thus being an easier target 4'em 2 screw with. Many times I've seen the zen images portrait a Bush screw up... :)

[Scauthra]

Oh my goodness! My head is spinning! -.- This is why I don't do Intellecial Roundtable.. takes forever to note everyones posts and make a reply.

So, after reading half the thead and giving up, I will just post my thoughts.

I am voteing for Bush on election day. And I will be perfectly honest wtih you, and you can yell at me for it. But I am voteing for Bush for almost fully the same reason why I supported him 4 years ago. Because people doubt him, my classmates all wanted Gore, and I was the lone supporter of Bush. More so this year because, well, I let myself be brain washed to know that the adds say that Kerry changes his mind a lot. Something like that. He has gotten a lot of bad publicity. And that bad publicity has given me more reason to vote Bush.

No. Too tired and uncareing to explain the bad publicity he has. I will just state it. I will vote Bush! And if our country get's really messed up because of it, oh well. I just really don't care.

Note: I really enjoyed watching the war on MSNBC, made me feel... patriotic... I was convinced to join the army because of it! But i'm really overweight, and, not really sure I want to be apart from family what can be months at a time. So yeah. I'm done.

[Basan]

This is why I don't do Intellecial Roundtable..

Then why u post!?! :confused:
Keep it in a constructive way by supporting ur own opinions... not just by simple being on the opposite mood. ;)

Edit add: On my lunch hour I've heard over the news that there's gonna be a debate between candidates this Thurdays... That's a shame that I can't watch it live.
Please any1 give us feedback on it afterwards. Tks! ;)

[Nuts]

This forum needs an extreme makeover.

I have never seen such unintelligible conversation in my life.

[Scauthra]

Then why u post!?!

Becuase I like to educate myself with thiese things, and join the debates ^_^ I just lose my patience sometimes -.-;;;

Oh, and I suck.

[Basan]

Becuase I like to educate myself with thiese things, and join the debates ^_^ I just lose my patience sometimes -.-;;;

Oh, and I suck.

Ok, that's a good thing... self-learnin' is a great goal