Bush or Kerry

[Tamaway]

[FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=DarkRed]I personally wish with all of my heart that Kerry wins this election. Becasue it will certainly be a complete let-down if Bush wins the election. He shouldn't win!!! If he does, then that means we (the United States of America) will have to be with him and his decisions for an another four whole years until he is forced to leave his place in the Congress!!!!
Aaaaaaaahhhh!!!! I don't think I could stand that! Ever!!!!
Besides, Kerry has his head in the right place. That's a very good quality in the potential of a "to-be" president. It's better than Bush, or his father could ever have![/COLOR][/FONT] :p

[Terrax]

im very anti-bush so anybody other than him would be an improvement

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Terrax']im very anti-bush so anybody other than him would be an improvement[/quote]

[color=green]You sound like a very well informed and politically savvy individual. Mind sharing why you don't like Bush?[/color]

[Guest NaturalBlue]

Okay... It's Bush all the way. Although it has been a long time since I've actually read or heard anything on the news about the election I have to say that I loathe Kerry with a vengence. I feel that everything that Kerry says is hypocritical. I even found an article that pointed out all of Kerry's flaws. But even if it wasn't pointed out I am severly conservative and Republican. As for the war, I think that Bush has done a good job. I don't think that Kerry would pull out of the war. In fact it would be impossible. What ever is started must be finished. Bush all the Way!

[Guest cloricus]

[quote name='NaturalBlue']Okay... It's Bush all the way. Although it has been a long time since I've actually read or heard anything on the news about the election I have to say that I loathe Kerry with a vengence. I feel that everything that Kerry says is hypocritical. I even found an article that pointed out all of Kerry's flaws. But even if it wasn't pointed out I am severly conservative and Republican. As for the war, I think that Bush has done a good job. I don't think that Kerry would pull out of the war. In fact it would be impossible. What ever is started must be finished. Bush all the Way![/quote]

I can give you several articles that are very long that only attempt to catalogue Bush's flaws. Every one has them and you should not make judgements based on them as you have not seen Kerry in office. Bush how ever we have seen in office, we know what he seems to be like, and we can all see how unstable and knee-jerkish he is. Can anything honestly be worse than a man who declares war on some one he hasn't liked for ten years for no reason? Also Bush seems to be pulling out of this war as fast as possible, on the news tonight, each question he answered to a media conference that was on the topic of the country was answered with a stock remark; some thing like this 'it is now in the Iraqi governments hands'. To me it looks like, and is probably long over due, a cut and run strategy. Also do you even know why you support this war? Do you even get it past your bias skull that you have been lied to, on many occasions, that has lead to this whole situation in the first place?

Now really before you vote you need to sit down and not just think what your parents have indoctrinated you to follow but what is best for the country and the world.

It's not that hard, my family follows the party that Mark Latham is in, heck I don't even know it's name, all I care about is it is the party that is more for the people. (I believe it is the labor party but I could be corrected?) Though when I come to vote I do not just vote down party lines, I think through who is best for the area, who is best for the state and who is best for the country in my opinion. Now if I saw the party that I follow doing things wrong or badly by my judgement I vote in favour of the better option which would be the opposition. Now if you are not even thinking along that basic idea, let alone researching it, you really should not be voting. It should be left to the people who have an idea of what's happening, not to some one who acts like a sheep.

[Semjaza]

I'm voting for Kerry. It's really not even because of the war issues, but so many other things that have occured here that so many people seem completely oblivious to. It's as if people focus in on that and forget that this country has its own problems. Nearly every single one of Bush's moves helps the rich more than any middle class citizen in this country. Moreso than anyone I can think of. If his plans continue, it's only going to get worse.

1.) The removal of the Estate Tax. Basically, this is a tax someone has to pay when they inherit their parent's/guardian's/etc's estate after they pass away. It sounds like yet another way to bleed people dry, but for general citizens it never really amounted to much.

Bush wanted to get rid of this. The reasoning was that this tax was screwing over the general populace. The specific example was that of a farmer passing away. Because of the state of farms in this country, the person who inheirited the estate would not be able to pay this tax. Therefore they'd be forced to sell the land to even cover the amount they owed. Sounds fair and I'm sure many people bought into it.

Except for the fact that that has never, ever happened in the history of this country. Not one farmer has sold his farm thanks to that tax. There's no record of it whatsoever. So basically, you have a tax removed that mostly affects a very small percentage: the extremely wealthy. There goes tons of tax dollars that can be better used for nearly anything.

2.) The national debt. People knock Clinton, but he wasn't all that bad. Thanks to "Reaganomics", followed by the Bush Sr. years, this country was quite a bit in debt. Over Clinton's term he managed to compeltely reverse this. We got out of the debt and were 240 billion dollars in surplus.

Bush Jr. comes in and it's spend, spend, spend. We're now $500 billion in debt. How the hell does that happen over ONE TERM? The guy also basically completely drained the Social Security money [i]that he promised straight out he would not touch[/i].

The spending is blamed on the war. Bush's other spending is something like three times that what has been applied to the war, and that includes any efforts involving 9-11 itself. It's a bunch of crap as far as I am concerned.

3.) Unemployment is at its highest rate since the great depression. A time when people were throwing themselves out of buildings over job losses. Again, this was on the rise under Clinton. Again, this is somehow blamed on the war.

However, Bush is willing to give tons of money to NASA for space exploration. That's all well and good, but what's more important right now?

---------------------------------------------------
There's a lot more I can list such as women's rights issues, stem cell research, civil rights issues, more taxation issues, but I'm not even going to bother. These are things Kerry plans on reversing, and unlike Bush (who has obvious bias considering his past with his energy company and his wealthy friends), I feel I can actually believe he'll do them. I couldn't vote for Bush with a clean conscience whatsoever. I really don't know how anyone could, but that's their perrogative.

I think people should research Kerry a bit more because I get the feeling that many things against him are based on pro-Bush propaganda and advertisements. Bush had far more money in his chest than Kerry did and his campaign managed to bombard Kerry's with lots of negative publicity when they were down.

Kerry has manage to raise $100 million dollars though. Two months ahead of schedule. 3/4's of this is from average middle-class Americans. A lot of people thought it couldn't be done, but I'm sure as hell glad it was. By comparison, Bush had $110 million saved up for this.

Anyway, this is going to be my first and only post in here. I hate politics. Just vote.

[Terrax]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']why you don't like Bush?[/color][/quote]
i've never really liked him because hes so arrogant with his polices, for example when the United States wanted a free trade agreement with australia, they would not return the favor, and his whole policy with iraq, the WMDs, and the whole basis on invading was because of WMDs which weren't absolutly provene to exsist, when on the other hand, north korea, actually have said they have WMDs and there is proof that they do, if you ask me, the only reason bush wanted to invade iraq was to finish off what his father started, in the end it all comes down to one thing, oil. that is why i am anti- bush.

[DeathBug]

Yeah, I'm just going to reply to random points. I've already explained my voting policy, but, meh.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']Yes, if you call turning one of the largest surpluses our nation has had in a while into one of the largest deficites our country has had in a while a plan for economy-well sure I guess it is.[/quote]

Actually, I do, in a fashion; surpluses are bad. Economically, a macro surplus is a sign of inefficiency; not all resources are being used to their fullest capabilities.

The formula for Gross National Product is G+I+C+NX. That's government spending plus investments plus consumption plus net exports. If you increase any of these, all things remaining equal, the GNP will rise. Increasing government spending will lead to a greater return as long as the other factors remain stable; you have to spend money to make money.

Therefore, we can see that a surplus is actually a bad thing; the surplus that Clinton gets credit for should actually be the surplus he gets blame for, as it heralded economic downtimes. ("G" went down, so GNP went down.)

That said, I personally find President Bush's spending a bit exessive for my taste; it will most likely bring a wave of inflation.

[quote name='Chibihorsewoman']Add that onto the uneployment rate going up due to jobs going over seas and yes Bush has a plan for sending this country's economy to Hell in handbasket[/quote]

That's just flat-out wrong; the unemployment rate has been falling since the end of '03. It's June, now, and President Bush has reached half of the jobs he promised to bring back into the economy. We'll be back to pre-9/11 levels before thje year is through.

And, quite frankly, who cares if jobs are going over seas? It's only economical for certain types of jobs to be outsourced, which means that others jobs in America are open. Jobs are there, but in different fields than they were before.

Outsourcing is also beneficial to GNP; it leads to an increase in foreign investment. Speaking of foreign investors, did you know that several indian companies have actually started to outsource to us? As Austin Powers said, "Yay, capitalism."

[quote name='Chibihorswoman']I fail to see how going to war when you have no support from your allies or the rest of the world for that matter give you credibility[/quote]

Actually, we had support from our allies; just not all of them. And, I'm sorry, but France just sucks. with a passion.

As for the "credibility" issue, it's actually irrelevent; I wouldn't go to a war just for that. However, the war does give the US credibility; the president said we would do something, and we did. After eight years of empty threats, it's rather refreshing.

[quote name='Chibihorsewoman']As for the war in general I hate it with a passion therefore I detest Bush for getting us into this whole ordeal [/quote]

Your logic is flawed; do you hate FDR for getting us into WWII?

[quote name='Chibihorsewoman']risking their lives and not knowing why.[/quote]

Maybe you don't know why, but survey data clearly shows that the men and women actually fighting the war know why. Not only is the militarily vastlysupports the war (almost twice as many who supported opperations in Bosnia), but the vast majority of the military personal survied said they would vote for President Bush.

[QUOTE=Chibihorsewoman]you Bush administration for another Vietnam.
[/QUOTE]

I'm surprised and a little dissappointed in you, CHW. As the wife of a serviceman, surely you realize that such comparisons are horribly demoralizing for deployed troops. REmember, the Tet offensive was a victory for the Viet Cong even though it was a military disaster for them; they didn't win a single battle except in the minds of the American people.

[quote name='CHW']That doesn't sound like a very good plan for education to me. [/quote]

Education decays for a decade under Clinton, and now it's Bush's fault he can't fix it? Right.

[quote name='CHW']Perhaps if our nation got more in touch with its feminine side instead of going with the masculine don't stop and ask for directions idealism that's been so predominant in this administration this country could go back up hill instead of down hill as it is right now.[/quote]

Wow, that was sexist.

[quote name='CHW']Morality is a very debateable subject.[/quote]

On many issues, yes, it is. However, President Bush has been consistant on his stance on these issues, while John Kerry has flipped like a pancake on most of them.

[quote name='CHW']You find the government getting involved in a woman's right to reproduce, and telling people who are in love that they can't be married legally because they're the same sex as a moral obligation. [/quote]

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a second: If you're against the above, you don't consider it a woman's righ to reproduce, you consider it a child's right to live. You also aren't opposed to gay marrige because it's neccessarily immoral, but because it's impossible by the definition of marrige.

I'm not trying to pick a fight on either of those issues; I'm just saying, the other side has valids points of their own that can't be simply dismissed.

[quote name='CHW']Does that make me an immoral person?[/quote]

No; disagreeing with me does. ~_^

[quote name='CHW']I also believe that after Bush gets rid of abortion-birth control is next[/quote]

And your support for this is...? He's not Catholic, you know.

[quote name='CHW']If Bush is willing to involve himself in people's sex lives[/quote]

Which he isn't; he's acknowledging certain legal rammifications that some peoples' sex lives can cause.

[quote name='CHW']who's to say he wouldn't consider revoking people's freedom of religion as well?[/quote]

If you leta barber cut your hair, how long before he's hacking off your limbs?

[quote name='CHW']And as for being a liberal thinker-what's so bad about being a forward thinker and trying to change the world?[/quote]

Well, 'liberal' and conservative have taken on connotations not originally associated with their initial definitions.

However, not everything needs changing; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[QUOTE=CHW]That would be Deathbug, right?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes it would. Gracias, senora. ^__^

[QUOTE=CHW]As my mom says 'If you can't say something without swearing it's not worth saying in the first place'
[/QUOTE]

Agreed; don't interpret my comments as approval of Undefeated's behavior.

[quote name='CHW']True, we don't need backing to go start a war, but having support from an international community while starting a war sure as hell does help.[/quote]

A paramedic really likes to have his tools availible to him when he's helping an injured person, but them not being there doesn't stop him from helping.

[QUOTE=CHW]Just ask any soldier over there, I'm sure they'd rather have some positive reinforcements in this stupid 'war on terror' than all the crap they keep getting.
[/QUOTE]

Then why don't we give them positive support instead of dumping all this crap on them? Who do you think is doing the crap dumping? Ask a soldier in iraq if he cares what France has to say.

[quote name='CHW']We're hardly a superpower [/quote]

No, that's just wrong. Undefeated actually got a point right, but the wrong reasoing. The US is, in fact, the last superpower. Our political, social, and economical influence is unmatched by any country in the world. why do you think we're being watched?

[quote name='CHW']I believe Donald Rumsfeld stated that the detanies at Guantanamo Bay were even to be denied basic rights under the GEneva Conventions[/quote]

No, he didn't.

[quote name='Crimson Spider']There are no longer any "bad" presidents. Only ones you disagree with.[/quote]

There are no longer any 'bad' actions; only ones you disagree with.

Sorry, but I'll argue against that line of thought until I'm blue in the face. (I'm asthmatic, so that might be earlier than you think.)

[quote name='Chibihorsewoman']Bush is very strongly pro-life, I don't know Kerry's actual opinion on the subject.[/quote]

If you find it out, be sure to tell kerry. He'd probably like to know, too.

[quote name='CHW']But Bush seems determined to over turn Roe vs Wade and as a woman and some one who is very strongly pro choice that worries me. [/quote]

Cool, but understand, this isn't President Bush's personal holy crusade; a great deal of Americans feel the same way he does. Abortion is a very devisive issue.

[quote name='CHW']The government has no place in the bedrooms of the people it governs.[/quote]

But doesn't already have one? Isn't giving freedom to have an abortion just as much of a presense as revoking that freedom?

Besides, the government does't care what your doing with whom; it's more concerned about the human being those actions give life to. (At least, if you're pro-life, that's how you see it.)

[quote name='pbfrontmanvdp']My question has always been, how do you know if a teacher is considered "highly qualified" by simple taking a test in your subject area.[/quote]

Our entire social system is based on taking tests in your subject area. Passing the Bar exam doesn't make you a good lawyer, for example.

Heck, schooling itself can be boiled down to a series of tests, and most of them are simple info-regurgetation on the part of the student.

[QUOTE]I feel that by staying in Iraq and trying to solve the problems there is just a waste of time[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[QUOTE]Many people don't really realize how badly unemployment is currently[/QUOTE]

Because, as I've already said, it's not that bad; unemployment is falling.

[quote name='CHW']the US should try what they've done in other countries after wars and set up small bases in the area.[/quote]

That's actually the plan; currently, the country with the largest coalition in Iraq is...Iraq. The transition is working as planned.

[quote name='CHW']I really wish I knew more about where Kerry stands on issues like economy and the whole 'War on Terror' issue.[/quote]

Well, Kerry used to just be the Anti-Bush, but a recent New York Times article analyzed both candidates' Iraq strategies; guess what? They're almost identical.

So....who knows where Kerry stands? He sure doesn't.

[quote name='CHW']But what if the devil you know is leading you down a road to ruin and the devil you don't know could help you out? [/quote]

The devil we don't know doesn't even have a road map.

[quote name='cloricus']Last time I checked America was having a hell of a time holding their own let a lone asserting complete control over the country.[/quote]

Checked with who? Lady Cleo?

Despite your fondest wishes to the contrary, the US plan for Iraq is on-track. Yes, there was violence. Yes, there will be other attacks. Guess what? They were expected, and mostly unavoidable.

[QUOTE=cloricus]They are not a sovereign country and even after this 'hand over' takes place they still will not control their own country.
[/QUOTE]

Take a history class; the same question were posed after the reconstruction of Germany at the end of WWII. Is Germany a soveriegn nation?

Again, there will be problems, have no doubt about that. However, the end result will be the same: a free, democratic Iraq in control of its own destiny.

[quote name='cloricus']Oh wait, you guys are getting all the 'why we went to war' propaganda. ...What is it now? [/quote]

Funny you should mention that; the new Iraqi Prime Minister recently presented documents from Hussein's government that clealy show a connection between Hussein and al Queida. Yet the international community hasn't heard of them, because to do so would mean to admit that President Bush was *gasp* right.

Who's being fed propaganda?

[quote name='CHW']This could go one of two ways: America pre 1789 or what brought Afghanistan to the lovely mess that allowed Al Queda to take over. [/quote]

Or Germany, 1945. Remember, history doen't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

[quote name='MistressRoxie']I'd vote for him anyways because his name isn't Bush,[/quote]

A word of warning: "Anybody but Bush" is a horrible foundation for any party or candidate.

[quote name='MistressRoxie']but there's so many people who vote on the way they feel about the issues[/quote]

Voting based on the issues? The fools.

[quote name='Tamaway']If he does, then that means we (the United States of America) will have to be with him and his decisions for an another four whole years [/quote]

But, if he wins, wouldn't that mean that the majority of the United States wants to be with him and his decisions?

[quote name='Terrax']im very anti-bush so anybody other than him would be an improvement[/quote]

A word of warning: "Anybody but Bush" is a horrible foundation for any party or candidate.

[quote name='NaturalBlue']I loathe Kerry with a vengence.[/quote]

Why? I can certainly understanding not liking his policies (or lack thereof) and his political party, but why would you loathe the man personally? Petty, vindictive character remarks are for Democrats, and I'd hate to see someone with the good sense to vote conservative fall into the same pattern ofbehavior.

[quote name='cloricus']you have not seen Kerry in office.[/quote]

Actually, that's not entirely true; Kerry's been a Senator since 1984. He has a record of decision-making that can easily be referenced. What do we learn from this record? Kerry waffles. A lot.

[quote name='cloricus']we can all see how unstable and knee-jerkish he is. [/quote]

'Unstable'?

[quote name='cloricus']Can anything honestly be worse than a man who declares war on some one he hasn't liked for ten years for no reason? [/quote]

Actually, the existance of WMD's was acknowledged by the entire international community; that was never the question. The question was what should be done about them.

Also, remember, the Iraqi Prime Minister presented the paoperwork showing the financial link between Iraq and a Queida.

But, to answer the question, "Ignoring a government that rapes and tortures its own citizens."

[quote name='cloricus']Also Bush seems to be pulling out of this war as fast as possible[/quote]

So, first President Bush is wrong for going to war, now he's wrong for trying to end it as quickly as possible? Would'nt you try to end a war as soon as possible?

[quote name='cloricus']Also do you even know why you support this war? [/quote]

Yes. Do you know why you hate it?

[QUOTE=cloricus]Do you even get it past your bias skull that you have been lied to, on many occasions, that has lead to this whole situation in the first place?
[/QUOTE]

Yes; I call that the "Democratic party".

I wasn't a Republican when the war started; I was driven to be one after the disgusting display of many high-level democrats once the war started.

[quote name='cloricus']not just think what your parents have indoctrinated you to follow[/quote]

But wait...

[quote name='cloricus']my family follows the party that Mark Latham is in, heck I don't even know it's name, all I care about is it is the party that is more for the people. [/quote]

So, his family is wrong, and yours is right, because of Mark Latham and that...that party, whatever it's called? I sense a double-standard.

[QUOTE=cloricus] what is best for the country and the world.
[/QUOTE]

Are we sure we're both in the same world?

[quote name='cloricus']Now if you are not even thinking along that basic idea, let alone researching it, you really should not be voting.[/quote]

How about if you can't name your party?

[quote name='cloricus']It should be left to the people who have an idea of what's happening, not to some one who acts like a sheep.[/quote]

Mark Latham wants you to baah.

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]So basically, you have a tax removed that mostly affects a very small percentage: the extremely wealthy. There goes tons of tax dollars that can be better used for nearly anything.
[/QUOTE]

Why should the "extremely wealthy" have to pay more taxes than the rest of the country? ("More taxes", not "More in taxes")

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']People knock Clinton, but he wasn't all that bad. [/quote]

Yes, he was, but that's for another thread.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Thanks to "Reaganomics", followed by the Bush Sr. years, this country was quite a bit in debt.[/quote]

Except that, before Clinton had even announced his candecy, the economy began to grow, in Mach of 1991. Interestingly enough, the "Clinton Boom" didn't occurr until after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Over Clinton's term he managed to compeltely reverse this. We got out of the debt and were 240 billion dollars in surplus.[/quote]

Exzcept that, as I explained, surpluses are bad, and herald economic reccession.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Bush Jr. comes in and it's spend, spend, spend. We're now $500 billion in debt.[/quote]

You're right; that is not acceptable. I want President Bush to be able to answer for that. However, it is not the end of the world.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Unemployment is at its highest rate since the great depression.[/quote]

That's flat-out wrong. Again, unemployment has been dropping since late last year.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']Again, this was on the rise under Clinton.[/quote]

It started to fall under him, too.

[QUOTE=Semjaza Azazel]Bush is willing to give tons of money to NASA for space exploration. That's all well and good, but what's more important right now?
[/QUOTE]

Reminds me of...what's that guy? Oh, yeah, John F. Kennedy.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I feel I can actually believe he'll do them.[/quote]

Based on Kerry's stellar Congressional record?

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel'] I couldn't vote for Bush with a clean conscience whatsoever. I really don't know how anyone could, but that's their perrogative[/quote]

Well, it seems I'm Pure Evil (R), actually. Bummer, huh?

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I hate politics.[/quote]

I love it. :demon:

[quote name='Terrax']the whole basis on invading was because of WMDs which weren't absolutly provene to exsist[/quote]

Actually, the UN believed Iraq to have WMD's as well. That was never the question; the question was how to respond.

[quote name='Terrax']in the end it all comes down to one thing, oil.[/quote]

If the US went into iraq for oil...then where is it? And if we wanted oil, couldn't we have simply dropped our trade embargo with Iraq?

Or maybe oil wasn't a factor?

[JJ]

Oh man. This is insane. Here I want to talk.

[QUOTE]Your logic is flawed; do you hate FDR for getting us into WWII?[/QUOTE]

No you see the deal with Bush was that they attacked us so we go destory two countries and ruin countless people's lives so we have revenge. With WWII, they bombed us and we knew exactly who to get back. They knew bombing us would cost them thier country.


[QUOTE]Education decays for a decade under Clinton, and now it's Bush's fault he can't fix it? Right.[/QUOTE]

Oh so its Clinton this Clinton that. Just becuase Clinton was a pimp, and he got caught doesn't mean that everything Bush has screwed up was his fault. You do know that due to his "No Child Left Behind Act" that some schools have taken time out of thier Social Studies programs to make time for Math and Reading?

[QUOTE]Funny you should mention that; the new Iraqi Prime Minister recently presented documents from Hussein's government that clealy show a connection between Hussein and al Queida. Yet the international community hasn't heard of them, because to do so would mean to admit that President Bush was *gasp* right. [/QUOTE]

Hello. Documents can be fake. Hussein probably planted those to make Bush gain confidence and then when he least expects it BAM! He strikes with Great Vengence.

[QUOTE]Actually, the existance of WMD's was acknowledged by the entire international community; that was never the question. The question was what should be done about them. But, to answer the question, "Ignoring a government that rapes and tortures its own citizens."
[/QUOTE]

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! My gosh do you people not get it. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS! There prpbably were, but you know who gave them the weapons? Bush Sr.

What Iraq does to its people is no business of ours. It ridculus that we as a nation are forced to suffer so some egomanic can save some people who don't want to be saved.

[QUOTE]Yes. Do you know why you hate it?[/QUOTE]
Because its immoral. We are getting into things we should not get into. We are going to have alot of hate for the U.S. here pretty soon. For all our "good we're doing for the Iraqis they don't seem to like it.

[QUOTE]Why should the "extremely wealthy" have to pay more taxes than the rest of the country? ("More taxes", not "More in taxes")[/QUOTE]

Because they're rich. I mean if you have enough money that you can't handle giving the goverment some then you really shouldn't have that money in the first place.

[QUOTE]Reminds me of...what's that guy? Oh, yeah, John F. Kennedy.[/QUOTE]

Um. Hello. JFK had something going. Hmm. Let's see the MOON! Perhaps. I mean thats a reachable goal. NOT MARS! Stem Cell Research is a much better way to spend government money. It could help save lives. They could use the embros from the Abortionist Clinic.

[QUOTE]Actually, the UN believed Iraq to have WMD's as well. That was never the question; the question was how to respond.[/QUOTE]

Well the subject of the matter is they went in on thought ot belief. If I jumped in a a shark's mouth in belief that someone ten miles away would see me, is that a good thing?


Sorry to sound so ranty and ravey but somethings are best left unsaid.

[Semjaza]

To clarify, the Great Depression thing I mentioned was referring specifically to Private Sector jobs (not including Government Jobs). General employment issues aren't really comparable to the Great Depression, but what is. In any case, it's definitely not a good thing. In any case, it can be spun a whole bunch of ways depending on what you want to prove as shown in many examples lol

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I've been out for a few days so I'm going to celebrate my return with a big post! Luckily it will make sense.[/color]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]

Actually, we had support from our allies; just not all of them. And, I'm sorry, but France just sucks. with a passion.

As for the "credibility" issue, it's actually irrelevent; I wouldn't go to a war just for that. However, the war does give the US credibility; the president said we would do something, and we did. After eight years of empty threats, it's rather refreshing.[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]We didn't have support from Russia, Germany or France. In less than two weeks we lose Spain for sure and possibly a few other countries.

Have you ever been to France? Okay neither have I unless you count the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, but it's kinda crappy to say taht a whole country sucks for not wanting to go to some foriegn country, but I'm sure if we give them a few years and someone invades them again they'll turn around right?

Perhaps I was living under a rock before the currant Bush administration, but I don't seem to recall Clinton ever saying he was going to invade Iraq in the eight years he was president. Give me a few minutes, my husband may be online soon so maybe he could have me tell you if he as a service member thinks that this war is credible. Since I sure can't.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']Your logic is flawed; do you hate FDR for getting us into WWII?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Your US History books as well as your World History books are flawed. Thee Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941 and FDR retaliated by joining the allied forces to defeat a known enemy.

Iraq never attacked us, we were already in Afghanistan where we have determined that Al Queda was located therefore, Bush got us into this war.

You can't really compare G.W. Bush and F.D. Roosevelt. Rooselvelt got us out of a depression and Bush is helping us get into one.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']Maybe you don't know why, but survey data clearly shows that the men and women actually fighting the war know why. Not only is the militarily vastlysupports the war (almost twice as many who supported opperations in Bosnia), but the vast majority of the military personal survied said they would vote for President Bush.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]You and I must have read different surveys or spoke to different soldiers.

A few soldiers that I know who I spoke with at hood have no clear idea why they were sent to IRaq and have said they wouldn't vote for BUsh. A friend of mine who worked with my husband stateside said that she may have voted for Bush sr if he ran again but she wouldn't vote for his son.

I doubt that some of these men and women coming back from Iraq will feel the same way towards their president as they did prior to being deployed. [/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']I'm surprised and a little dissappointed in you, CHW. As the wife of a serviceman, surely you realize that such comparisons are horribly demoralizing for deployed troops. REmember, the Tet offensive was a victory for the Viet Cong even though it was a military disaster for them; they didn't win a single battle except in the minds of the American people.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]If you think that's bad you should hear how I talk to Lincoln. JK. He knows how I feel and he respects that point of veiw. We've had quite a few debates about such matters.

The point is I tell Lincoln that I'm proud of him for going over instead of what some people we know have done.

The battle of Bunker Hill was considered a defeat for the Americans and a victory for the British even though it was considered disastorous since the British lost so many troops. Your point is what? You're basically giving an example of a military conflict which ended in countless MIAs KIAs and eventually a retreat by the US after the fall of Saigon. Great example.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']Wow, that was sexist.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Yeah, but did you read what Undefeated wrote above my reply? They say fight fire with fire right?[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']On many issues, yes, it is. However, President Bush has been consistant on his stance on these issues, while John Kerry has flipped like a pancake on most of them. [/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I read an article in either Newsweek or Time magazine on Tuesday saying that Kerry was definately pro-choice. This decision on his part has made a bishop from MIssori decide that Kerry shouldn't be allowed to receive communion which is quite important to the Catholic faith.

Bush is still largely pro-life which makes me want to vote for Kerry.[/color]


[QUOTE=DeathBug]I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a second: If you're against the above, you don't consider it a woman's righ to reproduce, you consider it a child's right to live. You also aren't opposed to gay marrige because it's neccessarily immoral, but because it's impossible by the definition of marrige.
[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Try telling a rape victim who just found out she's pregnant that she has no right to an abortion and see how far you get.

When taking a stand on a subject concerning such heavy topics you should usually try to weigh both sides and see what you get in the outcome. For example I belive that if Bush got his way and Roe vs Wade was overturned you'd have more women dying from illegal abortions which are performed without any medical guidelines instead of legal abortions which are relatively safe.

As for the whole Gay Marriage stand, I look at it this way: Brittany Spears was allowed to get married drunk back in January and got the thing annuled about 36 hours later. Jennifer Lopez is on her third marriage. and we won't even go there with all the other celebraty marriages and divorces. Yet these people are allowed to get married simply because they're heterosexual. If you look at it this way with so many people who treat marriage as just some publcity stunt why shouldn't two people who simply want to get married because they're in love I say let them do it since so many drunken hetros do it! I think Brittany was more of a threat to the sanctityy of marriage than anyone in California could hoppe to be.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']No; disagreeing with me does. ~_^[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Okay, I just wanted to make sure before I began making plans for the afterlife :devil: [/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']And your support for this is...? He's not Catholic, you know.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Call it a hunch. You get rid of one thing, soon you'll get rid of another[/color]


[QUOTE=DeathBug]However, not everything needs changing; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.[/QUOTE}

[color=darkviolet]But some things in this country are very broke and need fixing. And some changes should be made before we keep going down this spiral. Even if it takes years to do.[/color]



[quote name='DeathBug']Yes, yes it would. Gracias, senora. ^__^[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]YOu only put that quote in as some sort of self gratyfication, didn't you?[/color]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Then why don't we give them positive support instead of dumping all this crap on them? Who do you think is doing the crap dumping?

[color=darkviolet]You can still support the soldiers in the war and not the war itsself, there's a big difference. I didn't start hating my husband or my friend's husband or any of my husband's friends for going over to Iraq, I just really began to hate the war when I saw what it did to people. Oh should I actually enjoy an institution which causes a friend of mine to commit herself because she suffers a vervous breakdown?[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug'] Ask a soldier in iraq if he cares what France has to say.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I did, he wanted to know if they were going to send some of their wine over as thanks for something or other. I can't remember the whole conversation. And perhaps you should add she to that. Because I asked one of his co-workers prior to deployment and she said she'd just as soon send back the brie :laugh: [/color]


[quote name='DeathBug'] No he didn't[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Same magazine I read on Tuesday. Rumsfeld declared the detanies at Guantanamo Terrorists and therefore exempt from the conventions. There is also question as to if the military may have already begun okaying tourture such as being stripped, intimidation and forced sleep loss.[/color]



[quote name='DeathBug'] The devil we don't know doesn't even have a road map.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]And the devil we do know has an old crinkled unreadable roadmap which needs some serious renovation. I think we need a few more choices! :eek: [/color]



[quote name='DeathBug'] If the US went into iraq for oil...then where is it? [/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Fueling the Humvees and Abrams tanks over there...or the camels. I've been doing a lot of thinking about those stupid camels lately. IF you really want to know I think it's in Rumsfeld's hair.

And dammit all if I spent two hours on this and didn't get any replies from the military POV[/color]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='JJRiddler']No you see the deal with Bush was that they attacked us so we go destory two countries and ruin countless people's lives so we have revenge.[/quote]

Presient Bush said, the night of 9/11, that we would make no distinction between the terrorists and the countries hiding them. That was a cue for every country with terrorists to surrender them.

Yes, we sure ruined lives in Afghanistan. Look at all those women not getting beaten to death for going to school! The horror!

[quote name='JJRiddler']With WWII, they bombed us and we knew exactly who to get back. [/quote]

We knew the Japanese bombed us, yet we struck the Germans first. According to your logic, that was completely wrong; we should have left the poor Nazi's alone, because they didn't bomb us.

[QUOTE=JJRiddler]They knew bombing us would cost them thier country.
[/QUOTE]

If by "they" you mean the Japanese, it didn't. After WWII, we helped rebuild their country to the point where they were economically stronger than us in the early nineties.

[quote name='JJRiddler']Oh so its Clinton this Clinton that. Just becuase Clinton was a pimp, and he got caught doesn't mean that everything Bush has screwed up was his fault. [/quote]

President Bush didn't screw up education, which was my point. Niether did President Clinton; education was already screwed up, and had been for a while.

My point was, President Clinton had eight years to fix it, and didn't. If President Bush must take blame for education, so must President Clinton. If Clinton doesn't, Bush doesn't.

[QUOTE=JJRiddler]You do know that due to his "No Child Left Behind Act" that some schools have taken time out of thier Social Studies programs to make time for Math and Reading?
[/QUOTE]

Including yours? That would explain your misconceptions of WWII and current events.

[QUOTE=JJRiddler]Hello. Documents can be fake. Hussein probably planted those to make Bush gain confidence and then when he least expects it BAM! He strikes with Great Vengence.
[/QUOTE]

That has got to be the most nonsensical paragraph I've ever read.

Yes, I'm sure Hussein thought it would a great idea to give the "cowboy" yet another reason to go after him. And I'm sure his "Great Vengence" will be great; I'm just wondering how he's going to pull it off inside a prison cell.

[quote name='JJRiddler']THERE WERE NO WEAPONS! There prpbably were,[/quote]

Are you sure you're not John Kerry?

[quote name='JJR']What Iraq does to its people is no business of ours. [/quote]

What Hitler does to his people is no concern of ours.

Prior to Pearl Harbour, the US ran a news story about a concentration camp in, I think, Austria. Just a single camp. The US knew that Hitler was killing people; they just didn't know the horrible full scope.

And people still said not to get involved in the war effort. Knowing what we know now, that's kind of a stupid and selfish sentiment, isn't it?

[QUOTE=JJR]It ridculus that we as a nation are forced to suffer so some egomanic can save some people who don't want to be saved.
[/QUOTE]

We're sure suffering, huh, with our free elections, economic growth, free press, trial by jury and general safety.

The insurgents in Iraq acount for less that 5% of the total Iraqi population. The rest of the people, who can now be educated, open free businesses, speak their minds and not live in fear of their government gassing them, have a much more positive opinion.

[quote name='JJR']Because its immoral.[/quote]

And apathy to murder isn't?

[quote name='JJR']For all our "good we're doing for the Iraqis they don't seem to like it[/quote]

The insurgents in Iraq acount for less that 5% of the total Iraqi population. The rest of the people, who can now be educated, open free businesses, speak their minds and not live in fear of their government gassing them, have a much more positive opinion.

[quote name='JJR']Because they're rich. I mean if you have enough money that you can't handle giving the goverment some then you really shouldn't have that money in the first place.[/quote]

Thank you, Karl Marx. I sincerely hope you become rich one day, so you might understand why some people don't like the idea of being punished for being hard-working and successful.

[quote name='JJR']Um. Hello. JFK had something going. Hmm. Let's see the MOON! Perhaps. I mean thats a reachable goal. NOT MARS! [/quote]

Mars is completely reachable.

[quote name='JJR']Stem Cell Research is a much better way to spend government money.[/quote]

Except that most of President Bush's voting constituents are opposed to stem cell research. whether it's right or wrong is irrelevent, the President's electoral base doesn't like it, so he won't act towards it.

[QUOTE=JJR]They could use the embros from the Abortionist Clinic.
[/QUOTE]

We're already killing them, so let's harvest their parts while we're at it? Have I stepped into Brave New World?

[quote name='JJR']Well the subject of the matter is they went in on thought ot belief. If I jumped in a a shark's mouth in belief that someone ten miles away would see me, is that a good thing?[/quote]

Probably. Unless you started explaing politics to the shark, in which case the poor thing would vomit.

Between 1984 and 1988, six seperate teams of UN investigators documented instances of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iranians. In 1988, the Security Council blamed Iraq for using mustard gas in attacks against Iranian cities. The same year, Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz openly admitted that poson gas was enshrined in official Iraqi war policy. Iraq failed to account for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled warheads. Nor has it accounted for 550 artillary shells filled with mustard gas. In the early eighties, Sadaam built a nuclear plantt that would have given him the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons; however, it was destroyed in an air strike by Isreal.

So, yes, the UN believed Sadaam had WMD's.

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']In any case, it can be spun a whole bunch of ways depending on what you want to prove as shown in many examples [/quote]

Indeed; I'd like to see where you got this data from. The only people I've heard make a similar claim are Al Gore and NPR.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman']We didn't have support from Russia, Germany or France. In less than two weeks we lose Spain for sure and possibly a few other countries. [/quote]

Except that last week's UN decision passed 15-0 in favor of the US plan. The situation has rapidy improved, wouldn't you agree?

[quote name='CHW']Have you ever been to France? Okay neither have I unless you count the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, but it's kinda crappy to say taht a whole country sucks for not wanting to go to some foriegn country[/quote]

Yes, I wqent to Paris for one day. Beautiful city.

Don't misunderstand me; I've held my opinion of France and their suckage long before the war in Iraq, based on their long history of sucking.

[QUOTE=CHW]I'm sure if we give them a few years and someone invades them again they'll turn around right?
[/QUOTE]

ROTFL! ^___^

[quote name='CHW']I don't seem to recall Clinton ever saying he was going to invade Iraq in the eight years he was president[/quote]

"We gave saddam a chance, not a liscence. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibilty of US power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction; we will also have fatally undercut the fear of frorce that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination of the region." -Bill Clinton, 1998.

Wow, even President Clinton believed Saddam to have WMD's.

[quote name='CHW']Thee Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December 1941 and FDR retaliated by joining the allied forces to defeat a known enemy[/quote]

Again, we wnt after Germany at first, not Japan.

But that wasn't my point; your original statement was that you hate war, [i]therefore[/i] you hate President Bush. If that is your logic, than any president who got us into wars is to be hated, including FDR, JFK, and Bush Sr.

[quote name='CHW']Iraq never attacked us[/quote]

Again, niether did Germany. But we fought them, defeated them, rebuilt them, and watched them prosper. Again, history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes often.

[QUOTE=CHW]Rooselvelt got us out of a depression and Bush is helping us get into one.
[/QUOTE]

Forgive my saying so, but Roosevelt was an incompetent president who saddled the US with ineffective entitlement programs that still haunt us today, allowed Washington to be riddled with Soviet spies, and surrendered Polland to Joeseph Stalin.

The one thing he did right was push for US entrence into WWII, and show great fortitude during it.

[quote name='CHW']A friend of mine who worked with my husband stateside said that she may have voted for Bush sr if he ran again [/quote]

I'd have voted for Bush Sr. because he was eighty and jumped out of an airplane. ^__^

However, I'm not talking about personal aqquaintances; I'm talking about national survies. I heard it on NPR, I believe.

[QUOTE=CHW]We've had quite a few debates about such matters.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting; Mister Lincoln Chibihorsewoman is for the war?

[quote name='CHW']You're basically giving an example of a military conflict which ended in countless MIAs KIAs and eventually a retreat by the US after the fall of Saigon.[/quote]

Yes, there were great casulties on both sides, but it was undeniably a disaster for the Viet Cong. However, they never intended to win the battle. Commanders interviewed later said that they knew of the anti-war movement in the US, and wanted to create such a bloodly spectacle as to reverse public opinion, thus demoralizing the troops and leadingt o a retreat.

It worked. Public opinion of a war matters greatly.

[quote name='CHW']Yeah, but did you read what Undefeated wrote above my reply? They say fight fire with fire right?[/quote]

Yeah, I did, but you're too smart to have to lower yourself to that.

[QUOTE=CHW]This decision on his part has made a bishop from MIssori decide that Kerry shouldn't be allowed to receive communion which is quite important to the Catholic faith.
[/QUOTE]

Stupid Catholic bishop expecting Catholics to adhere to Catholic beliefs.

[quote name='CHW']Bush is still largely pro-life which makes me want to vote for Kerry.[/quote]

Sounds fair; Kerry's still not trustworthy, in my opinion.

[quote name='CHW']When taking a stand on a subject concerning such heavy topics you should usually try to weigh both sides and see what you get in the outcome.[/quote]

You presented one side, I opresented the opposite side. THat's why I called it Devil's advocate; I doin't subscribe to what I said there.

BTW, less than 10% of abortions take place because of rape. The rape argument personally irritates me because it's an emotional ploy not based on science, statistics, or even religion. It's a cheap shot.

The pro-life reply is: "Try telling a baby it has to die because of its parents irresponsibility and see how far you get."

[quote name='CHW']For example I belive that if Bush got his way and Roe vs Wade was overturned you'd have more women dying from illegal abortions which are performed without any medical guidelines instead of legal abortions which are relatively safe. [/quote]

This particular pro-abortion argument is also fundamentally flawed, and you really should'nt use it. "They'll do illegal stuff anyway, so you might as well make it legal". Is that what you're saying?

And, again, a pro-life person would say: "All types ofabortion are dangerous, to the baby."

[quote name='CHW']I think Brittany was more of a threat to the sanctityy of marriage than anyone in California could hoppe to be.[/quote]

That argument rests upon the assumption that I agree with celebrity Jiffy-Wed, which I don't. You're completely right on that: Spears, Lopez and their ilk are making a mockery of the institution.

My opinion of marriges on the whole is that the government shouldn't recognize them at all, seeing as they're a religious institution. Each individual church should decide for themselves their stance.

[quote name='CHW']Call it a hunch. You get rid of one thing, soon you'll get rid of another[/quote]

That's an illogical conclusion, though. "If I chop down a tree in my lawn, it's not long before I'm wiping out whole forests." Besides, President Bush isn't God; hhe has to pass things through Congress like everyone else.

[quote name='CHW']YOu only put that quote in as some sort of self gratyfication, didn't you?[/quote]

Well, actually, I put it in because I appreciated the gesture and wanted to thank you.

However, if I'm going to be an [url=www.evilconservatives.com]Evil Conservative[/url], the proper answer would be, "Yes, I did, because I am great."

[QUOTE=CHW]There is also question as to if the military may have already begun okaying tourture such as being stripped, intimidation and forced sleep loss.
[/QUOTE]

That's just ridiculous. We have much better ways of making people talk that don't humiliate or harm.

[QUOTE=CHW]I think we need a few more choices!
[/QUOTE]

Ralph Nadar, the Devil No One Seems to Care About?

[Guest cloricus]

Deathbug, your post is long, and you seem to be using this mess of words to hide the fact that it is just a load of your opinion dressed up as fact. For the sake of logic I will rebut comments in relation to myself and for the sake of time I will be giving brunt replies as your post really isn't worth it.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Last time I checked America was having a hell of a time holding their own let a lone asserting complete control over the country.
[quote]Checked with who? Lady Cleo?
Despite your fondest wishes to the contrary, the US plan for Iraq is on-track. Yes, there was violence. Yes, there will be other attacks. Guess what? They were expected, and mostly unavoidable.[/quote]
I would like to point out that they were totally unexpected by the American command. Sure now they are expected but you have the last year to show you that. Clap clap to your intelligence. Also what is Lady Cleo?

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
They are not a sovereign country and even after this 'hand over' takes place they still will not control their own country.
[quote]Take a history class; the same question were posed after the reconstruction of Germany at the end of WWII. Is Germany a sovereign nation?
Again, there will be problems, have no doubt about that. However, the end result will be the same: a free, democratic Iraq in control of its own destiny.[/quote]
I do modern history. I find your comparison flawed as the situation was vastly different. As for a free democratic Iraq in control of it's own destiny, it will come yes, just not any time soon.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Oh wait, you guys are getting all the 'why we went to war' propaganda. ...What is it now?
[quote]Funny you should mention that; the new Iraqi Prime Minister recently presented documents from Hussein's government that clearly show a connection between Hussein and al Queida. Yet the international community hasn't heard of them, because to do so would mean to admit that President Bush was *gasp* right.
Who's being fed propaganda?[/quote]
Clearly it is you. Or would you like to show me some proof of this 'document' that fails to exist even after an extensive (six minute) search of the web that looked into pro-bush, official Iraq statements by officials and even conspiracy theorist websites. Or is this one of those ?I think he's right so lets all pretend it's true? things that you seem to subscribe to?

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
you have not seen Kerry in office.
[quote]Actually, that's not entirely true; Kerry's been a Senator since 1984. He has a record of decision-making that can easily be referenced. What do we learn from this record? Kerry waffles. A lot.[/quote]
I find some one who 'waffles', 'a lot', better than some one who is a puppet to the neo cons, and yes I'll save you the typing and admit that that statement is personal opinion and possibly unfounded. Though I'd rather some one who logically thinks through problems in stead of dropping the world in the Iraq conflict.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
we can all see how unstable and knee-jerkish he is.
[quote]'Unstable'?[/quote]
Some one who goes to war on a flawed case that had nothing to do with why they were pissed off in the first place is some one I would class as that. (Iraq had nothing to do with sept 11 etc.)

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Can anything honestly be worse than a man who declares war on some one he hasn't liked for ten years for no reason?
[quote]Actually, the existence of WMD's was acknowledged by the entire international community; that was never the question. The question was what should be done about them.
Also, remember, the Iraqi Prime Minister presented the paperwork showing the financial link between Iraq and a Queida.
But, to answer the question, "Ignoring a government that rapes and tortures its own citizens."[/quote]
Yet again more claims of 'information' that fail to exist. There was no documentation. Please stop lying, you are making a fool or yourself. Also you assume I care about a government that rapes and tortures dissidents? Well I do in part, but if you are going to take that stand please go and invade chilli, zimbabwe and all of those other nations that have dictators that make Saddam look like a simple theft. You need to realise the original reason for war was WMD, they do not exist, the next reason for war was Al Queda, there was no link and everything after that has been trying to cover up those two lies. It is well documented, factual, and freely available. If you do not believe it you are a very bias, close minded, and an incorrect little person.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Also Bush seems to be pulling out of this war as fast as possible
[quote]So, first President Bush is wrong for going to war, now he's wrong for trying to end it as quickly as possible? Wouldn't you try to end a war as soon as possible?[/quote]
He is not cleaning up his mess and leaving it for people who cannot. As an Australian this just seems low to me and I assumed that every one had standards of decency?

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Also do you even know why you support this war?
[quote]Yes. Do you know why you hate it?[/quote]
I don't hate it. I think it was and is flawed. After all it's your troops that are dying, not mine. Enjoy the knowledge that you are part of the reason that they along with nearly 10,000 civilian Iraqi's are dead.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Do you even get it past your bias skull that you have been lied to, on many occasions, that has lead to this whole situation in the first place?
[quote]Yes; I call that the "Democratic party".
I wasn't a Republican when the war started; I was driven to be one after the disgusting display of many high-level democrats once the war started.[/quote]
This was not directed at you, and I do not care about your preference. Though it's nice to see you follow the bandwagons and hype, at least some one is enjoying the war and all the problems being caused.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
not just think what your parents have indoctrinated you to follow
[quote]But wait..[/quote]
Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
my family follows the party that Mark Latham is in, heck I don't even know it's name, all I care about is it is the party that is more for the people.
[quote]So, his family is wrong, and yours is right, because of Mark Latham and that...that party, whatever it's called? I sense a double-standard.[/quote]
I sense a wanker trying to score brownie points without reading the posts he is 'dissecting' and trying to get anything he can to string together. If you would read only slightly further, not to hard to do when you put your small mind to it, you will note that I was showing and stated that I follow this party strongly but when it comes to voting it is not who I follow, it's who is the best for the situation that I choose. For example in federal I will be voting Labor but in the local elections I will be voting Liberal because the man standing for the Liberals is far is a better representative even though his ideals are different to mine.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
what is best for the country and the world.
[quote]Are we sure we're both in the same world?[/quote]
No, you are in America. Sorry to all the intelligent people this generalisation alienates.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
Now if you are not even thinking along that basic idea, let alone researching it, you really should not be voting.
[quote]How about if you can't name your party?[/quote]
You will please note that I named the party, I even made sure I spelt it correctly as it is a non standard spelling.

Quote: Originally Posted by cloricus
It should be left to the people who have an idea of what's happening, not to some one who acts like a sheep.
[quote]Mark Latham wants you to baah.[/quote]
No in Australia it was Mr Howard, from the Liberals, that asked us to follow Mr Bush blindly. :p


[b][i]And for your total lack of logic, fact, or basic abilities to argue I award you the infamous ?Disinformation Award? which you will share in the hall of fame with this man.[/b][/i]

[url]http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/[/url]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='cloricus']Deathbug, your post is long, and you seem to be using this mess of words to hide the fact that it is just a load of your opinion dressed up as fact.[/quote]

Well, hello Miss Mary Sunshine. I bet you're a riot at parties, huh?

[quote name='cloricus']For the sake of logic I will rebut comments in relation to myself and for the sake of time I will be giving brunt replies as your post really isn't worth it.[/quote]

How sweet. ^__^ You shouldn't have. Really.

No, really.

[quote name='cloricus']I would like to point out that they were totally unexpected by the American command.[/quote]

"Totally unexpected"? Central command was well aware that there would be insurgencies, but it was impossible to accuratly predict where in Iraq insurgencies would take place. So, while they were xpected, resources couldn't be rationed until after the incident had already happened;l it was just common sense.

[QUOTE]Clap clap to your intelligence[/QUOTE]

*bows*

[QUOTE]Also what is Lady Cleo?[/QUOTE]

A lady. A lady named Cleo.

[QUOTE]I find your comparison flawed as the situation was vastly different. [/QUOTE]

How was it different? Take out old government, put in better government.

Two years after the Nazi surrender, it was expected that the Allies would be unable to rebuild Germany, that they'd have to pull out, and the country would just clapse like a house of cards. It's exactly the same rhetoric that's being used now. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. (The Germans sure didn't like the Allied forces in their country; more of them were angry that the Iraqis are.)

[QUOTE]As for a free democratic Iraq in control of it's own destiny, it will come yes, just not any time soon.
[/QUOTE]

What do you define as "soon"?

[QUOTE]Clearly it is you.[/QUOTE]

Contrary to your fragile view of the world, the american media isn't exactly awash with praise for President Bush, or Republicans in general. In fact, the most powerful media conglomerates in the country recently discussed the idea of organizing an official opposition to the war. (They decided nott o when someone pointed out that they might then be percieved as "biased". No, really?)

CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post...all the big name media outlets in the US (with the possible exception of FoxNews, and I don't watch FoxNews) are controled by democrats, and are biased against President Bush.

What's this have to do with anything? Only that, you're right, America is being spoon-fed propaganda. Where you're wrong is your assumption of the content; the propaganda they try to feed us is anti-war, and anti-Bush.

[QUOTE]Or would you like to show me some proof of this 'document' [/QUOTE]

Love to; can't. It hasn't been declassified. However, the [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/2/224317.shtml]Iraqi Prime Minister[/url] goes so far as to say that Saddam had links to not only al queda, but also 9/11.

The US doesn't subscribe to that line of thought, thoiugh, and dchoose not to widely publisize the statements. However, the link between al queda and Sadam is not in question.

[QUOTE]I'll save you the typing and admit that that statement is personal opinion and possibly unfounded.[/QUOTE]

You know what's great about that opinion? No one from your government is going to kill you in the night because they disapprove of it. Now, the people of Iraq can say the same thing.

[QUOTE]I'd rather some one who logically thinks through problems in stead of dropping the world in the Iraq conflict.[/QUOTE]

Except the US did'nt drop "the world" in the conflict. We were actually sevewrely critisized for going in without Russia, France and Germany.

[QUOTE]Some one who goes to war on a flawed case that had nothing to do with why they were pissed off in the first place is some one I would class as that. [/QUOTE]

The US never stated that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. (We stated that it had connections to al queda, but not the actual 9/11 attack.)

[QUOTE]Yet again more claims of 'information' that fail to exist. [/QUOTE]

Between 1984 and 1988, six seperate teams of UN investigators documented instances of Iraq using chemical weapons on Iranians. In 1988, the Security Council blamed Iraq for using mustard gas in attacks against Iranian cities. The same year, Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz openly admitted that poson gas was enshrined in official Iraqi war policy. Iraq failed to account for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled warheads. Nor has it accounted for 550 artillary shells filled with mustard gas. In the early eighties, Sadaam built a nuclear plantt that would have given him the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons; however, it was destroyed in an air strike by Isreal.

So, yes, the UN believed Sadaam had WMD's.

[QUOTE]Also you assume I care about a government that rapes and tortures dissidents? [/QUOTE]

Well, I assumed you were a decent human being, and therefore would.

[QUOTE]Well I do in part[/QUOTE]

Good.

[QUOTE]but if you are going to take that stand please go and invade chilli, zimbabwe and all of those other nations that have dictators that make Saddam look like a simple theft.[/QUOTE]

If it were up to me, we would. I'm not so paralyzed by the political machine that I'd stand by while that happened. Unfortunatly, I am not in a position to craft foreign policy.

[QUOTE]You need to realise the original reason for war was WMD, they do not exist[/QUOTE]

Actually, we've found: records indivcating purchases of WMD's, laboratories for creating WMD's, storage facilities for WMD's, and warheads designed to deliver WMD's. I'm sure Saddam just kept that around because he thought it was cool-looking.

Why haven't we found more than trace amounts of WMD's? Because we told the world two months in advance what we were doing.

[QUOTE]He is not cleaning up his mess and leaving it for people who cannot[/QUOTE]

Half of the Iraqi facilities are already in the hands of the Iraqi government. It's not like it's going to be a sudden pull-out; we'll be there until the Iraqi government requests that we withdraw all troops.

[QUOTE]Enjoy the knowledge that you are part of the reason that they along with nearly 10,000 civilian Iraqi's are dead.
[/QUOTE]

That was a very vicious remark, but considering the source, I'm not surprised. Also considering that I can't vote until September, I've yet to actually become "part of the reason". The current Iraqi death toll is 6,000, buy the way.

To put that in perspective, 50,000000 people in Iraq and afghanistan have been liberated from totalitarian regimes. Casualties are horrible, and should not be forgotten or made light of, but perspective is neccessary.

[QUOTE]Though it's nice to see you follow the bandwagons and hype[/QUOTE]

Except the bandwagon is driving in the opposite direction, as I said earlier. The media is decidedly anti-Bush, as are several of my close friends.

[QUOTE]I sense a wanker trying to score brownie points without reading the posts he is 'dissecting' and trying to get anything he can to string together.[/QUOTE]

So...there won't be brownies, then?

[QUOTE]If you would read only slightly further, not to hard to do when you put your small mind to it,[/QUOTE]

Ah, I disagree, so I'm stupid. Thanks for the clarification.

[QUOTE]I follow this party strongly but when it comes to voting it is not who I follow, it's who is the best for the situation that I choose.[/QUOTE]

You tell NaturalBlue that s/he was "indoctrinated by his/her parents", yet you vote the same way as your family, and you aren't "indocrtinated". That is the double standard, and the point i was trying to make. Itr's easy to follow if you put your mind to it.

[QUOTE]No, you are in America.[/QUOTE]

You are completely and totally right. And you knoww hat? I've lived overseas, and I spent my entire high school career researching other countries, and I can tell you, I would not have it any other way.

[QUOTE]Sorry to all the intelligent people this generalisation alienates.
[/QUOTE]

Don't worry; I don't think anyone intelligent reads your posts. *rimshot*

[QUOTE]And for your total lack of logic, fact, or basic abilities to argue I award you the infamous ?Disinformation Award?[/QUOTE]

From you, I consider that a compliment.

[QUOTE][url]http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/[/url][/QUOTE]

I love that guy. ^__^

[Guest cloricus]

DeathBug. Your post has no relevant facts that we do not already know, continued with flawed arguments pretending that they were true when any one who can pick up any number of books will realise are false, and did not address any of my questions seriously which lead to a babbling post on your part. It was a waste of time. I do not feel the need to rebut it again as with simple 'facts' from 'reliable sources' (which you fail to be able to sight) can crush what ever arguments you have so far put up. Which I would much enjoy but I have assignments and work which, you might find it odd, come before posting and pleasure. Though I'm sure the others that have replied, and will reply, to your dribble might be able to get through the simple fact that you are wrong.

[i]You can keep your conspiracies.[/i]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='cloricus']DeathBug. Your post has no relevant facts that we do not already know,[/quote]

If my post contains known facts, why are you arguing with them?

[QUOTE]continued with flawed arguments pretending that they were true when any one who can pick up any number of books will realise are false,[/QUOTE]

Yet...you don't reference any books? Hm.

[QUOTE]and did not address any of my questions seriously which lead to a babbling post on your part. [/QUOTE]

Well, if I answered your petty insults seriously, you might think i take you seriously, and I didn't want to give you the wrong idea.

[QUOTE]It was a waste of time.[/QUOTE]

But you reply anyway. You remind me of my sister when she constantly tells me how much she's ignoring me.

[QUOTE]I do not feel the need to rebut it again as with simple 'facts' from 'reliable sources' (which you fail to be able to sight) can crush what ever arguments you have so far put up.[/QUOTE]

You want a biliography? Your use of rhetoric without sighting facts is okay, but my useing facts without sighting sources is unforgivable?

[QUOTE]Which I would much enjoy but I have assignments and work which, you might find it odd, come before posting and pleasure. [/QUOTE]

So, now...I'm lazy? In addition to being a small-minded wanker? And you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[QUOTE]Though I'm sure the others that have replied, and will reply, to your dribble might be able to get through the simple fact that you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

Translation: "You're wrong just because you are. No, don't expect me to provide documented evidence, but you better be able to. Wanker."

[QUOTE][i]You can keep your conspiracies.[/i][/QUOTE]

What conspiracy?

I'd like to say it's been fun chatting with you, but it hasn't been. I treat your insults like jokes because you're a joke, but not a very good one.

[Juu]

[QUOTE=Undefeated]
Education: Bush has a plan, Kerry does not.
[/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink][size=1]But what's the use of a plan when it's not in action?

I remember supporting Bush four years ago for a few reasons, two of them being 1) His 'No Child Left Behind' plan. 2) I was a really stupid 5th grader.

Sorry, but I don't see how anyone can support Bush. As for Kerry, he's not giving forth enough opinion in things just as Dean did. I mean, I agree with their opinions about Bush, but they need to give their own plans if they're going to criticize anyone about it.

Even though I'm way too young to vote, I still wish there were more options. Our candidates this election seem to be just as good as the candidates in our California Recall Election. You couldn't pay me to vote for Bush, but I'm not fond of Kerry, either. I had the same problem with Dean as I do with Kerry, and John Edwards just smiles too much.

The main thing I have against Bush is for dragging the country into a war without a clear reason. People are dying- and for what? 'The War on Iraq' has so many names, and it seems like every time a new 'title' floats up on CNN, it feels like just another excuse. Imagine if your brother or sister was out there and they were out risking their lives and possibly taking other lives for a war without a reason. I mean, think about it. 'The War on Iraq' = 'The War on Terrorism'? It's just heartbreaking to have people die fighting thinking 'what for?'.

Also, I'd like to know why the government should have anything to do with Gay Marriage. I mean, if they're in love, why should it be a crime to make it legal?

Oh, and maybe it's just because I go to a public school like most Americans, but I really don't think some people who are more financially endowed and have the oppertunity to go to a private school really understand how much the schools are in debt. The PTA asks us pretty much twice a month to donate twenty dollars per family simply to afford the 8th grade graduation at the end of the year. To go to a school trip, you have to pay about an extra sixty dollars besides the cost of the trip, and help the school raise money by participating in bake sales and car washes that are NOT FUN. Our worksheets are simply the backs of used PTA announcements, because the school can't afford enough blank paper to give us new worksheets daily.

...And who can ignore the gas prices? I don't drive, but every time my dad and I go to the gas station, it costs us at LEAST forty dollars. But I live in San Francisco, so that's normal, right? *rolls eyes*

Oh, and as for a war on terrorism, it's just pointless. There has always been terrorism and will always be terrorism. And no, the middle east is not the only area where terrorism exists. --

And one more thing. I'd rather have someone who makes a moderate amount of promises and KEEPS them, rather than someone who makes a billion proposals and bearly keeps any.

(Apologies if this post was rediculous and unintelligent.) [/color][/size]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Juuthena']The main thing I have against Bush is for dragging the country into a war without a clear reason. People are dying- and for what? [/quote]

The war was pre-emptive; there was a great debate involving the concept of "Pre-emption" prior to the war. We have records from Saddam's regime linking them financially to al queda, and evidence given to us by Russian President Vladimir Putin (who did not send support to the war) indicating the Saddam's government was planning an attack on US soil.

[QUOTE] Imagine if your brother or sister was out there and they were out risking their lives and possibly taking other lives for a war without a reason. [/QUOTE]

How about my father being in Afghanistan, Jordan, and possible deployment status to Iraq? I assure you, he and the people he works with know exactly what they're working towards.

[QUOTE]Also, I'd like to know why the government should have anything to do with Gay Marriage. I mean, if they're in love, why should it be a crime to make it legal? [/QUOTE]

The government has to be involved because the government decides legality, and we've all decided that marriges should fall under government jurisdiction.

(They shouldn't; it should be left to churches.)

[QUOTE]Oh, and maybe it's just because I go to a public school like most Americans, but I really don't think some people who are more financially endowed and have the oppertunity to go to a private school really understand how much the schools are in debt. The PTA asks us pretty much twice a month to donate twenty dollars per family simply to afford the 8th grade graduation at the end of the year. To go to a school trip, you have to pay about an extra sixty dollars besides the cost of the trip, and help the school raise money by participating in bake sales and car washes that are NOT FUN. Our worksheets are simply the backs of used PTA announcements, because the school can't afford enough blank paper to give us new worksheets daily. [/QUOTE]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: schools were deteriorating long before President Bush came into the office. Presoident Clinton was in office for almost a decade, and he didn't fix anything. To blame President Bush alone for the school situation is foolish and misleading.

[QUOTE]...And who can ignore the gas prices? I don't drive, but every time my dad and I go to the gas station, it costs us at LEAST forty dollars. But I live in San Francisco, so that's normal, right? *rolls eyes*[/QUOTE]

We pay less than just about every single country in the workld for gasoline, yet we're still complaining. In Europe, their gas has been more expensive than our current levels for years, and they're sick of hearing us complain.

Besides, relative to inflation, or current gas prices are nothing compared to the oil-embargo of the seventies. "All time high" my arse.

[QUOTE]Oh, and as for a war on terrorism, it's just pointless. There has always been terrorism and will always be terrorism. And no, the middle east is not the only area where terrorism exists. --[/QUOTE]

People said the same thing about the USSR. "Why challenge a totalitarian communist regime? They're always going to be there!"

But, guess what? They weren't. Part of the reason was that people don't like to live under totalitarian communist regimes, and will break from them if the opportunity is presented. Another part is that the system itself was horribly flawed, crippling the Soviet Union from within. the final piece of the puzzle was a president who said, "Hey, why don't we try to win the Cold War, instead of accepting co-existance with an empire that would destroy us?"

People don't like to live under the fear of terrorism. The system of government terrorists inflict upon those around them is horribly flawed. And there's a president whom, for all his faults, doesn't think we should just accept terrorism, but that we should eliminate it.

[QUOTE]And one more thing. I'd rather have someone who makes a moderate amount of promises and KEEPS them, rather than someone who makes a billion proposals and bearly keeps any.[/QUOTE]

Examples?

[QUOTE](Apologies if this post was rediculous and unintelligent.) [/QUOTE]

And I aplogize if I appear rude or stand off-ish.

[Dagger]

Earlier today I read an article in [i]The Washington Post[/i] (a fairly reputable and unbiased newspaper, all things considered) entitled "Mistakes Loom Large as Handover Nears: Missed Opportunities Turned High Ideals to Harsh Realities." The first paragraph of this front-page piece reads, "BAGHDAD--The American occupation of Iraq will formally end this month [b]having failed to fulfill many of its goals and stated promises[/b] intended to transform the country into a stable democracy, [b]according to a detailed examination drawing upon interviews with senior U.S. and Iraqi officials and internal documents of the occupation authority.[/b]"

(I bolded a few key phrases to emphasize the fact that the article draws its conclusions from solid, well-researched journalism.)

In any case, [i]The Post[/i] is not [i]The Nation[/i]... it doesn't spin major events to favor a liberal point of view, and runs many editorals from Republican commentators (such as Charles Krauthammer). "Mistakes Loom Large" offers quotes proving that State Department and CPA officials thought Bremer's vision for Iraq was overly idealistic and naive. The CPA's staff was mostly composed of young people with ties to the Republican Party, rather than those who might be more qualified for the jobs in question.

Disillusioned by terrorist attacks and the insurgency, Bremer decided to rework his plan and make the desired-for results less ambitious but more easily attainable. However, the reconstruction effort is faltering as foreign and Western contractors flee, fearing for their lives, and the insurgency continues to make trouble. The 18.6 billion aid package approved by Congress to go directly toward helping Iraq remains largely unspent, when it could have been used to prevent loss of goodwill among Iraqis. Most of the projects it now funds are being worked on by foreign laborers, meaning that all of this money hasn't helped jump-start the economy or give struggling Iraqis decent jobs.

Below are several excerpts that pretty much destroyed my ability to think optimistically about the reconstruction.

"The Iraqi army is one-third the size U.S. officials promised it would be by now. Seventy percent of police officers have not received training... About 15,000 Iraqis have been hired to work on projects funded by $18.6 billion in U.S. aid, despite promises to use the money to employ at least 250,000 Iraqis by this month... Electricity generation remains stuck at around 4,000 megawatts, resulting in less than nine hours of power a day to most Baghdad homes, despite pledges from U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer to increase production to 6,000 megawatts by June 1...

Iraq's emerging political system is also at odds with original U.S. goals. American officials scuttled plans to remain as the occupying power until Iraqis wrote a permanent constitution and held democratic elections. Instead, Bremer will leave the Iraqis with a temporary constitution, something he repeatedly promised not to do, and an interim government with a president who was not the Bush administration's preferred choice."

It's hard to argue with the numbers, and it's hard to view broken promises through rose-tinted glasses.

~Dagger~

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='DeathBug']The war was pre-emptive; there was a great debate involving the concept of "Pre-emption" prior to the war. We have records from Saddam's regime linking them financially to al queda, and evidence given to us by Russian President Vladimir Putin (who did not send support to the war) indicating the Saddam's government was planning an attack on US soil.[/quote]
A good enough reason for me was that Iraq was constantly threatening Israel, and the sooner the U.S. stepped in to take down Hussein the better. It should have happened 13 years ago. 9/11 really wasn't needed to push anyone over the edge.

[QUOTE]The government has to be involved because the government decides legality, and we've all decided that marriges should fall under government jurisdiction.

(They shouldn't; it should be left to churches.)[/QUOTE]
Historically, marriage has existed as a [b]social[/b] institution. Churches may have their own versions of it, but it exists without them as well. Many people have completely secular weddings; it makes no sense to have any church dictate how they should go about them.

[QUOTE]We pay less than just about every single country in the workld for gasoline, yet we're still complaining. In Europe, their gas has been more expensive than our current levels for years, and they're sick of hearing us complain.

Besides, relative to inflation, or current gas prices are nothing compared to the oil-embargo of the seventies. "All time high" my arse.[/QUOTE]
I don't like the policy of purchasing that much oil from Arab nations to begin with. The U.S. has its own resources that we can tap into, as long as environmentalists shut up.

[QUOTE]People said the same thing about the USSR. "Why challenge a totalitarian communist regime? They're always going to be there!"

But, guess what? They weren't. Part of the reason was that people don't like to live under totalitarian communist regimes, and will break from them if the opportunity is presented. Another part is that the system itself was horribly flawed, crippling the Soviet Union from within. the final piece of the puzzle was a president who said, "Hey, why don't we try to win the Cold War, instead of accepting co-existance with an empire that would destroy us?"[/QUOTE]
Heh. People will continue to live under [i]whatever[/i] regime as long as they think they're well off doing so. That's where propaganda and iron curtains come in. And they did their job for a while.

[Juu]

[quote name='DeathBug']The war was pre-emptive; there was a great debate involving the concept of "Pre-emption" prior to the war. We have records from Saddam's regime linking them financially to al queda, and evidence given to us by Russian President Vladimir Putin (who did not send support to the war) indicating the Saddam's government was planning an attack on US soil.[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]But do you think their attempt would've killed as many Americans as we have killed them? [/SIZE][/color]

[quote]How about my father being in Afghanistan, Jordan, and possible deployment status to Iraq? I assure you, he and the people he works with know exactly what they're working towards.[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Like ChibiHorsewoman, I guess we've read completely different surveys and talked to different soldiers.

Best wishes to your father, though.[/SIZE][/color]

[quote]The government has to be involved because the government decides legality, and we've all decided that marriges should fall under government jurisdiction.

(They shouldn't; it should be left to churches.)[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]...and then have this huge religious debate instead? All I'm trying to say is that gay couples should have just as much of a right to be bound by marriage and have a ceremony just like everyone else. And plus, Dick Cheney's daughter is lesbian.[/SIZE][/color]

[quote]I've said it before and I'll say it again: schools were deteriorating long before President Bush came into the office. Presoident Clinton was in office for almost a decade, and he didn't fix anything. To blame President Bush alone for the school situation is foolish and misleading.[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]I'm not blaming it all on Bush, it's just that since his four years in office, it's been more of a landslide than deteriorating slowly. [/SIZE][/color]

[quote]We pay less than just about every single country in the workld for gasoline, yet we're still complaining. In Europe, their gas has been more expensive than our current levels for years, and they're sick of hearing us complain.

Besides, relative to inflation, or current gas prices are nothing compared to the oil-embargo of the seventies. "All time high" my arse.[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Was I comparing to the other countries? Gas prices have been going up MUCH faster than I remember it to be before he was put in office. And in the seventies, not every single household owned a car, or drove one as often as they do now. And this might be a bit off topic, but at least the other countries signed the Kyoto Protocol.[/SIZE][/color]

[quote]People said the same thing about the USSR. "Why challenge a totalitarian communist regime? They're always going to be there!"

But, guess what? They weren't. Part of the reason was that people don't like to live under totalitarian communist regimes, and will break from them if the opportunity is presented. Another part is that the system itself was horribly flawed, crippling the Soviet Union from within. the final piece of the puzzle was a president who said, "Hey, why don't we try to win the Cold War, instead of accepting co-existance with an empire that would destroy us?"[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]But the thing is, could Al Queda alone destroy the US? Saddam Hussein was/is a terrible person, and I'm glad he's out of power. However, from recent polls I've seen (maybe you've been seeing different results here as well) more Iraqis say that they felt that they were better off beforet the war. Especially since we're pulling out before doing what we promised and setting them up with a stable democracy.

But as for 9/11, the Bush Administration already knew about the planned attack and yet did nothing. Read [URL=http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.20A.us.knew.htm]here[/URL] for more info.[/SIZE][/color]

[quote]People don't like to live under the fear of terrorism. The system of government terrorists inflict upon those around them is horribly flawed. And there's a president whom, for all his faults, doesn't think we should just accept terrorism, but that we should eliminate it. [/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Terrorism itself is a concept that will always be around, whether with the support of a nation or not.[/SIZE][/color]

[quote]Examples?[/quote]

[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Someone could write a book about this. As for a few examples, the Bush Administration pledged $15 billion to help the world fight AIDS. He also promised to 'fully fund' a Low Income Home programme and instead, cut it by $300 million. [/SIZE][/color]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Juuthena']But do you think their attempt would've killed as many Americans as we have killed them? [/quote]

If Saddam had used biological or nuclear weapons, which was a strong possibility, then yes. Easily.

If you were president, and, knowing of what happened on 9/11, you recieved credible information from multiple sources (including other foregin leaders) that a second attack on America was planned, would you act on that information?

[QUOTE]Like ChibiHorsewoman, I guess we've read completely different surveys and talked to different soldiers. [/QUOTE]

I guess the soldiers I talk to know what's going on a bit more. The soldiers I talk to are usually at MacDill Air force Base in Floridia, for reference.

[QUOTE]Best wishes to your father, though. [/QUOTE]

Thank you. He probably won't be called up in the situation remains as it currently is, but if there is a sudden upset, who knows?

[QUOTE]...and then have this huge religious debate instead? [/QUOTE]

It should be a religious debate in the first place, in my opinion.

[QUOTE]All I'm trying to say is that gay couples should have just as much of a right to be bound by marriage and have a ceremony just like everyone else. And plus, Dick Cheney's daughter is lesbian.[/QUOTE]

That's not the point at all; you asked why the government was getting involved, and the answer is, "because we've made marrige a legal issue". My opinion about marrige is that it should be left up to the churches, and the government shouldn't be involved at all.

[QUOTE]I'm not blaming it all on Bush, it's just that since his four years in office, it's been more of a landslide than deteriorating slowly. [/QUOTE]
How so?

[QUOTE]Was I comparing to the other countries? Gas prices have been going up MUCH faster than I remember it to be before he was put in office.[/QUOTE]

The steady increase in SUV and other fuel-guzzling vehicles might be attributed to that, combined with the political situation. Also, no one was paying nearly as much attention to gas prices until President Bush went into office.

[QUOTE] And in the seventies, not every single household owned a car, or drove one as often as they do now. [/QUOTE]

You just answere your owmn question: more people drivcing bigger vehicles more often. The added war simply sharpened the focus on the problem.

[QUOTE]And this might be a bit off topic, but at least the other countries signed the Kyoto Protocol.[/QUOTE]

Well, it is off-topic, because that was during President Clinton's administration. But since you brought it up, the reason we didn't sign it was because President Clinton knew enough to know that the treaty was completely unfeasable. The countries that did sign it have alreeady broken it several times over, simply because there was no way to meet the restriction limits.

[QUOTE]But the thing is, could Al Queda alone destroy the US?[/QUOTE]

That's a good question: no, they couldn't. However, they can kill people. Considering the types of weaponry currently availible, they could kill a great deal of people.

[QUOTE] Saddam Hussein was/is a terrible person, and I'm glad he's out of power. However, from recent polls I've seen (maybe you've been seeing different results here as well) more Iraqis say that they felt that they were better off beforet the war.[/QUOTE]

I would be very interested in seeing the poll data; the New York Times, [sarcasm]bastion of unbiased media[/sarcasm] ran a front-page human interest story about how the war had horribly inconvienienced the lives of a group of teenage girls.

The thing that was downplayed, however, was that these girls belonged to families that worke directly under Saddam. I'd like to know who took the poll, and who those interviewed were.

[QUOTE] Especially since we're pulling out before doing what we promised and setting them up with a stable democracy. [/QUOTE]

First, we're not "pulling out" in a single swoop; that's not what the June 30th deadline is. On the 30th, we're turning decision and policy-making matters over to the Iraqi government. We will still have troops there for a long time, until they are stable enough on their own or ask us to leave.

Second, while we have not met the initial goals we set yet, we have raised power output to averages higher than peak times under Saddam, distributed such amineties as air conditioners, refrigerators, and telephones, vaccinated thousands of children, watched the formation of hundreds of private businesses and several political partries, and trained the largest coalition force currently in the country.

[QUOTE]But as for 9/11, the Bush Administration already knew about the planned attack and yet did nothing. Read [URL=http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.20A.us.knew.htm]here[/URL] for more info.[/QUOTE]

This is old new; yes, the Bush administration (And Clinton administration) heard warnings thst terrorists were looking to use jets as weapons. Okay, you have that information; now what? What do you do?

You can't increase security at the airports; people wouldn't stand for such an inconvienience in a pre-9/11 America. You don't know what they're planning to hit, or where they'll be, and you sure as heck can't pay any special attention to people of Middle-Eastern origin; we had a huge controversy about that after 9/11.

If your implcation is that Bush should have done something, then you should have no problem with the war in Iqaq, because now he had information, he knew that Saddam violated UN charters, and he did something.

[QUOTE]Terrorism itself is a concept that will always be around, whether with the support of a nation or not.[/QUOTE]

But if you know a bnation that supports terror, shouldn't you dso something about it?

[QUOTE]Someone could write a book about this. As for a few examples, the Bush Administration pledged $15 billion to help the world fight AIDS. He also promised to 'fully fund' a Low Income Home programme and instead, cut it by $300 million. [/QUOTE]
Did he make those promises before or after 9/11?

[Dagger]

[quote name='DeathBug']Did he make those promises before or after 9/11?[/quote]

Even supposing he did (in which case not keeping them would be excusable), many of the administration's reconstruction-related promises and goals have been broken or not met. You can refer to my earlier post for some specific examples of this.

~Dagger~

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=Juuthena]
[SIZE=1][color=deeppink]Someone could write a book about this. As for a few examples, the Bush Administration pledged $15 billion to help the world fight AIDS. He also promised to 'fully fund' a Low Income Home programme and instead, cut it by $300 million. [/SIZE][/color][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Bush didn't cut the Low Income Home Program, both congress and the senate opted to cut $300 million from the program, which shouldn't have been a program on the national scale anyhow. A low income home program should be funded on the state level, not on the national level, and they are very easy to enforce. Maryland has a great system where builders have to offer a set number of houses that cost below "x" dollars.

Anyhow, the war in Iraq (yeah, there is still awar over there) is pretty screwed up. The point is, however, that the US needs to finish where it started and remember to clean up our mess before we leave. I still think that the war in Iraq needed to be fought, and I never based that thought on WMD's or homeland protection. We should have usurped Saddam back in '92 (even Clinton wanted to but halted due to UN protests) but we didn't.

Right now I have equal distaste for both presidential candidates. Bush has allowed his staff to fight a shoddy campaign mainly because he was afraid he would piss off too many people if he was truly gun-ho. I would love to support Kerry, but I have no idea what he stands for, and I have looked.

The only thing I know for certian is that when Bush says he is going to do something he takes steps to acoomplish said goal (which is a trait that really hasn't been seen in several past presidencies). Because he does that I know exactly where I stand in relation to his issues.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='DeathBug']I guess the soldiers I talk to know what's going on a bit more. The soldiers I talk to are usually at MacDill Air force Base in Floridia, for reference. [/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Yes, and I get mine from Ft.Hood Army Base in Texas home of the Fourth Infantry Division and First Calvary Division. The largest military base in the free world and the Army Base with the second largest ammount of soldier casualties in this war. 4th ID was one of the first installations sent to Iraq in March '03 and 1st Cav began the replacement rotation of 4th ID back in February.

Plus I spoke with a few soldiers (marine reservists) here in New York, and one of my husband's friends stationed with 4th ID in Ft. Carson CO.

HOwever, when I mentioned my sources you said they weren't accurate based by the fact that I asked people I knew. Silly me, eh?[/color]


[quote name='DeathBug']Incteresting; Mister Lincoln Chibihorsewoman is for the war?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I honestly have no idea how to respond to this remark except that Lincoln only joined the army to have a career that paid better than being a dish washer with a slight chance of getting a GED (his recuiter helped him get the paper work for teh GED test filed quicker)

The only good thing about him being in Iraq except seeing kids who were growing up worse than him is the fact that combat and separation pay are more than his base pay and his team cheif is about to recomend him to teh board to become a SGT.[/color]

[quote name='DeathBug']Stupid Catholic bishop expecting Catholics to adhere to Catholic beliefs.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]By that wording I'm guessing that you think that since the Pope has decided that abortions are wrong all Catholics should go along with the belief reguardless of what they may believe on their own. Are you saying that Catholics have no right to their personal beliefs? Or that since the Pope may also believe that all homosexuals are evil, that all Catholics should believe that, even those who are homosexual and Catholic? I have to say I'm a bit ashamed of you for that.[/color]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Well, actually, I put it in because I appreciated the gesture and wanted to thank you.

However, if I'm going to be an [url=www.evilconservatives.com]Evil Conservative[/url], the proper answer would be, "Yes, I did, because I am great."[/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]I was going for sarcasm which is badly portrayed over the internet as anyone can tell you. But I'm glad you Appreciated the gesture.

I can also offer another one- [url]http://conservativepunk.com[/url]. You said once how hard it is being a conservative punk, well, you're not the only one. :D [/color]



[quote name='DeathBug']Ralph Nadar, the Devil No One Seems to Care About?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Actually, I was almost hoping for George H.W. Bush. The 80 year - old father of the Devil who jumps out of Air planes :laugh: [/color]

[quote name='Juuthena][color=deeppink][size=1]Imagine if your brother or sister was out there and they were out risking their lives and possibly taking other lives for a war without a reason. I mean, think about it. 'The War on Iraq' = 'The War on Terrorism'? It's just heartbreaking to have people die fighting thinking 'what for?'.[/size'][/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Unfortunately I don't get to immgaine things like that. I'm the one my mom referes to during dinner to potest Bush and describe how he's messed up our family life and hurt members of our family.

My husband is serving over in Iraq north of Baghdad in the Red Zone (I think they got bored one day and color coded the areas). I asked him why he thought we were fighting and he replied-Because Hussein threatened Bush's daddy and as a southern man he can't let that go.. YEs, I'm sure that's the real reason.

The only thing Lincoln's concerned about is the fact that Combat pay is more than his regular pay as an E4 or Specialist-even if the income os still below poverty level[/color]


[quote name='Juuthena][color=deeppink][size=1](Apologies if this post was rediculous and unintelligent.) [/color'][/size][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I've seen things lacking in a hell of a lot less intelligence than that. Trust me. It wasn't scary at all.

Since we're continuously bringing up this War In Iraq deal and not considering the soldiers all that much, I'd like to bring this up:

At the moment all soldiers stationed in combat areas receive an extra $400 a month for hazardous duty pay. However, at the end of December because of escallating war costs congress may lower it back to the standard $250 a month. Isn't that just a great way to show the troops how much their lives are worth?

What does everyone think of that idea?[/color]