If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?

October 10, 2004

[QUOTE=Takuya]Kerry voted to give Bush the authority, but he didn't agree with how Bush used it, as he made clear in the first debate. Clear to those with brains (which is synonemous(sp?) with 'people who aren't going to vote for Bush'), at least.
... Bush himself is an idiot, and yes, I mean an actual, literal idiot. I was quoted in the [i]Arizona Daily Star[/i] calling him an idiot, and he is....
Yes, I have a strong oppinion. How strong? Well, let me put it this way: everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Oppinions are never wrong (unless it's an oppinion that contradicts fact), pretty much by definition. ...[/QUOTE]
How ironic can a reply get, one might ask?
I'm wondering, why blame Bush for the war happening if you give him the authority to carry it out? The problem IS indeed with how it was carried out, if anything. The point is however, that at this point both candidates are dedicated to this war. But Bush doesn't plan on dedicating as many troops to it as Kerry. And because at this point I think the war is pointless, sending more troops out there is similar to trying to quit smoking by smoking all the cigarettes in the world as fast as you can so you run out of them quicker. Well, it's not the same thing, but it's about as poor of a decision. Our troops don't need backup. They need out. Bush doesn't seem to want them out any more than Kerry, but at least he's not promising to do the opposite.

Baron Samedi · October 10, 2004

[size=1]Completely removing all your forces from Iraq at this stage in the game would be the worst thing you could do. You think that Iraq'll just sort itself out? I don't. Progress is being made. Slowly. But you need time and patience. And an army.[/size]

October 11, 2004

You know I normally don't like these long debates but this just gets easiier and easier for me. If there was a person who's a juggernaut at winning these types of debates, well, it's hard for anyone to argue that it's not me. So far, I've been making Bush look like the IDIOT he really is. So I'll just address a few points.

Some say that they don't understand why people criticize Bush for the war, well, I'll give you a few simple reasons why he's criticized for it:

1. He DID NOT have to send the troops to Iraq nor did he have to send ANY troops over to any place.

2. HE'S THE DAMN COMMANDER IN CHIEF! If you can't understand that then you got some serious mental problems and I don't mean the minor types. If anything goes wrong wtih a nation it is ALWAYS the leader's fault. A leader TAKES THE BLAME FOR THINGS LIKE THAT! It's the way things have been since the first dang American president so I don't see why people get so shocked when Bush gets blamed for everything. No matter what the problem is with America, IT'S HIS FAULT. He can DO something about it, he can CHANGE things and he can quit putting off the blame on everyone else but himself. But as he has proven in both debates with Kerry, he does nothing but say "That wasn't put in place because of my administration." I'll the illustration of the milk again. If you come home and see spilled milk on the floor aren't you going to clean it up? You aren't going to go around the house, trying to get everyone else to clean it up, no, YOU CLEAN IT UP! You're aren't going to let the damn milk sit there for [B]4 years straight[/B] are you? That's what Bush is doing, he's letting the milk get sour on the floor and he's not getting a mop to clean it up.

3. We are indeed the most hated country in the world and it's all Bush's fault. 9/11 didn't make us the most hated, our international ties didn't make us the most hated, hell, even the Clinton and Monica scandal didn't make us the most hated. What made most countries in the world despise us so? Well, it's Bush. His whole make-up is what pisses people off. You have to admit that all these other countries can't be wrong. Now, when you got one or two countries criticizing you, well, that's not bad but when you got half the world saying they hate you and even your allies hating, well, it's tough to argue that something isn't wrong with that picture.

4. Some people seem to think that Kerry is more war-proned than Bush. No, that is very much incorrect. The reason why Kerry wants to send more troops over to Iraq is so that he can get this stupid war over with and get our people out of there faster. With the current head count of American troops we have in Iraq now isn't exactly enough to end this fast, quick and in a hurry. With the increasing amount of deaths in Iraq, more troops are needed to finish off the remaining resistance. At least Kerry has a plan...as we've seen with Bush, he's just like his daddy, he doesn't have a damn clue what the hell he's doing as president. I mean, I've heard Republicans say that, most of my family are Republican. My brother is a Navy Seal and even he doesn't like Bush. Sorry, but once again, all those people can't be wrong...

5. I got reasons to dislike Bush for this war. He's telling me that I should be against terrorism and stuff, well, I'm more against America. Al Queda didn't enslave my people for almost 300 plus years, Al Queda didn't sick dogs and spray water hoses on my people for trying to vote, Al Queda didn't hang my people for trying to read a book, Al Queda didn't shoot at my people for trying to go to the same schools as whites did, no, American citizens did that. I know this stuff is pretty old but alot of it is still going on today. In Clariton county and Marlboro county, once again, in South Carolina, there's a court case currently taking place that's bigger than Brown v.s. Board of Education and it's about, once again, equal rights for minorities in schools. Now, isn't it funny how things like that can pass along? I'm led to believe that racial inequality only took place back in the days of Dixie, the Maurice Bessingers and Jim Crow years, well, from what anyone with a brain would see, it's not over. Not if you have to go to court if you want the same amount of funding that the white schools seem to get in such a high abundance. Now, this is what Bush calls fair. He lets the neighborhoods pay taxes to fund the schools. Know how biased that is? Suppose your school is in a low income or "ghetto" neighborhood? Just how much funding can a school get then?! NOTHING! It's like asking a homeless person to fund the war with Iraq! If this is Bush's view of fair and equal for all, then that's just another reason why I don't like him.

6. People call Saddam a terroist, bad person and a dictator, more or less and among the other things that he's called. Well, what is Bush? I mean, he comes from Texas and when you look at the amount of death penalty sentences that Texas gives out a year, well, Bush doesn't have a right to talk about how others are killed in other countries. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that you'd get the death penalty if you litter over there; lol. I know some people would probably say something like tihs, "Well, those are criminals." Know what I'd respond to those people with? [U][B]DEATH IS DEATH! NO MATTER HOW BIG, NO MATTER HOW SMALL! YOU KILLL SOMEONE AND YOU'RE JUST AS BAD AS HITLER![/B][/U] I don't care what you did wrong, I don't believe it's worth killing someone over. That's wrong no matter how anyone would see it. Killing for any reason is wrong, from my Christian point of view and my moral and universal point of view. Just think, if you kill everyone who has killed someone then what have you accomplished? You've just managed to killl a whole bunch of people, plus the people that those people have killled and then all you'd have is a bunch of dead people on your hands.

7. Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed.

8. Bush justifies what our allies do. Correction, what the allies who support us do. Let me give you a prime example. Israel attacked a guy in a wheel chair. Now, when you wake up in the morning, the last thing you want to open your window to see is an Apache helicopter with missiles ready to be launched at you. The guy was in a freaking wheelchair and was [U]PARALYZED from the WAIST DOWN![/U] They launched two Amran missiles at him and blowed him to smitherines! Bush doesn't do a SINGLE thing to stop actions like that but he has room to criticize Saddam and Osama. If blasting a guy in a wheelchair isn't a terrorist attack then what the hell is?! As a matter of fact, Bush even JUSTIFIED that attack. Yeah, who wouldn't vote for this guy? :laugh:

9. The Iraquis don't want us in their country. Well, common sense tells you that if there's STILL RESISTANCE there. I mean, take it from my brother who's currently serving in the military. He personally said that when he talked to the Iraqis that they didn't want us in their country and they wished that we would leave. If someone came to your country and tortured your people as those American soldiers did, well, would you want them in your country? American troops have a history with doing that. It's one of the reasons why Japan hates us so much. We have troops still stationed in Japan but the Japanese have openly expressed and laid down a record that they don't want us in their country. Not after certain American troops were caught raping little Japanese girls and using them for sex slaves and of such. That's a known fact, I don't even have to offer proof...

10. People love to say that Kerry is a flip flopper, well, I'll officially put that to rest by calling Bush the very same thing he calls Kerry. Now, he says he's pro-life with the abortion issue YET he won't stop to launce bunker busters at a crowd of innocent people. And yes, innocent people have been killed in this war, the death toll of innocent bystanders, according to the military and my brother who's IN IRAQ NOW would be over 20 thousand people. 20 THOUSAND PEOPLE?! I wish someone WOULD try to justify that many people being killed because of a stupid war that they weren't even fighting! Anyways, Bush says Kerry is too much into science. Riiight....is this the same president who tried to spend 4 billion dollars on a space shuttle and Congress rejected that bill? Bush says Kerry wants to bill the American people too much with taxes. With the war deficient WELL over 100 billion dollars, hmm...I wonder who Bush thinks is going to pay off those taxes. Maybe his rich buddies who he's giving tax relief to will or maybe the poor guy you see walking down the street will pay off the debt. Either way, he can't say Kerry is charging Americans too much and turn around and put America in over 100 billion dollars worth of debt. He says that a lot of American people don't like Kerry. Dude, HALF THE WORLD DOESN'T LIKE YOU! How the hell can you criticize someone George? The only people who really likes you are the ones who either don't know what they're talking about or truthfully believe in what you're doing. Why do they believe? You got me on that one...Bush says that Kerry isn't Anti-war and his plan will take longer to go into success. Well, first off, AT LEAST KERRY HAS A PLAN! Bush's cabinet and Bush himself has proven time and time again that they are unorganized with their methods.Second of all, George, when it concerns you and war, you shouldn't even mumble when someone talks about war because between you and your daddy, I'm surprised that the 3rd world war hasn't already taken place.

Now, you can try to argue these points if you want to but most people have simply decided not to reply to my comments. Most of them are either known facts or hard to dispute when people live these Bush lies everyday.

Signed,

A dude that's unbeatable in a debate...

October 11, 2004

[QUOTE=Garelock]Now, you can try to argue these points if you want to but most people have simply decided not to reply to my comments. Most of them are either known facts or hard to dispute when people live these Bush lies everyday.

Signed,

A dude that's unbeatable in a debate...[/QUOTE]

The reason people don't reply to your comments is because it's obvious that even if every single one of your points is smashed to bits you'll never admit it. It's easy enough to gather that from the way you present yourself. Perhaps rather than spewing nothing but "I hate America more," "Bush is to blame for all of America's problems," and other such pathetic rhetoric, you should learn a thing or two about how the world works. Naivete, religious brainwashing, and ignorance can get you only so far.

October 11, 2004

[QUOTE]The reason people don't reply to your comments is because it's obvious that even if every single one of your points is smashed to bits you'll never admit it. It's easy enough to gather that from the way you present yourself. Perhaps rather than spewing nothing but "I hate America more," "Bush is to blame for all of America's problems," and other such pathetic rhetoric, you should learn a thing or two about how the world works. Naivete, religious brainwashing, and ignorance can get you only so far.[/QUOTE]

And like your points made much sense. Really, if my points are SO stupid and so lesser in content then why is it that people keep mentioning these problems every single day of the week? I talked about education, I talked about race, I talked about terrorism, I talked about things that happen in America. I don't know what planet you live on, maybe the planet of the politically ignorant but I guess when you support a president who builds prison buses yet kids have to walk to school, well, I guess your opinion would be a little...silly.

Religious brainwashing? What do you call Bush trying to run the country BASED on religion? Buddy boy, you better learn a thing or two about religion, it affects the world much more than what your mind is thinking currently. I feel sorry for you if you think that at least 3 or 4 of my points weren't correct. I'm sorry, even a Bush supporter read my post, a person who hasn't even been to Otakuboards.com agreed with me with just about every point. So maybe it's you and your anti-America righteous seeking which is the problem.

I present them all in a mixed up manner because...lets be honest, America is mixed up. America doesn't know where the hell to go from here with a president like this...

Signed,

A black guy laughing at the guy who thinks America is so great of a country yet we got this land by kicking the Native Americans to the side...

Boba Fett · October 11, 2004

[quote name='Garelock']7. Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed.[/quote]

[color=green]When all hell broke loose on 9/11, the president was flown around the country because he might be a potential target. Nobody knew how many planes had been hijacked, or if there were more attacks to coming in other forms. Do you realize how much more panic our nation would have been in if during the chaos it was reported that the president had been killed?

The president can advise, contact and direct US forces from Air Force One very effectively. In this case, what more could he have done if he were anywhere else?[/color]

Zeta · October 11, 2004

[QUOTE]7. Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed.[/QUOTE]

That is the biggest bucket of horse crap I have ever read, pardon my terminology. What Boba has said is absolutely correct. Look at what happened when Kennedy was killed. They whizzed Johnson away in case there ws a much larger conspiracy. They didn't know. For all they knew it was the start of World War III.What would have happened if Bush was killed next? Would throw the country into disarray until Cheney took over. Though of course then you people probably wouldn't mind going to war would you? With your President killed and all. Please, please actually think through what you say, don't be like Micheal Moore. ;)

I watched the second debate on the television early in the morning, sadly I wasn't able to catch the first. And I must say, Bush did a very good job. Kerry kept on saying things that "Bush didn't do this, Bush didn't do that," bull crap. Look at what happened at the start of his presidency. The terrorist attacks of 9/11. Everything had to be based around that one event in his presidency. Had nothing been done, all the things that Kerry attacked, probably wouldn't matter, since we could quite possibly not even been able to do anything anymore. He attacked Bush for saying at the start of his PResidency for saying he will allow Canadian drugs into the country. He then goes to say that Bush has not allowed this. Not so. Not true in the slightest. Bush is checking to make sure they are SAFE. Safe for use for the American people. If they aren't safe, they aren't allowed. Would you want unsafe drugs being sold to the public, which do more harm than good? Palease, have a little common sense Kerry, think it through.

Out first step in this, was the take out Osama. The right thing to do. Get rid of the higher ups in the terrorist network, and they have no leadership. Without leadership, they quite frankly don't know what to do. This is a war that had to be done. Had this not occured, attacks would still be continuing. But now, attacks are being thawrted, stopped because of the actions of our men and women of the armed forces. I just caught a news broadcast during my Business Law class that they found a disk with schools from Georgia and other states on it. I myself live in Georgia and got concerned. But then I looked at it this way. Our men and women found this, and gave the states a heads up. Had we not gone in there, we would have no idea about this, and wouldn't be able to do this. What would happen next? Instead of a plane flying into a building, there could quite possibly have been a bombing of a school. It is things like this that cause us to do what we do. Would you rather we have not gone in there and found this out? Would you views have changed if that did happen?

Now onto Iraq. Like it or not, something had to be done sooner or later. Had we not done anything now, it would only give Saddam time to build more weapons, and possibly more WMD, even if he didn't have them now, he could have made them. Had this not occured, he could have created them and used them. Then we surely wouldn't be complaining about going in there. Rather go in now and prevent something from happening, than waiting for something to happen. It is the same thing with a virus. We get a vaccine beforehand so we don't get it at all. Lets say the US does pull out. The Iraqi's are having their own troubles, and like it or not, they will need help. Without a stable government and a way to protect itself, it will become a haven for terrorists. They will flock there since it will be in dissaray. Event hough I sound like I am blessing America up and down, we are quite possibly the only ones who can help them on their way. They had just spend years under a dicatorship, a brutal one, and they need guidance, with us being the prime example for democracy, it is us who should help them on their path. Had the Greeks had this problem back when they were the largest power, they themselves would take on the responsibilty, them being the best example for a dictatorship at the time. Where we ourselves drew lots of influence.

It isn't Bush's fault. The failures of past presidencies landed on him. It happens all the time. If you want to blame someone, blame Bush Sr., or Clinton. Or hell, go all the way back to Reagan if you want. The problems that face this nation in the present are not because of the President we have now, but the failures of past Presidents. The Civil War is a prime example. Has Presient Buchanen acted upon South Carolina seceding from the Union, the Civil War could have been averted entirely. But no he didn't. But naturally the problem didn't land on his shoulders, it landed on Lincoln's.

Like it or not, the people in the armed forces signed up of their own free will. They [i]knew[/i] they could be called upon to serve. They know the dangers they would face when it came to that. It isn't like they were forced into the armed forces. They volunteered. You join an army, it is common knowledge that you will be fighting. You don't join it just for the hell of it. You go into it, knowing that at some point in time, you will be called upon to serve.

Bush all the way. Kerry and Edwards shouldn't not be able to run this country, least not in these elections. They are not fit for it and would only cause more harm in my mind.

ChibiHorsewoman · October 11, 2004

[color=darkviolet]Back during 9/11/01 I think Bush did a decent job of keeping the country together. He didn't rush out of a classroom and freak out a bunch of small children, he tried to not get everyone jumping to conclusions and he made some fairly decent speeches. Coming from me, this is a compliment

But after 9/11 all hell broke loose and the proverbial **** hit the fan. We invaded Afghanistan with a good reason and got rid of the Taliban making it safe for women to go to school and show their faces, ankles and hands without getting beaten (I have a MArch 2001 Marie Claire with an article about the woman in afghanistan post our going over there.) We did a good thing over there. We still are doing a good thing over there.

However Bush has never acknowledged Afghanistan's statehood which means that any war crimes commited by any soldiers cannot be tried by the GEneva Conventions. Bad move on Bush's part.

Then the war on Terror went on to include invading Iraq. Ok, so Saddam was a really nasty guy to his own people and back in 1991 he had nukes and invaded Kuwait. His sons were even worse than he was, Saddam himself even admitted that on a few occasions. But, while he was in power there were no terrorist cells in Iraq and Islamic extremism was punishable by death.

But Saddam had threatened Bush Sr back El knows when so Bush Jr., disreguarding his father's speech in '97 about how invading Iraq again would not be in America's best interest, goes and invades Iraq in March '03. Then in May he declares it a ceasefire and Mission accomplished. That's a load of BS if I've ever heard one. My husband said that Bush should have ripped out his tongue and wiped his butt with it the year after the ceasefire was declared.

Iraq hasn't had WMDs since 1991, it has now become a safe haven for inssurgents (just ask the infantry units of the first cav division who are supported by 13th sig bn or 13th sig bn who supports the units going to Haifa st.) Crime is up, women can't go out on the street without being attacked and people are getting kidnapped on a regular basis. I don't know about you guys, but that doesn't sound like Mission Accomplished to me.

Also this whole terrorist threat level thing is grating on my nerves. In my mind that just gets the country all freaked out over nothing then after a while we stop expecting something to happen and that's when it could happen. I'm all for being cautious, but this is a bit overboard in my opinion. They keep doing this and the government is going to be like the boy who cried wolf. We're going to be eatten up by fear.

As for the debates. I didn't catch the first presidential one outright because I was feeding my daughter and all three TVs were being used. I did catch a few of the high lights though and wasn't all that thrilled with Bush's actions. He kept looking bored and making faces during Kerry's replies. I found that rude.

During the Vice presidential debate I found myself disliking Cheney as he kept going back to how Edwards hadn't been to many senate meetings. Edwards finally got sick of it and said that a lengthy resume didn't necessarily make someone a good candidate. Also in his defense Edwards is a relatively young politician.

The second presidential debate I did watch (or listen to) Both parties went after eachother. Bush reiterated how Kerry will raise taxes. Kerry noted that Bush lowed Taxes for only the wealthy. Bush said that raising taxes on the wealthy would do something bad for small business owners . After a while all I could think of was if Bush ever tried to fly using his ears like Dumbo and if Kerry would get in trouble for buying store brand ketchup instead of Heinze ketchup. Politicians remind me of school children after a while. But I think of Kerry as the lesser of the two evils. I already know what Bush can do and another four years of that makes me want to borrow some of my daughter's diapers since I'm about to soil myself.

So to me Bush has had his 15 minutes of fame. Let's have someone else get a go at it.[/color]

October 11, 2004

*cracks knuckles* Bring it on baby! I loves me a good debate, mainly because I tend to win them all.

[QUOTE]That is the biggest bucket of horse crap I have ever read, pardon my terminology. What Boba has said is absolutely correct. Look at what happened when Kennedy was killed. They whizzed Johnson away in case there was a much larger conspiracy. They didn't know. For all they knew it was the start of World War III. What would have happened if Bush was killed next? Would throw the country into disarray until Cheney took over. Though of course then you people probably wouldn't mind going to war would you? With your President killed and all. Please, please actually think through what you say, don't be like Micheal Moore. [/QUOTE]

Riiight...well, lets look at John F. Kennedy. Lets look at one fact; people MISSED HIM. If Bush died, I don't think many would care and we all know the majority of America would actually applaud his death; most of America doesn't like Bush anyways. The polls seem to favor Kerry. I don't care who even the polls are, if a guy who is only a senator and isn't the president, gets criticized left and right somehow manages to even get CLOSE to winning the majority of popularity votes, well, he deserves some credit. That's besides the point though, Bush, well, I really hate to say this but it's true; him dieing wouldn't be surprising. He managed to piss off lots of countries whom of which could really kick our butts in a war. If he was assassinated tomorrow, I wouldn't be shocked whatsoever. How dare you compare George "The Madman" Bush Jr. to John F. Kennedy! JFK was one of the greatest American presidents of all time! The reason why America was in such a crisis because of his death is because George couldn't be HALF the president JFK was! Michael Moore? No, I respect the guy because he says what's on his mind instead of hiding crap; at least he's honest, unlike most people replying to this thread.

[QUOTE]I watched the second debate on the television early in the morning, sadly I wasn't able to catch the first. And I must say, Bush did a very good job. Kerry kept on saying things that "Bush didn't do this, Bush didn't do that," bull crap. Look at what happened at the start of his presidency. The terrorist attacks of 9/11. Everything had to be based around that one event in his presidency. Had nothing been done, all the things that Kerry attacked, probably wouldn't matter, since we could quite possibly not even been able to do anything anymore. He attacked Bush for saying at the start of his Presidency for saying he will allow Canadian drugs into the country. He then goes to say that Bush has not allowed this. Not so. Not true in the slightest. Bush is checking to make sure they are SAFE. Safe for use for the American people. If they aren't safe, they aren't allowed. Would you want unsafe drugs being sold to the public, which do more harm than good? Palease, have a little common sense Kerry, think it through. [/QUOTE]

Bush lost, flat out LOST. Polls and opinions of the majority generally don't lie. Kerry kicked Bush's butt in BOTH those debates. Face it, Bush lost fair and square. The fact that Kerry managed to outsmart Bush doesn't make him a better candidate, it's the morals I'm looking at. You ever wonder WHY Kerry keeps on saying that Bush could've done something about 9/11? Well, lets look at the average amount of aliens that come into this country yearly. Probably over 500 thousand yearly. Now, ever notice how you see Mexican people slowly taking over construction companies, restaurants and other such businesses? Soon, the Mexicans will be the majority and not the minority. I'm not being racist but I'm being careful. The terrorists that carried out the horrible deeds of 9/11 DID NOT SNEAK into America. WE LET THEM IN! That IS Bush's fault. It's his fault that he didn't do something about that. I mean, how hard is it to tell the US Immigrations services to shape up or ship out? He does the same thing to Saddam so why should they be any different? He wants to criticize Kerry? Well, lets criticize him letting Cubans into the country because he claims they're an "oppressed people." Well, when a party of 10 Haitians tried to cross over onto American soil you?d think Bush?s immigration policies would let them into the country since he lets Laura?s Mexican relatives into the country any day of the week. Nope, they got sent right back and yet, the Haitians are just as much of an oppressed people as the Cubans are. I wonder why they got sent back, maybe because their skin is a little darker than some others? I don?t know but that?s an issue no one ever seems to bring up. You say Bush is making sure that the drugs are being checked? HA HA HA! RIIIIGHT! And I suppose Canada knows how to make quality drugs? I mean, lets be honest, the place is like Amsterdam; nothing is done about people smoking ?weed? in broad daylight. Trust me, I just came from the place last month and people are as high as kites over there. I wouldn?t trust Canadian drugs if my very life depended on it?And I suppose Bush checks all the drugs does he? I wonder how illegal drugs manage to get into America everyday of the week. Maybe they somehow POOF through the border.

[QUOTE]Now onto Iraq. Like it or not, something had to be done sooner or later. Had we not done anything now, it would only give Saddam time to build more weapons, and possibly more WMD, even if he didn't have them now, he could have made them. Had this not occurred, he could have created them and used them. Then we surely wouldn't be complaining about going in there. Rather go in now and prevent something from happening, than waiting for something to happen. It is the same thing with a virus. We get a vaccine beforehand so we don't get it at all. Lets say the US does pull out. The Iraqi's are having their own troubles, and like it or not, they will need help. Without a stable government and a way to protect itself, it will become a haven for terrorists. They will flock there since it will be in disarray. Even though I sound like I am blessing America up and down, we are quite possibly the only ones who can help them on their way. They had just spend years under a dictatorship, a brutal one, and they need guidance, with us being the prime example for democracy, it is us who should help them on their path. Had the Greeks had this problem back when they were the largest power, they themselves would take on the responsibility, them being the best example for a dictatorship at the time. Where we ourselves drew lots of influence.[/QUOTE]

Riiight?you know, the more I read this, the more I laugh. Again, I want to bring across the point of Bush being the most hypocritical president in the United States? history. How the hell do you criticize Saddam for having weapons like that when America has more nukes than Russia?! Again, I?d trust Saddam with nukes before I?d trust America with nukes. Who has a bigger track record with blowing up whole cities with bombs? America or Iraq? We?ve bombed just about everyone I could think of with the exception of a few countries and that?s only because they?d beat us down if we tried to bomb them. We?ve fought and bombed just about every Asian country, we?ve bombed most of Europe and I mean the list just goes on and on and on and on and on. I shall ask you once more, who would you trust? America? A place that is known for injustice and treating people wrong? I wouldn?t trust America even if my last dollar depended on it.

A haven for terrorists?! WOW! Is that something NEW to you? Every other middle Eastern country is a haven for terrorists; that?s nothing new. No matter how America tries to intervene and make false reasons to why we invade countries, the fact of the matter is that our efforts are all for nothing; I?m very sorry to say. No matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be some big time terrorist group or leader causing trouble. Next time, what we SHOULD do is listen to our allies whom of which probably are located in the middle East and know how to handle such a problem. But no, what does Bush do? Against the wishes of the US Congress, our allies and the majority of the America pollsters who voted against the war, he goes and starts, not one, but TWO wars. And the more I think about it, the more I?m thinking this war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or preventing terrorism. As a Republican pollster said, ?Bush said as a governor that if he ran for the presidency, he?d stop at nothing to make sure Saddam would pay for trying to kill his daddy.? Really, after hearing something like that from a Bush supporter is enough to make anyone think that this is a personal vendetta and has nothing to do with morals; just revenge. You want to talk about brutal dictatorships? Lets talk about George Bush, Sr. The guy didn?t know what the hell he was doing half the time, started wars that nobody wanted to fight, killed a countless amount of innocent people like his idiot son and he even managed to bomb an Iraqi museum with artifacts that irreplaceable; and even after all that destruction he STILL didn?t get Saddam then. I mean, if you?re going to come through destroying everything, at least get the guy you were coming for?

[QUOTE]It isn't Bush's fault. The failures of past presidencies landed on him. It happens all the time. If you want to blame someone, blame Bush Sr., or Clinton. Or hell, go all the way back to Reagan if you want. The problems that face this nation in the present are not because of the President we have now, but the failures of past Presidents. The Civil War is a prime example. Has President Buchanan acted upon South Carolina seceding from the Union, the Civil War could have been averted entirely. But no he didn't. But naturally the problem didn't land on his shoulders, it landed on Lincoln's.[/QUOTE]

Now, I know you?re wrong on that account. I?m FROM South Carolina and I know the history buddy, don?t try to quote me on that. I even go to college in South Carolina so with all this living in this state, well, you?d have to imagine that I?d know the history. President Buchanan DID act upon South Carolina or at least he tried to. There was nothing he could do. Buchanan didn?t want a war, he wasn?t the type to start that nor did he personally have a taste for it. He was, in a sense, forced into the war. No problem fell on Lincoln because to good ol? Abe, it wasn?t a problem because it took a rather simple solution. Again, don?t you tell me about my state?s history because I know the history like the back of my hand.

[QUOTE]Like it or not, the people in the armed forces signed up of their own free will. They knew they could be called upon to serve. They know the dangers they would face when it came to that. It isn't like they were forced into the armed forces. They volunteered. You join an army, it is common knowledge that you will be fighting. You don't join it just for the hell of it. You go into it, knowing that at some point in time, you will be called upon to serve.[/QUOTE]

Riiight?that?s your justification for people dieing? They knew they were going to die? So when the police officer takes the oath they really want to die? No one wants to die and it?s not right that they should die. War is avoidable, war is NOT necessary, there ARE better solutions. But as some have wisely said, it?s just human nature to fight and squabble over things that are just stupid to fight over. We?re fighting a nation over weapons that we have and if not, we have BETTER VERSIONS of what they have and yet Bush thinks he has a right to judge Iraq. *sigh*

[QUOTE]Bush all the way. Kerry and Edwards shouldn't not be able to run this country, least not in these elections. They are not fit for it and would only cause more harm in my mind.[/QUOTE]

Look man, you can?t harm what?s already been harmed to begin with. Kerry and Edwards can?t harm America anymore than what Bush has already harmed America. Good luck if you are a voter though, you?d be one of the few who actually votes for Bush. Even as the president, more and more people are favoring Kerry. I?m at South Carolina State University and I took a poll featuring over 40 thousand people on my campus and the polls are obvious. If SCSU votes against Bush, he?d be close to losing already. Nearly the whole college campus doesn?t like him and I?m in South Carolina, a state that favors Republicans heavily.

I shall leave you with this point about what Bush said that really worries me and makes me laugh very hard.

[QUOTE]The guy is a flip flopper, look at his past.[/QUOTE]

Now, forget the flip flop part, lets just focus on the ?look at his past? part. Bush has a right to criticize someone?s past?! HA HA HA HA, HE HE HE HE, HO HO HO HO! OK! George?man?lets look at YOUR past. Hmm?how many alcohol anonymous sessions you?ve been to? How many crack pipes have you whipped out in your lifetime? How many ?Girls Gone Wild? videos have your slutty daughters been featured in? Just HOW many people have you let into the country whom are Laura?s relatives? Just how many times have you cocked Saddam?s pistol and got caught talking to yourself while trying to play ?cowboy?? Why is it that some of your own cabinet members have resigned? Why is it that the American people never liked your daddy and not, why is that most don?t even like you now? Why is it that when you were Governor of Texas, more people were executed and had their brains fried in the electric chair? Lets look at No Child Left Behind. Well, I guess the Bush daughters are just a prime example of, ?You?ll never get left behind if your daddy is rich enough.? And really, I think the Bush daughters are good for nothing. My and my buddy Jamari have a bet going. My money is on them posing for Hustler magazine and my buddy says they?ll end up drunks and get high positions in government like their daddy. It?s funny how Bush keeps talking about the troubled youth of America and yet he can?t seem to put a leash on his own daughters.

He wants to talk about past things. Hmm?well, for what I can see, Bush?s past isn?t much to talk about?actually it is, but I don?t think Bush wants anyone talking about.

Zeta · October 11, 2004

[QUOTE]Riiight...well, lets look at John F. Kennedy. Lets look at one fact; people MISSED HIM. If Bush died, I don't think many would care and we all know the majority of America would actually applaud his death; most of America doesn't like Bush anyways. The polls seem to favor Kerry. I don't care who even the polls are, if a guy who is only a senator and isn't the president, gets criticized left and right somehow manages to even get CLOSE to winning the majority of popularity votes, well, he deserves some credit. That's besides the point though, Bush, well, I really hate to say this but it's true; him dieing wouldn't be surprising. He managed to piss off lots of countries whom of which could really kick our butts in a war. If he was assassinated tomorrow, I wouldn't be shocked whatsoever. How dare you compare George "The Madman" Bush Jr. to John F. Kennedy! JFK was one of the greatest American presidents of all time! The reason why America was in such a crisis because of his death is because George couldn't be HALF the president JFK was! Michael Moore? No, I respect the guy because he says what's on his mind instead of hiding crap; at least he's honest, unlike most people replying to this thread.[/QUOTE]

PALEASE! You are speaking for the country now eh? Even if people won't miss him, he will be missed by quite a few, considering how large the country is. I am not comparing them, please read again. I am saying we did the same thing with Bush, that we did with Johnson. Rather than have the country in turmoil, we took measures to protect him. I am in no way comparing them, I am comparing Bush and Johnson. Please learn to read. Micheal Moore eh. He critisizes the fact that Bush allowed planes to take Osams relatives out of the country? Could he possibly have done that because the American people were angry, and could possibly have murdered them? What would Osama have done then, knowing his relatives were murdered? I can tell you one thing, he wouldn't lounge back and put his feet up. Bush let them go, so as to deter anymore attacks at the time. Again, I repeat, had they been killed, Osama would have acted again.

[QUOTE]Bush lost, flat out LOST. Polls and opinions of the majority generally don't lie. Kerry kicked Bush's butt in BOTH those debates. Face it, Bush lost fair and square. The fact that Kerry managed to outsmart Bush doesn't make him a better candidate, it's the morals I'm looking at. You ever wonder WHY Kerry keeps on saying that Bush could've done something about 9/11? Well, lets look at the average amount of aliens that come into this country yearly. Probably over 500 thousand yearly. Now, ever notice how you see Mexican people slowly taking over construction companies, restaurants and other such businesses? Soon, the Mexicans will be the majority and not the minority. I'm not being racist but I'm being careful. The terrorists that carried out the horrible deeds of 9/11 DID NOT SNEAK into America. WE LET THEM IN! That IS Bush's fault. It's his fault that he didn't do something about that. I mean, how hard is it to tell the US Immigrations services to shape up or ship out? He does the same thing to Saddam so why should they be any different? He wants to criticize Kerry? Well, lets criticize him letting Cubans into the country because he claims they're an "oppressed people." Well, when a party of 10 Haitians tried to cross over onto American soil you?d think Bush?s immigration policies would let them into the country since he lets Laura?s Mexican relatives into the country any day of the week. Nope, they got sent right back and yet, the Haitians are just as much of an oppressed people as the Cubans are. I wonder why they got sent back, maybe because their skin is a little darker than some others? I don?t know but that?s an issue no one ever seems to bring up. You say Bush is making sure that the drugs are being checked? HA HA HA! RIIIIGHT! And I suppose Canada knows how to make quality drugs? I mean, lets be honest, the place is like Amsterdam; nothing is done about people smoking ?weed? in broad daylight. Trust me, I just came from the place last month and people are as high as kites over there. I wouldn?t trust Canadian drugs if my very life depended on it?And I suppose Bush checks all the drugs does he? I wonder how illegal drugs manage to get into America everyday of the week. Maybe they somehow POOF through the border.[/QUOTE]

Who is to say that they didn't come in during a past Presidency? Why does the blame land on Bush. Many immigrants came in under other Presidencies, why do they get no blame? Why you ask? Because it is what I have been saying. The problems of a Presidency and direction consequences of past Presidencie's. Please, Please take that into account. It is foolish to think that one Presidency is to blame for what is going on. It is a intricate line of events that started in a different one, and just continue to build up.

[QUOTE]Riiight?you know, the more I read this, the more I laugh. Again, I want to bring across the point of Bush being the most hypocritical president in the United States? history. How the hell do you criticize Saddam for having weapons like that when America has more nukes than Russia?! Again, I?d trust Saddam with nukes before I?d trust America with nukes. Who has a bigger track record with blowing up whole cities with bombs? America or Iraq? We?ve bombed just about everyone I could think of with the exception of a few countries and that?s only because they?d beat us down if we tried to bomb them. We?ve fought and bombed just about every Asian country, we?ve bombed most of Europe and I mean the list just goes on and on and on and on and on. I shall ask you once more, who would you trust? America? A place that is known for injustice and treating people wrong? I wouldn?t trust America even if my last dollar depended on it.[/QUOTE]

Why do we have these weapons? It was away to end a disastrous war quickly. We haven't used them since. I would trust America more than a dictator who gases his own people. I would trust a country who has come so close to nuclear war at at least two points in history, and have avoided it, rather than a country who is quick on the trigger finger, a country powered by greed, such as when they invaded Kuwait for its oil.

[QUOTE]A haven for terrorists?! WOW! Is that something NEW to you? Every other middle Eastern country is a haven for terrorists; that?s nothing new. No matter how America tries to intervene and make false reasons to why we invade countries, the fact of the matter is that our efforts are all for nothing; I?m very sorry to say. No matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be some big time terrorist group or leader causing trouble. Next time, what we SHOULD do is listen to our allies whom of which probably are located in the middle East and know how to handle such a problem. But no, what does Bush do? Against the wishes of the US Congress, our allies and the majority of the America pollsters who voted against the war, he goes and starts, not one, but TWO wars. And the more I think about it, the more I?m thinking this war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or preventing terrorism. As a Republican pollster said, ?Bush said as a governor that if he ran for the presidency, he?d stop at nothing to make sure Saddam would pay for trying to kill his daddy.? Really, after hearing something like that from a Bush supporter is enough to make anyone think that this is a personal vendetta and has nothing to do with morals; just revenge. You want to talk about brutal dictatorships? Lets talk about George Bush, Sr. The guy didn?t know what the hell he was doing half the time, started wars that nobody wanted to fight, killed a countless amount of innocent people like his idiot son and he even managed to bomb an Iraqi museum with artifacts that irreplaceable; and even after all that destruction he STILL didn?t get Saddam then. I mean, if you?re going to come through destroying everything, at least get the guy you were coming for?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The place is a haven for terrorists. And we are doing something about it. I repeat, rather have something happen and then act, rather than act to prevent something? Palease man, its foolish to think that. Again, the Gulf War had to be done. He invaded a country purely for its oil, and then commited atocities. Sound like Hitler? Yes. Did Hitler get taken care of? Yes. Palease man.

[QUOTE]Now, I know you?re wrong on that account. I?m FROM South Carolina and I know the history buddy, don?t try to quote me on that. I even go to college in South Carolina so with all this living in this state, well, you?d have to imagine that I?d know the history. President Buchanan DID act upon South Carolina or at least he tried to. There was nothing he could do. Buchanan didn?t want a war, he wasn?t the type to start that nor did he personally have a taste for it. He was, in a sense, forced into the war. No problem fell on Lincoln because to good ol? Abe, it wasn?t a problem because it took a rather simple solution. Again, don?t you tell me about my state?s history because I know the history like the back of my hand.[/QUOTE]

[b]hen Buchanan took a more militant tack. As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away.

Buchanan reverted to a policy of inactivity that continued until he left office. In March 1861 he retired to his Pennsylvania home Wheatland--where he died seven years later--leaving his successor to resolve the frightful issue facing the Nation.[/b]

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html[/url]

Yes he did act at first. But then he took a police of inactivity. That doesn't sound like he tried to do anything. So please, read up on your history. You seem to be lacking it.

[QUOTE]Riiight?that?s your justification for people dieing? They knew they were going to die? So when the police officer takes the oath they really want to die? No one wants to die and it?s not right that they should die. War is avoidable, war is NOT necessary, there ARE better solutions. But as some have wisely said, it?s just human nature to fight and squabble over things that are just stupid to fight over. We?re fighting a nation over weapons that we have and if not, we have BETTER VERSIONS of what they have and yet Bush thinks he has a right to judge Iraq. *sigh*[/QUOTE]

No no no. Please re-read what i have to say. I didn't say it justifies it. I just said that they joined, knowing full well that they may eventually have to serve. And when that happens, it may mean they die. Everyone is making it seem like the joined thinking they would never have to fight. Which is ludicrous. You join the armed forces, knowing fullwell that you may be called upon to serve. Read what I said again.

[QUOTE]Look man, you can?t harm what?s already been harmed to begin with. Kerry and Edwards can?t harm America anymore than what Bush has already harmed America. Good luck if you are a voter though, you?d be one of the few who actually votes for Bush. Even as the president, more and more people are favoring Kerry. I?m at South Carolina State University and I took a poll featuring over 40 thousand people on my campus and the polls are obvious. If SCSU votes against Bush, he?d be close to losing already. Nearly the whole college campus doesn?t like him and I?m in South Carolina, a state that favors Republicans heavily.[/QUOTE]

Kerry doesn't believe we should be there. Look at the trouble we are having know and we have a C-in-C who believes we should be there. Imagine if Kerry does win. The terrorists will know how he stands and will take advantage of it. They will no longer just sit in the background and kidnap people. They will go in there full force, and do worse things that kidnapping. They will know that the President doens't believe they should be there, and will probably do nothing about it. Rather have that happen? I know I wouldn't.

So please, go back and read what I said again. You seem to have missed what I said entirely. Read it closely, and actually think before you reply.

To Chibihorsewomen:

As Bush said the second debate. How can you expect to win in Iraq, if you don't believe you should be there in the first place? That is what Kerry thinks. How will he bring stability to the country if he believes that we shouldn't even be there? If you think you are going to get a bad grade on a test/project, you will most likely get a bad grade. It is a foolish notion to let someone who thinks we shouldn't be there, to lead the people all ready over there.

He didn't have nuclear arms at the time yes. But from what I heard in the debate and from what I have read, Saddam was again giving the UN inspectors problems. When they start getting denied entry, or are having problems with something they are supposed to do, something could be in the works. And again I reiterate, something had to be done. Otherwise it would be what I said in my last post. The problems that would arise would land on another President's shoulders. And we wouldn't be blaming Bush, but we would be blaming him. But in actuality, you should be blaming Bush, since he would have failed to act.

Exactly, I agree with you. Crime and everything is up. Which is exactly why we should still be over there, trying to keep some sense of order. Imagine if when he called a cease-fire, we pulled right. When they got Saddam, they pulled out of the country. Is that what you want? A country that has just been relieved of a brutal dictatorship without leadership? Because that is what I am getting from you and others. That once the mission was complete, people would rather have them withdraw and let them handle themselves. Only that would lead to another guy rising to power, and quite possibly being Saddam reborn. It is neccesary for us to try to keep order to the best of our ability, otherwise, everything will have been for nothing.

A lengthly resume doesn't make a good candidate, but it does make a good doctor? lawyer? A lengthy resume is a very good indication of a persons abilities. Though not in all cases, it is best to have one. A good one. I could have a resume one line long and what would the chances be of me getting a good job? But add maybe 10 more lines there, and I have a better chance of getting the job.

I liked the points brought up by Bush and Cheyne. Kerry and Edwards had many chances to have their input recognized. Yet they either didn't even go to vote, or they voted the against what Bush wanted, and are now attacking Bush because they themselves want the same thing. The same thing that they could have voted for from the beginning.

From what I have heard concerning the first debate, I believe Bush had good reason to make faces and such. I hear that Kerry was bring up crap that just bothered Bush, things that he was itching to retort to. It is a common feeling among people. And if people expect that the President shouldn't be allowed to be human, something is mad wrong here. Just because they are running a country, they have to deny the basics of things that come along with being human? If someone annoys you, you are going to make a face or something, if someone says something you don't agree with, you will make a face or say something again.

I repeat. How can anyone expect the situation in Iraq to get better if they could be Commander in Chief doesn't believe they should be there? How can you trust someone who voted against things that Bush advocated, and then are now wanting to do those things? I don't know about you people, but I want someone who says he will do something, does it, and sticks to it. I don't want someone who says something, then goes against it, then goes back to it. I want someone who is stable.

I really liked Bush's part in the second debate where he said he is ready to be held responsible for his actions if they are brought up in the future. It brings me back to my point I have reiterated twice. The past actions of another Presidency, lead to the problems of the next. He has all ready taken the former part, and is willing to accept the blame for problems that may arise from it under a future President. Rather than having them live with the full blown terrorists, or a possibly stronger Iraq with WMD, he decided to take action. I would much rather know that we are taking steps to prevent things from happening, rather than waiting for them to happen to act.

October 11, 2004

I love this guy. He trusts internet sites for facts. Everyone know the internet is like the tabloids. No matter where you got these so called, "facts", from buddy but the fact of the matter is the internet is not trustable.

You know though, I'll let someone else take over. A history major who just did a project on this....

Hi! :) I have no idea what this is all about but I guess this is all on the silly side. I wish Dion would help with these stupid quotation things more often.

[QUOTE]When Buchanan took a more militant tack. As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away.

Buchanan reverted to a policy of inactivity that continued until he left office. In March 1861 he retired to his Pennsylvania home Wheatland--where he died seven years later--leaving his successor to resolve the frightful issue facing the Nation.

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html[/url]

Yes he did act at first. But then he took a police of inactivity. That doesn't sound like he tried to do anything. So please, read up on your history. You seem to be lacking it. [/QUOTE]

I don't know where you got that information but I'd advise you to curse them out as soon as possible :) That's largely incorrect. A lot of the policies President Buchanan put into place are the same ones that our current president doesn't like. I could imagine that he'd try to make Buchanan look bad by getting his webmasters to post lies on the internet. I'm laughing at the fact that someone actually got some information off the internet and calls it credible. There's one thing the internet is known for and that's for sending electronic lies. Buchanan was a war monger just like our current president seems to be and he would not be inactive in any sense so just trust me on that. South Carolina was the reason why there was even a Civil War but even before then a war was evident as far as Buchanan was concerned, plus the fact that he even tried to avoid it but couldn't. He started the war, not recognizable by the nation in general but mostly the victory was given largely in part to Lincoln which is crazy.

I hope I cleared some things up. Ok, back over to Dion. I'm actually Republican and I don't like Kerry but I don't like Bush either. Yes, I do type very well, when you have Dion on your back 24/7, you can't help but type very well.

That good enough for you? Her dad's a South Carolina historian, I'd trust her word over some internet site's any day of the week; lets be honest, the internet isn't exactly reliable.

[QUOTE]PALEASE! You are speaking for the country now eh? Even if people won't miss him, he will be missed by quite a few, considering how large the country is. I am not comparing them, please read again. I am saying we did the same thing with Bush, that we did with Johnson. Rather than have the country in turmoil, we took measures to protect him. I am in no way comparing them, I am comparing Bush and Johnson. Please learn to read. Micheal Moore eh. He criticizes the fact that Bush allowed planes to take Osams relatives out of the country? Could he possibly have done that because the American people were angry, and could possibly have murdered them? What would Osama have done then, knowing his relatives were murdered? I can tell you one thing, he wouldn't lounge back and put his feet up. Bush let them go, so as to deter anymore attacks at the time. Again, I repeat, had they been killed, Osama would have acted again.[/QUOTE]

What country am I speaking up for? Maybe it's YOU who should learn how to read buddy, so far, not only are you making a million and one spelling mistakes, you're making a million and one factual mistakes. Johnson? Who the hell are you talking about? Lyndon Johnson? I?m talking about JFC! HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN HOW TO READ?! Moore is a guy who's honest, unlike Bush and for that matter, Kerry included. Yeah, I'm criticizing Kerry a little too. Not once did I say Kerry was a good person, to be honest, I think Kerry's an idiot but I'd rather vote for an idiot or a nobody like Nader before I'd ever vote for Bush. He will be missed by quite a few? I don't know what America you're talking about. Maybe Latin America because Bush allows outsourcing to take place so their poor citizens can take American jobs and make the job market even worse than before. Again, mind the poll I took at my college campus alone of the people who don't like Bush whatsoever; doesn't sound like a person that would be missed. What do you think? Osama?s relatives being moved out?no, what Michael is saying is that why didn?t Bush move all the OTHER innocent people out of the way before he decided to go on a bombing spree? You know, still, people haven?t addressed the fact that we?ve managed to collectively kill more people than what Saddam has killed between George Bush Jr. and George Bush Sr. The American people being angry?! The American people are ALWAYS angry; it?s the American way! We?ve got a history of attacking and trying to kill every person in sight just because they cross us and then, we make innocent people suffer; take Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for example. Know how many innocent people had to suffer because of what their leaders decided to do? And yet, some Americans still can justify that? Know how many babies were killed? Pregnant mothers? Fathers? Brothers? Sisters? Do you know just how many people died? NOPE! No one actually does, people can only guess because the death toll is so high that it?s practically uncountable. Bush wanted to deter attacks?! RIIIGHT! And a war should REALLY make the terrorists stop attacking us. Man, you?re just making me roll on the floor and I?ll put it on a web cam if you don?t believe me?

[QUOTE]Exactly. The place is a haven for terrorists. And we are doing something about it. I repeat, rather have something happen and then act, rather than act to prevent something? Please man, its foolish to think that. Again, the Gulf War had to be done. He invaded a country purely for its oil, and then committed atrocities. Sound like Hitler? Yes. Did Hitler get taken care of? Yes. Please man.[/QUOTE]

Hitler? The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that one is a RECOGNIZED madman. In the end, Hitler didn?t get taken care of, Hitler did the job himself. Read up on your history junior, maybe you could learn something. If Hitler had only thought out his strategies and was smart for a change, well, the axis powers would?ve beaten out their opponents. That just goes to show you that one day, America is going to write a check that our butts can?t cash and then, just like any other kingdom, America shall fall; even Rome the Great did. Bush invaded a country purely for its oil. Why the hell do you think we invaded Iraq? Do you think it was for the weapons of mass destruction?! HA HA HA! Bush admitted that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in the debate and I can prove that because I have that baby taped. So you mean to tell me, we spent over 100 billion dollars, lost hundreds of good soldiers and special forces members, artillery vehicles and not to mention the innocent bystander deaths all because we got our facts mixed up? Really, isn?t America great?

You want to talk about a haven for terrorists. No one has even disputed the fact that we have terrorists right here in America. I?m more afraid of the KKK than I am of Al Queda. Before we worry about terrorists in other countries, we need to worry about these crazy dudes we got right here. All the advanced helicopters and military operatives and it took a TRUCK DRIVER whom, career wise, isn?t worth more than 10 thousand dollars a year, to find the DC snipers. That tells you something. We need to worry about our homeland security before worrying about any other situation in other countries.

[QUOTE]Kerry doesn't believe we should be there. Look at the trouble we are having know and we have a C-in-C who believes we should be there. Imagine if Kerry does win. The terrorists will know how he stands and will take advantage of it. They will no longer just sit in the background and kidnap people. They will go in there full force, and do worse things that kidnapping. They will know that the President doesn?t believe they should be there, and will probably do nothing about it. Rather have that happen? I know I wouldn't.

So please, go back and read what I said again. You seem to have missed what I said entirely. Read it closely, and actually think before you reply.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, maybe you should go back and read all you?re saying and then try to laugh. I would say kick yourself in the butt but I don?t know if that?s possible as I haven?t seen a person do that before. I am imagining if Kerry won and to be honest, I think America is a lot better off. I would trade off a nice guy for a raging lunatic any day. Again, if you want to worry about terrorists then go to your politician and try to get rid of the crips, bloods, folk and other street gangs who are more terrorists than anything. The so called ?overseas terrorists? are already doing worse than kidnappings and everything. What we call 9/11 is everyday life in the middle East.

[QUOTE]As Bush said the second debate. How can you expect to win in Iraq, if you don't believe you should be there in the first place? That is what Kerry thinks. How will he bring stability to the country if he believes that we shouldn't even be there? If you think you are going to get a bad grade on a test/project, you will most likely get a bad grade. It is a foolish notion to let someone who thinks we shouldn't be there, to lead the people all ready over there.[/QUOTE]

Simple, GET US THE HELL OUT OF THERE! It?s obvious that the Iraqi people don?t want us there if they are the main ones trying to put up a resistance against us! How would you like it if someone didn?t like the way America did business and invaded the country, then wouldn?t leave? What America does to so many other countries we wouldn?t want done to us. We?ve killed mothers, daughters, sons, mothers and all kinds of innocent people, destroyed homes and lives and let somebody do the same to America, boy, we?ll get SO upset. 9/11 was a tragedy, no doubt about it but it kills me how some people seem to think that America didn?t have it coming. Why SHOULDN?T that happen to us? Who are we to avoid disaster? It was BUT for the Grace of God that America didn?t end up taken over a long time ago. Then people have the nerve to say, ?God Bless America.? GOD HAS BEEN BLESSING AMERICA! America is the richest and most powerful country in the history of countries PERIOD! Even Rome! And Babylonia doesn?t have a darn thing on us! How much more blessing does God have to do? Geez, those crazy loonies gonna work the poor guy overtime?

[QUOTE]He didn't have nuclear arms at the time yes. But from what I heard in the debate and from what I have read, Saddam was again giving the UN inspectors problems. When they start getting denied entry, or are having problems with something they are supposed to do, something could be in the works. And again I reiterate, something had to be done. Otherwise it would be what I said in my last post. The problems that would arise would land on another President's shoulders. And we wouldn't be blaming Bush, but we would be blaming him. But in actuality, you should be blaming Bush, since he would have failed to act.[/QUOTE]

Hell, would YOU let America into your country given the reputation America has?! I mean, soldiers abusing people and sexually humiliating them, raping kids, killing people for amusement, the inspectors being biased against certain races of people and even a history of presidents who are nut cases; not all but some are definitely up there in the nut house category. I?m not blaming Bush for the inspections and trying to ACT. What I am blaming Bush for, however, is this stupid war. This war has done nothing but cost American and Iraqi lives, homes, hell, property damage in general and not to mention the American view by the other countries in the world; including the allies. It just wasn?t worth it to me. Again, if he didn?t have nuclear arms then why the hell did we invade Iraq? Face it, Bush lied. He said and yes, I quote, he DID say that there was confirmation on weapons. Then he comes back in the debate and denies that the weapons were even found?hmm?sounds like a ?flip flopper? to you?

[QUOTE]Exactly, I agree with you. Crime and everything is up. Which is exactly why we should still be over there, trying to keep some sense of order. Imagine if when he called a cease-fire, we pulled right. When they got Saddam, they pulled out of the country. Is that what you want? A country that has just been relieved of a brutal dictatorship without leadership? Because that is what I am getting from you and others. That once the mission was complete, people would rather have them withdraw and let them handle themselves. Only that would lead to another guy rising to power, and quite possibly being Saddam reborn. It is necessary for us to try to keep order to the best of our ability, otherwise, everything will have been for nothing.[/QUOTE]

Keep order? Now I know you?re mixed up and confused. If you call that CHAOS in Iraq order then I?d hate to see what you?d consider disorderly. We?ve done nothing but create more chaos than ever before. Instead of just the people hating Saddam, now the people hate Saddam AND the US. I?m not saying we should just pull out, what I?m saying is that we shouldn?t have even sent troops over there to begin with because it just wasn?t the right time. We should?ve gotten more ally support before taking on such a task. Had we had ally support and later, we still would?ve had a war but the fact of the matter is not only would we look better to our allies but with the combined support, we would?ve defeated the resistance in Iraq very easily. We should leave the country alone because that?s what Bush said we were going to do once Saddam was over thrown. He said he?d let the Iraqis take over, well, Saddam is gone, there are NO WEAPONS, why the hell are we staying? We?ve done what we came to do, now, it?s time to get out! Bush SPECIFICALLY made that promise! He?d only come to get Saddam and stop him then bring him to justice and then the American troops would indeed pull out. Or at least that?s what my bro in Iraq told me; that was a long time ago, I don?t really get to talk to him a lot.

[QUOTE]A lengthy resume doesn't make a good candidate, but it does make a good doctor? lawyer? A lengthy resume is a very good indication of a persons abilities. Though not in all cases, it is best to have one. A good one. I could have a resume one line long and what would the chances be of me getting a good job? But add maybe 10 more lines there, and I have a better chance of getting the job.[/QUOTE]

I hope you don?t use your spelling skills on that resume buddy, you definitely won?t get that job. I?m sorry, I mean, I know my grammar isn?t exactly golden but at least I can spell the majority of my words correctly. Please man, if you?re going to argue with me, learn how to spell first; in short, a spell checker wouldn?t kill you. I?m serious, I don?t know what the heck you?re talking about half the time because I can?t read however you spelled a certain word. My take on what you just said is that you?re wrong; it totally depends on the job. Sometimes, you don?t even need a resume to get a job. Kind of like Bush, he didn?t need a thing to become Governor of Texas; daddy helped him get into office.

[QUOTE]I liked the points brought up by Bush and Cheney. Kerry and Edwards had many chances to have their input recognized. Yet they either didn't even go to vote, or they voted the against what Bush wanted, and are now attacking Bush because they themselves want the same thing. The same thing that they could have voted for from the beginning.[/QUOTE]

I won?t deny that Kerry and Edwards had the chance to put their input on things but lets look at something though. The fact of the matter is there?s no point in voting when you know your vote won?t count. This isn?t like voting for the president where you won?t even know if your vote was the deciding factor to who won or who loss. But as for the records that my father was so kind to look up, most times, the house had already made a majority vote on everything Bush and Cheney were talking about. Why the hell vote when the outcome was already certain?! It?s like voting in Florida last year in the presidential debate; it?s a waste of your time.

[QUOTE]From what I have heard concerning the first debate, I believe Bush had good reason to make faces and such. I hear that Kerry was bring up crap that just bothered Bush, things that he was itching to retort to. It is a common feeling among people. And if people expect that the President shouldn't be allowed to be human, something is mad wrong here. Just because they are running a country, they have to deny the basics of things that come along with being human? If someone annoys you, you are going to make a face or something, if someone says something you don't agree with, you will make a face or say something again. [/QUOTE]

Oh, I don?t know, maybe because you?re supposed to be the commander-in-chief? I don?t see how Bush made it through the military. The higher ranked commanders and leadership personnel in general are going to say crap that you don?t like all the time and if he made faces then, again, I don?t see how he made it. He can?t take people criticizing him? YOU?RE THE PRESIDENT JACKASS! What the hell did you expect?! If you snore in your sleep people are going to criticize you! You don?t get away with nothing in the kind business you?re in George. You don?t like being criticized then don?t run for the presidency! I don?t care if it?s Clinton, Reagan, Kerry, Bush, anybody, if you run to become the president, you?ll get crapped on because that?s what?s supposed to happen. I don?t see what?s so bad about Bush getting criticized when half the time he deserves it. We?re running a race here people, you don?t like that, don?t live in America; it?s the way things are done here.

[QUOTE]I repeat. How can anyone expect the situation in Iraq to get better if they could be Commander in Chief doesn't believe they should be there? How can you trust someone who voted against things that Bush advocated, and then are now wanting to do those things? I don't know about you people, but I want someone who says he will do something, does it, and sticks to it. I don't want someone who says something, then goes against it, then goes back to it. I want someone who is stable.[/QUOTE]

Again, it?s not the fact that Kerry voted for a war, it?s just the fact of HOW the war was conducted that counts. At the time, America was agreeing with the UN and the US Congress in general but when Bush starts trying to invade everyone and their grandma, THEN AND ONLY THEN did a lot of people turn against them. You want people who stable? Don?t vote for Bush. How the hell do you say that you?re against abortion because you?re taking a life and yet in the same breathe you?ll talk about going to war?! You?re either against death or for death, take your pick George. Doesn?t sound like a very stable person to me. Sorry, I find it hard to believe someone who was strung out on drugs in the past; it?s a pet peeve I have.

[QUOTE]I really liked Bush's part in the second debate where he said he is ready to be held responsible for his actions if they are brought up in the future. It brings me back to my point I have reiterated twice. The past actions of another Presidency, lead to the problems of the next. He has all ready taken the former part, and is willing to accept the blame for problems that may arise from it under a future President. Rather than having them live with the full blown terrorists, or a possibly stronger Iraq with WMD, he decided to take action. I would much rather know that we are taking steps to prevent things from happening, rather than waiting for them to happen to act.[/QUOTE]

Do I need to define what a leader is? Do you even know what a leader is? A leader is someone who takes responsibility for anything that happens to whatever he or she is leading. A leader takes the credit when things go good and the blame when things go back. So I?ll put this in words that even a person of lesser intelligence can understand:

[B][SIZE=3]IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO DID WHAT, WHY THEY DID WHAT OR TO WHAT DEGREE THEY DID IT, IF YOU?RE THE PRESIDENT, YOU FIX IT! [/SIZE] [/B]

It kills me how Bush talks about how things weren?t done under his administration. The fact of the matter is that he is the PRESIDENT! He can DO SOMETHING about the things that keeps getting brought up in debates. If he doesn?t want to get criticized then I suggest he starts doing something about those issues and fix up, patch and renew America. That?s why people voted for him; to fix things. You wouldn?t hire a guy to fix something and then hire him again if he didn?t do a good job the first time would you? Bush didn?t do a good job, no matter how one would see it.

Baron Samedi · October 11, 2004

[size=1]Well, Garelock, I'm not an American, so I'm probably not good enough to be able to combat your 'eXtR3m3' argument skills. But, hey, I'll have a look at some things you said.

[quote=Garelock]He DID NOT have to send the troops to Iraq nor did he have to send ANY troops over to any place.
[/quote] Oh, I guess not. I guess that the only reason he attacked Iraq was for it's oil. And because his daddy got kicked out when he wimped out on the Gulf War. Isn't this sounding a tad old? It could be true. But how would you know? Isn't it more likely that information was false? Or the fact that Saddam was a ruthless despot? Or...well, I could go on. But,of course, I don't know what I am talking about.

[quote]HE'S THE DAMN COMMANDER IN CHIEF! If you can't understand that then you got some serious mental problems and I don't mean the minor types. If anything goes wrong wtih a nation it is ALWAYS the leader's fault. A leader TAKES THE BLAME FOR THINGS LIKE THAT! It's the way things have been since the first dang American president so I don't see why people get so shocked when Bush gets blamed for everything. No matter what the problem is with America, IT'S HIS FAULT.[/quote] Always the leader's fault? What if the leader's eyes and ears are wrong. What if he misjudges. Can you really say that all of the blame lies at his feet? Maybe the leader takes the blame for it, but doubtless you'll find many examples where it was unjustified. That means it's bad and wrong.

And I don't know for sure, but doesn't a fair amount of what he does have to go through Congress and/or advisors? One man can not be personally responsible for running a whole country, and if Bush is as dumb as you say he is, then surely he can't be in control on his own. Making it not his fault? Yes? No?

[quote]We are indeed the most hated country in the world and it's all Bush's fault. 9/11 didn't make us the most hated, our international ties didn't make us the most hated, hell, even the Clinton and Monica scandal didn't make us the most hated. What made most countries in the world despise us so? Well, it's Bush. His whole make-up is what pisses people off. You have to admit that all these other countries can't be wrong. Now, when you got one or two countries criticizing you, well, that's not bad but when you got half the world saying they hate you and even your allies hating, well, it's tough to argue that something isn't wrong with that picture. [/quote]
The war on iraq certainly didn't help, and has bought anti-US sentiments to the front. They have been there for a while. Lots of people think Americans are arrogant and rude. That is the...strereotype for Americans. What would you rather Bush have done about September 11 and terrorist threats? Nothing?

[quote]The reason why Kerry wants to send more troops over to Iraq is so that he can get this stupid war over with and get our people out of there faster. With the current head count of American troops we have in Iraq now isn't exactly enough to end this fast, quick and in a hurry. With the increasing amount of deaths in Iraq, more troops are needed to finish off the remaining resistance.[/quote]
Sending more people over there isn't necessarily a good idea. It's not the size but how you use it, remember ;)

[quote]I got reasons to dislike Bush for this war. He's telling me that I should be against terrorism and stuff, well, I'm more against America. Al Queda didn't enslave my people for almost 300 plus years, Al Queda didn't sick dogs and spray water hoses on my people for trying to vote, Al Queda didn't hang my people for trying to read a book, Al Queda didn't shoot at my people for trying to go to the same schools as whites did, no, American citizens did that.[/quote] But they're not doing it any more are they? In the Medieval ages if someone didn't like you, they could kill you. Stalin did that to people. Saddam did that to people. If racism had been an issue in the Middle East, then that kind of persecution wouild probably still be taking place. Execution via extensive legal measures as penalty for crimes is incomparable to what went on in Iraq. Don't try to compare it.

Bush didn't personally have these people sentenced to death. If you knew anything about him, then you might realise that comparing Hitler and Bush on that basis is presumptuous and flawed.

[quote]Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed.[/quote] If Bush had been killed as well, would that have served any purpose? As Commander In Chief, his role is to lead, right. To be there for his country. As you seem so keen to point out. If he is spread over 50sqm then he doesn't have much hope of that. This isn't a bloody fantasy story. Airforce 1 is mobile, safe, and a hub for information from all over the world. What better place to lead his people from?

[quote]Bush justifies what our allies do. Correction, what the allies who support us do. Let me give you a prime example. Israel attacked a guy in a wheel chair. Now, when you wake up in the morning, the last thing you want to open your window to see is an Apache helicopter with missiles ready to be launched at you. The guy was in a freaking wheelchair and was PARALYZED from the WAIST DOWN! They launched two Amran missiles at him and blowed him to smitherines! Bush doesn't do a SINGLE thing to stop actions like that but he has room to criticize Saddam and Osama. If blasting a guy in a wheelchair isn't a terrorist attack then what the hell is?! As a matter of fact, Bush even JUSTIFIED that attack. Yeah, who wouldn't vote for this guy? [/quote] Were you there? have you ever been hunkered down in a war-shelter, crapping yourself? No...neither have I. I imagine it'd be scary. **** happens in war. Stuff like that is wrong, but there is just about always a valid explanation for things like that. if there isn't, then they shouldn't have been defended- I agree with you there.

[quote]The Iraquis don't want us in their country. Well, common sense tells you that if there's STILL RESISTANCE there. I mean, take it from my brother who's currently serving in the military. He personally said that when he talked to the Iraqis that they didn't want us in their country and they wished that we would leave. If someone came to your country and tortured your people as those American soldiers did, well, would you want them in your country? American troops have a history with doing that. It's one of the reasons why Japan hates us so much. We have troops still stationed in Japan but the Japanese have openly expressed and laid down a record that they don't want us in their country. Not after certain American troops were caught raping little Japanese girls and using them for sex slaves and of such. That's a known fact, I don't even have to offer proof...[/quote]
Well, that all depends on which news reports you listen to. Common-sense suggests that most people would rather be living free than in constant terror for their lives. It isn't much better, but it is better and will get even more better the nearer it draws to a conclusion. As for japan...well, I don't know why that is. But...what are the odds that some japanese man 'hired' them out to the soldiers? It is wrong that the girls were raped, but how can you blame that on Bush?[/size]

October 11, 2004

Baron, I like your arguments and points because unlike SOME people, they actually make sense. Though, I shall have to combat them for you to understand my position. I'm not a Democrat, I'm actually Republican like Bush and even I don't like the guy. Doesn't that make you wonder?

[QUOTE]Well, Garelock, I'm not an American, so I'm probably not good enough to be able to combat your 'eXtR3m3' argument skills. But, hey, I'll have a look at some things you said.[/QUOTE]

You may as well. It's what the rest of the world is doing now and officially, we are the #1 most hated country in the world according to a recent poll by ABC news. I used to say that the UK liked us but even they don't like us now. 9/11, terrorism, global warming and all that stuff doesn't have a hill of beans to do with the American image. Who do you think other countries judge us by? The actions of Bush. You can't really judge the people if you don't judge the leader. It's why Christians are sometimes looked down upon for discrimination and why God gets blamed for it so often.

[QUOTE]Always the leader's fault? What if the leader's eyes and ears are wrong. What if he misjudges. Can you really say that all of the blame lies at his feet? Maybe the leader takes the blame for it, but doubtless you'll find many examples where it was unjustified. That means it's bad and wrong.

And I don't know for sure, but doesn't a fair amount of what he does have to go through Congress and/or advisors? One man can not be personally responsible for running a whole country, and if Bush is as dumb as you say he is, then surely he can't be in control on his own. Making it not his fault? Yes? No?[/QUOTE]

Yes I can really say the blame lies at his feet because that comes with the job description. Suppose you saw a platoon in the US Army acting like idiots and performing recklessness. Whom do you think would be questioned and dealt with first? Don't even say those people doing the deed because my bro, who's in Iraq curently, just told me about how a Battalion commander was relieved of his duties for not keeping his men in line. That's just how it works in America, that's how it has been since the beginning of the US leadership and chances are, that's how it will end.

Of course one man can be responsible for running a whole country. Ever heard of a dictatorship? :laugh: I'm just kidding. Anyways, yes, the US Congress tried to stop the war with Iraq and Afghanistan but Bush has the power to veto them and overstep them. It's not the Congressional powers' fault if Bush is a stubborn person and doesn't want to listen. If you KNOW he didn't listen to the UN, then what makes you think he listened to Congress?

[QUOTE]The war on iraq certainly didn't help, and has bought anti-US sentiments to the front. They have been there for a while. Lots of people think Americans are arrogant and rude. That is the...strereotype for Americans. What would you rather Bush have done about September 11 and terrorist threats? Nothing?[/QUOTE]

Americans are known for one thing; being hypocrits. Isn't it funny how we're still mad over 9/11 and just last week a line of US bombs destroyed a whole neighborhood, killing an amount of people that even I, a person in college couldn't count. We're hypocrits, we say things like 9/11 aren't supposed to happen to us and yet we cause Iraq's 9/11 every single day. It's the truth, take it or leave it. Again, the whole world can't be wrong...

[QUOTE]Sending more people over there isn't necessarily a good idea. It's not the size but how you use it, remember :) [/QUOTE]

How you use it? You're talking about lives like it's some kind of game. Men and women are losing their lives out there man! It's not some chess game or some video game, when people die, it's a [U]REAL game over[/U]. I'd rather there not be troops at all so that's one point that I neither agree with Kerry or Bush on.

[QUOTE]But they're not doing it any more are they? In the Medieval ages if someone didn't like you, they could kill you. Stalin did that to people. Saddam did that to people. If racism had been an issue in the Middle East, then that kind of persecution wouild probably still be taking place. Execution via extensive legal measures as penalty for crimes is incomparable to what went on in Iraq. Don't try to compare it.

Bush didn't personally have these people sentenced to death. If you knew anything about him, then you might realise that comparing Hitler and Bush on that basis is presumptuous and flawed.[/QUOTE]

Need I bring up the fact that just last year a black man in Texas was tied to the back of a pick up truck and dragged up and down the street? Need I tell you that just last week a black man was hanged out in front of his lawn? Need I tell you that people are still running around with white cloths on their head? Need I tell you that not are Nazis are dead? Need I tell you that people are STILL trying to make it so that we're back in slavery? Need I tell you that the Confederate Flag still flies on South Carolina's statehouse dome, the very symbol of black oppression? People say "The flag is my heritage" and I respond, "Your heritage was my slavery."

Riiight..and what has Bush done that Hitler hasn't? Hitler has had innocent people killed, Bush has had people killed; it's all the REASONS why they did it. Again, a life is a life, death, prematurely, is something that you cannot excuse or try to justify. And yes I do know lots about Bush, most stuff that I'm not even mentioning because I want to make this a fair debate and not completely destroy his reputation like Kerry has done so often; again, polls don't lie. Bush didn't personally sentenced these people to death?! What do you call a war?! You understand perfectly clear that when you start a war, people are going to die! What?! Did Bush think that there would be no casualties? That the Iraqis were just going to put their weapons down and surrender? HA! Not in a million years!

[QUOTE]If Bush had been killed as well, would that have served any purpose? As Commander In Chief, his role is to lead, right. To be there for his country. As you seem so keen to point out. If he is spread over 50sqm then he doesn't have much hope of that. This isn't a bloody fantasy story. Airforce 1 is mobile, safe, and a hub for information from all over the world. What better place to lead his people from?[/QUOTE]

Oh I don't know...the White House where all the REST of the American presidents had? I mean, lets be honest, if anything comes without 5 miles of the White House it'll be shot down immediately so I don't know what the big worry about that is. He could've went to the Pentagon, after all, there's a nuclear weapon-proof chamber down there where you can command the troops all over the world. He could've simply stayed on the ground where he wouldn't have been criticized about being a coward. What better way to make our enemies think that we're nothing more than cowards than to have a president who goes ducking and hiding everytime America is attacked?

Bush is the leader, yes, I've said that lots of times before. But the problem I keep running into is that he's not leading! He's only placing the blame off on previous presidencies. PEOPLE! OPEN UP YOUR EYES! The president can change things if he wants. It doesn't matter if Congress passes a bill, it doesn't matter what Bush's cabinet members do and as the last election proved, it doesn't even matter what the American voter does, the American president is the most powerful man in America. He can change things instead of complaining, moaning and griping over them. You don't like a policy and you're the president? Here's a thought...CHANGE IT! You changed the tax bills a hundred and one times, why should you stop with the changes now?

[QUOTE]Were you there? have you ever been hunkered down in a war-shelter, crapping yourself? No...neither have I. I imagine it'd be scary. **** happens in war. Stuff like that is wrong, but there is just about always a valid explanation for things like that. if there isn't, then they shouldn't have been defended- I agree with you there.[/QUOTE]

Oh that isn't the first time America has supported an ally that's worth supporting. Remember the UK? The country whom, at one time, actually liked us? 5 people were killed in a massive raid. Want to know why they were killed? For holding up end the war signs in front of the Parliament building, though I can't recall the name; hell I don't live in the country. People getting shot over something stupid like that? I'm sure there was more involved but there's no real reason to shoot an unarmed person. What's the matter? You're so weak to the point where you have to shot a bullet into someone to overpower them?

[QUOTE]Well, that all depends on which news reports you listen to. Common-sense suggests that most people would rather be living free than in constant terror for their lives. It isn't much better, but it is better and will get even more better the nearer it draws to a conclusion. As for japan...well, I don't know why that is. But...what are the odds that some japanese man 'hired' them out to the soldiers? It is wrong that the girls were raped, but how can you blame that on Bush?[/QUOTE]

Which news reports I listen to? Naw, I don't really listen to news reports when I got a brother who's serving in the military calling me every 2 months or so and giving me a primary source on the matter. It's hard to argue with him when he's actually THERE. He said that the people don't want us there, he has been shot at by people over and over again. Now, common sense tells you that if a citizen shoots at you, then another and then another and then the count of people shooting at you gets past 100, evidently, they don't want you in their country. Living free? Constant terror? What the hell do you call the current status? They're even worse off than when Saddam was there. We got grandmothers shooting at the American soldiers because simply, the Iraqis don't want us there. You call that freedom? Freedom to get bombed by "Big, Bad America?" How would you like it if one day you're sitting at home, minding your own business and a US war jet flies over your house and sends a bunker buster to blow you up? OH! Doesn't seem so fair now does it?

What are the odds that the Japanese hired them out to the soldiers? Does that make it right? I don't care if they hired them out for a discounted price, no grown man is supposed to have sex with a little girl; that's just sick and disturbing. How can I blame Bush for that? You know, the same men who did that sick and perverted crime still haven't been brought to justice. That's why I'm blaming Bush. Bush can have them punished for what they did and do deserve it. But you think our commander-in-chief cares? NOPE! He's more interested in letting Laura Bush's Mexican relatives into the country. He's more interested in getting his daughters on some cheaper illegal drugs because with the current drugs they're pushing now they're making him broke. He's more interested in getting oil from Iraq. And he's more interested in getting the war deficit over a trillion dollars; Bush's party are the ones who made that estimate, argue it if you want.

DAMNIT BUSH! Yet another person has to suffer because of our president's STUPID policies. He killed Superman! He could've been saved damnit! He could've lived! But on well, I guess when you have an idiot for a president...things can't go your way. Then again, heart failure isn't something that can really be prevented. Christopher Reeves could've walked again if Bush had funded the research. Hell! He funds billion dollar spaceshuttles that have proven to kill more talent astronauts! Why is abortion so bad again?

Baron Samedi · October 11, 2004

[size=1]You make some very good points, and sadly I am not...intimate enough with American politics to refute all of them. Also, it's a 11:45PM and I'm kinda buggered, but you get my drift ;)

Leaders will always cop the blame, regardless of whether or not they deserve it. A Leader would rarely make a massive decision without the guidance of members of their Administration. Delegation [sensible, of course...] is the key to successful reigning.

You would probably find that many countries have...well, screwed up. With the war on terror, America has become the big target. The outcome of the war may well end up being worth the means, though nothing can make up for the carnage inflicted on civilians. But this is war. Everyday on the Gaza strip, people are killed. In Chechnya, people are killed. In South Africa, people are killed. But, we don't really hear about these so much. Why? Because, it's small fry, and it's old. People don't care about other people being killed, unless their own are involved. Then they care.

Running an entire country...being the figurehead for the most powerful nation on this planet would be a difficult job. Bush may well be regretting the war in Iraq, but at this stage if he pulled out everything'd go to hell. His image, his qualifications and his Presidency.

Some Iraqi's are pissed right off at America. And they have a right to be. Some Iraqi's are praising America, and the fact that things are finally looking up. And they have a right to be.

Opinions and situations change all the time. Every coin has two sides, and if you're on some 'medications' maybe more. You get corrupt politicians everywhere. Nobody's perfect. Maybe Bush isn't a great President, but sometimes you just have to...do something. He may well be a useless prick with no brains, no balls, and no clue. But, he could also be a resourceful, intelligent and purposeful planner. He could just be someone trying to clean up his own mess. He could just be someone determined to stand up for his country.

Not everything can fall to Bush, that's all I'm really saying.[/size]

Arcadia · October 11, 2004

[size=1]There's like a million posts in here, so there's no way I'll ever be able to read them all and still stay sane. So instead, let me just say this. I'll be voting for Kerry come November 2 because:

1. I don't like the way the war was handled, and I don't like the fact that $290 million has been spent on the war when we've got plenty of problems at home (education, healthcare, welfare, social security) that could certainly use some of that money.

2. Because of Bush's views on gays and on abortion (among other things), I feel like the country as a whole would be taking a step backwards rather than forward if he was allowed to continue with the bills he's trying to pass.

3. The fact that they've even been [i]thinking[/i] about bringing back the draft infuriates me. I don't think they could ever actually put it back in practice (I know that I wouldn't stand for it, and I can't think of many other Americans who would either), but I certainly don't want to give them the chance to.

4. I'm a biased liberal feminist. Yeah, go figure.

About voting in general - [b]do it![/b] If you're old enough to vote, then you sure as hell better be out there on the second, letting your voice be heard. This election is going to be decided by [i]us[/i], so why don't you make sure that your vote is counted? Swing the vote.[/size]

October 11, 2004

[QUOTE=Arcadia][size=1]3. The fact that they've even been [i]thinking[/i] about bringing back the draft infuriates me. I don't think they could ever actually put it back in practice (I know that I wouldn't stand for it, and I can't think of many other Americans who would either), but I certainly don't want to give them the chance to.
[/size][/QUOTE]
I hope you know that the draft was proposed and supported by the Democrats. Both sister bills were. (I absolutely swear; go to congress.org to check if you like.) They were shot down nearly unanimously, though, because of the gigantic influx of letters from constituents, both by post and over the internet. Mostly over the internet. Anyway, the whole "if you want the draft vote for Bush" campaign was a huge lie spread by the Democratic party this year. Very shameful if you ask me. But true.

Bush's administration has been very clear that they do NOT want a draft. Bush himself said he'd have vetoed the bills should they have somehow passed Congress. Powell has also stated that the current administration will not put a draft into effect; in any case, it's not in their plans.

Yes, the Selective Service budget was doubled this year. Yes, their plan for this fiscal year involves getting the draft lottery operational within 75 days of March 31, should the president give the go. But that president may well be Kerry, especially if you consider his determination to increase the size of our operational military.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Zeta · October 11, 2004

[QUOTE]I don't know where you got that information but I'd advise you to curse them out as soon as possible That's largely incorrect. A lot of the policies President Buchanan put into place are the same ones that our current president doesn't like. I could imagine that he'd try to make Buchanan look bad by getting his webmasters to post lies on the internet. I'm laughing at the fact that someone actually got some information off the internet and calls it credible. There's one thing the internet is known for and that's for sending electronic lies. Buchanan was a war monger just like our current president seems to be and he would not be inactive in any sense so just trust me on that. South Carolina was the reason why there was even a Civil War but even before then a war was evident as far as Buchanan was concerned, plus the fact that he even tried to avoid it but couldn't. He started the war, not recognizable by the nation in general but mostly the victory was given largely in part to Lincoln which is crazy.[/QUOTE]

Right here is a quote from the Encarta encyclopedia.

[i]As the states of the Deep South seceded, Buchanan found himself at a loss to stop them. He was firmly convinced that any violence toward the South would only precipitate war. A policy of compromise, he believed, would see the nation through the secession crisis. [b]So determined was he that his administration not risk a civil war by committing an overt act that he did nothing[/b]. His policy of inaction toward the seceded states averted war for the remainder of his administration, giving various compromise efforts a chance to develop[/i]

Seeing as how you don't even have the ability to reread your own postsI am going to explain to you and yourfriends so called history major dad means. This is the Encarta Encyclopedia. It is a well respected encyclopedia, that is a very intelligent composition of all things in this world. It has an online version, and a set of books. That is exactly what the other side said that I posted. Are we saying the Encyclopedia's are wrong? How many times have they been re-written. Please, think things through. It is not me who is wrong. It is you and your friend's father. I have no clue where he got his education, but he should go back and demand his money back.You have shown you don't even have the ability to actually read what is being said, so I hope you have the ability to actually think.

[QUOTE]What country am I speaking up for? Maybe it's YOU who should learn how to read buddy, so far, not only are you making a million and one spelling mistakes, you're making a million and one factual mistakes. Johnson? Who the hell are you talking about? Lyndon Johnson? I?m talking about JFC! HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN HOW TO READ?! Moore is a guy who's honest, unlike Bush and for that matter, Kerry included. Yeah, I'm criticizing Kerry a little too. Not once did I say Kerry was a good person, to be honest, I think Kerry's an idiot but I'd rather vote for an idiot or a nobody like Nader before I'd ever vote for Bush. He will be missed by quite a few? I don't know what America you're talking about. Maybe Latin America because Bush allows outsourcing to take place so their poor citizens can take American jobs and make the job market even worse than before. Again, mind the poll I took at my college campus alone of the people who don't like Bush whatsoever; doesn't sound like a person that would be missed. What do you think? Osama?s relatives being moved out?no, what Michael is saying is that why didn?t Bush move all the OTHER innocent people out of the way before he decided to go on a bombing spree? You know, still, people haven?t addressed the fact that we?ve managed to collectively kill more people than what Saddam has killed between George Bush Jr. and George Bush Sr. The American people being angry?! The American people are ALWAYS angry; it?s the American way! We?ve got a history of attacking and trying to kill every person in sight just because they cross us and then, we make innocent people suffer; take Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for example. Know how many innocent people had to suffer because of what their leaders decided to do? And yet, some Americans still can justify that? Know how many babies were killed? Pregnant mothers? Fathers? Brothers? Sisters? Do you know just how many people died? NOPE! No one actually does, people can only guess because the death toll is so high that it?s practically uncountable. Bush wanted to deter attacks?! RIIIGHT! And a war should REALLY make the terrorists stop attacking us. Man, you?re just making me roll on the floor and I?ll put it on a web cam if you don?t believe me?[/QUOTE]

Please don't lecture me on my spelling when you can't even get a abbreviated 3 letter name right. JFC? Has it suddenly become John F. Chicken? What other innocent people had to be movied out of the way? There were no other people that the American people could harm that would cause a massive retaliation from Osama. The only other people i n the country were the Americans. What, should we have moved them all to Canada? Palease. Again,think before you speak.

I brought up Johnson because you failed to understand what I was originally talking about. You said I was comparing JFK and Bush when I wasn't. [b]How dare you compare George "The Madman" Bush Jr. to John F. Kennedy! JFK was one of the greatest American presidents of all time![/b] That was posted by you. You didn't understand what I was taking about. I wasn't going to give you the false pleasure of thinking you were right in your argument there when you didn't even read my post. Let alone, you didn't go back and re-read your own post to see why I brought up Johnson.

[QUOTE]Hitler? The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that one is a RECOGNIZED madman. In the end, Hitler didn?t get taken care of, Hitler did the job himself. Read up on your history junior, maybe you could learn something. If Hitler had only thought out his strategies and was smart for a change, well, the axis powers would?ve beaten out their opponents. That just goes to show you that one day, America is going to write a check that our butts can?t cash and then, just like any other kingdom, America shall fall; even Rome the Great did. Bush invaded a country purely for its oil. Why the hell do you think we invaded Iraq? Do you think it was for the weapons of mass destruction?! HA HA HA! Bush admitted that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in the debate and I can prove that because I have that baby taped. So you mean to tell me, we spent over 100 billion dollars, lost hundreds of good soldiers and special forces members, artillery vehicles and not to mention the innocent bystander deaths all because we got our facts mixed up? Really, isn?t America great?[/QUOTE]

How is Hitler not a recognized madman? How do you consider Bush a recognized madman? Does Bush go around rounding people up into camps and then gassing them? Does he perform experiments on them while they are living? Hitler is the madman. As I have stated above, you need to read up on your history, not I. Of course America will fall. It is a known fact. All great empires fall. I have accepted this. Hitler was quite a smart man. He had one blunder that caused him the war. Had that not occured, the war definately wouldn't have turned out the way it is. He knocked out France in less than a month. Took over all off Europe. Not since the days of Napolean has that been accomplished.

Bush acted on the intelligence he had at the time. I am willing to admit that it wasn't the best of intelligence. But hey, if you have something in front of you that says some country has nuclear weapons, or that some country is going to bomb you, you are going to act on it. Think logically here. He made his decisions based on what was presented to him at the time. He had no idea of knowing if it was false or true. He made the decision that any President would do. You have stuff in front of you saying you are threatened, you are going to do something about it.

[QUOTE]You want to talk about a haven for terrorists. No one has even disputed the fact that we have terrorists right here in America. I?m more afraid of the KKK than I am of Al Queda. Before we worry about terrorists in other countries, we need to worry about these crazy dudes we got right here. All the advanced helicopters and military operatives and it took a TRUCK DRIVER whom, career wise, isn?t worth more than 10 thousand dollars a year, to find the DC snipers. That tells you something. We need to worry about our homeland security before worrying about any other situation in other countries.[/QUOTE]

I never said that there were no terrorists here. I agree with you, I am worried about them quite a deal. But did they crash a plane into a building? Two planes? Three planes? The simple answer is no. The terrrorists from the outside world cause a far greater risk than those on the homefront. Now before you go opening you mouth with words that won't do you any good, I am not saying we shouldn't do something about them. Things should be done about them. But you have to remember, certain things have to be taken into priority. Allow another attack on the scale of 9/11 compared to a much smaller rally or just a beating? I know it sounds harsh but it is the reality.

[QUOTE]Simple, GET US THE HELL OUT OF THERE! It?s obvious that the Iraqi people don?t want us there if they are the main ones trying to put up a resistance against us! How would you like it if someone didn?t like the way America did business and invaded the country, then wouldn?t leave? What America does to so many other countries we wouldn?t want done to us. We?ve killed mothers, daughters, sons, mothers and all kinds of innocent people, destroyed homes and lives and let somebody do the same to America, boy, we?ll get SO upset. 9/11 was a tragedy, no doubt about it but it kills me how some people seem to think that America didn?t have it coming. Why SHOULDN?T that happen to us? Who are we to avoid disaster? It was BUT for the Grace of God that America didn?t end up taken over a long time ago. Then people have the nerve to say, ?God Bless America.? GOD HAS BEEN BLESSING AMERICA! America is the richest and most powerful country in the history of countries PERIOD! Even Rome! And Babylonia doesn?t have a darn thing on us! How much more blessing does God have to do? Geez, those crazy loonies gonna work the poor guy overtime?[/QUOTE]

Again, learn to read. What happens if we just get out of there? Another Saddam will come to power, and then the war will truly have been for nothing. We are trying to keep order to the BEST OF OUR ABILITY. We aren't staying there for the heck of it, again, read my posts. We are there to try to reestablish a sense of order that will be missing if we pull out before that occurs.

[QUOTE]Hell, would YOU let America into your country given the reputation America has?! I mean, soldiers abusing people and sexually humiliating them, raping kids, killing people for amusement, the inspectors being biased against certain races of people and even a history of presidents who are nut cases; not all but some are definitely up there in the nut house category. I?m not blaming Bush for the inspections and trying to ACT. What I am blaming Bush for, however, is this stupid war. This war has done nothing but cost American and Iraqi lives, homes, hell, property damage in general and not to mention the American view by the other countries in the world; including the allies. It just wasn?t worth it to me. Again, if he didn?t have nuclear arms then why the hell did we invade Iraq? Face it, Bush lied. He said and yes, I quote, he DID say that there was confirmation on weapons. Then he comes back in the debate and denies that the weapons were even found?hmm?sounds like a ?flip flopper? to you?[/QUOTE]

We invaded them because at the time, we believe they did. If a CIA document comes to your desk and says they have them, you will believe they do at that moment. Given the past of the CIA, they had no reason to think that it was wrong. They had no way of knowing. It is like nowadays. We act on what we are given because it is the only opprotunity at the time.

[QUOTE]Keep order? Now I know you?re mixed up and confused. If you call that CHAOS in Iraq order then I?d hate to see what you?d consider disorderly. We?ve done nothing but create more chaos than ever before. Instead of just the people hating Saddam, now the people hate Saddam AND the US. I?m not saying we should just pull out, what I?m saying is that we shouldn?t have even sent troops over there to begin with because it just wasn?t the right time. We should?ve gotten more ally support before taking on such a task. Had we had ally support and later, we still would?ve had a war but the fact of the matter is not only would we look better to our allies but with the combined support, we would?ve defeated the resistance in Iraq very easily. We should leave the country alone because that?s what Bush said we were going to do once Saddam was over thrown. He said he?d let the Iraqis take over, well, Saddam is gone, there are NO WEAPONS, why the hell are we staying? We?ve done what we came to do, now, it?s time to get out! Bush SPECIFICALLY made that promise! He?d only come to get Saddam and stop him then bring him to justice and then the American troops would indeed pull out. Or at least that?s what my bro in Iraq told me; that was a long time ago, I don?t really get to talk to him a lot.[/QUOTE]

Again I tell you to read my post. I said they are trying to keep order to their best of their ability. And I repeat again, what happens if we just up and leave? No order will be that AT ALL. We are at least trying to give some sense of order, without that little amount we can gtive them, many things will change. Read what I said, instead of just opening your mouth and retorting at the first words you read.

[QUOTE]I hope you don?t use your spelling skills on that resume buddy, you definitely won?t get that job. I?m sorry, I mean, I know my grammar isn?t exactly golden but at least I can spell the majority of my words correctly. Please man, if you?re going to argue with me, learn how to spell first; in short, a spell checker wouldn?t kill you. I?m serious, I don?t know what the heck you?re talking about half the time because I can?t read however you spelled a certain word. My take on what you just said is that you?re wrong; it totally depends on the job. Sometimes, you don?t even need a resume to get a job. Kind of like Bush, he didn?t need a thing to become Governor of Texas; daddy helped him get into office.[/QUOTE]

Besides my less than perfect grammer, could you point to the mass amounts of spelling mistakes? I am not going to take grammer lessons from someone who can't spell JFK right.

[QUOTE]I won?t deny that Kerry and Edwards had the chance to put their input on things but lets look at something though. The fact of the matter is there?s no point in voting when you know your vote won?t count. This isn?t like voting for the president where you won?t even know if your vote was the deciding factor to who won or who loss. But as for the records that my father was so kind to look up, most times, the house had already made a majority vote on everything Bush and Cheney were talking about. Why the hell vote when the outcome was already certain?! It?s like voting in Florida last year in the presidential debate; it?s a waste of your time.[/QUOTE]

What the heck? That is like saying you are trapped in a cave and know you won't get out and don't even try to get out. Hell that can be put into any situation. You are surrounded by enemy troops with guns point at you and you know you won't survive. But yet you still try to fight you way out. That is a stupid train of thought.

[QUOTE]Again, it?s not the fact that Kerry voted for a war, it?s just the fact of HOW the war was conducted that counts. At the time, America was agreeing with the UN and the US Congress in general but when Bush starts trying to invade everyone and their grandma, THEN AND ONLY THEN did a lot of people turn against them. You want people who stable? Don?t vote for Bush. How the hell do you say that you?re against abortion because you?re taking a life and yet in the same breathe you?ll talk about going to war?! You?re either against death or for death, take your pick George. Doesn?t sound like a very stable person to me. Sorry, I find it hard to believe someone who was strung out on drugs in the past; it?s a pet peeve I have.[/QUOTE]

That is a moot point. He could be completely against abortion. He could make hundreds of laws to outlaw it. But when a war has to come for some reason, you will be killing. You aren't for death or against it. It is something that has to be done. You can still be "against" it and go to war, because you have to.

[QUOTE]IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO DID WHAT, WHY THEY DID WHAT OR TO WHAT DEGREE THEY DID IT, IF YOU?RE THE PRESIDENT, YOU FIX IT![/QUOTE]

Which is exactly what he is doing. Past Presidents didn't do anything about Iraq or the terrorist problems, so now he [i]is[/i] doing something about it.

I personally see no reason to continue this argument. To me you are just an angry man who feels he has to get his words out without even thinking. Countless times you have read my posts and have gone completely off the topic I was talking about. There is a difference between reading, and just seeing words. You have shown me nothing to make me think you know what you are talking about. On countless occasions I have shown you to be wrong about something because you either didn't read it, or you yourself have false information. If you wish to continue this, we should do it over PM and not turn this into a personal vendetta.

Drix D'Zanth · October 11, 2004

[quote name='Garelock']RIIIIGHT! You don't support abortion at all. Like I said, until you speak out against the senseless killing that goes on in Iraq, I don't want to hear a dang thing about abortion. Death is death, you don't sway your way around that, you don't talk your way around that, you don't see it from any other view, when someone gets killed, dangit, they get killed. [/quote]

War isn?t the answer? I keep hearing this? war?s just not the right thing to do. I don?t know, Garelock, we were all fooled; you, me, Bush, Kerry. I don?t know what we need to do to stop militant Islamic terror (there, I?ve said it), but we cannot ignore the fact that they have, and continue to attack our nation. Was going to Iraq the right thing? Well, we declared war on terror WORLDWIDE.. ?Wherever it exists?. If that means Iraq, we go to Iraq. If the war on terror should mean Iran, we should go to Iran. People who oppose abortion, do so with the same philosophy they oppose murder. If you want to say the troops in Iraq are over there to senselessly murder the innocent, well, then we have something more to discuss. Abortion has killed nearly forty million people since legislation in ?73. That?s the entire population of Canada, plus a couple million. They could have been learning, growing, walking, loving individuals like you or me.. but they were killed by the whim of another human. We chose a life separate from the mother, a life with it?s unique DNA, and potential to become as any of us to be killed without any regard to it?s basic constitutional right.

The two issues are a bit different?

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Kerry is a WAY better candidate than Bush, or at least that's what the majority of America thinks. Gay marriage, dude, once again, I'll say this. MARRIAGE IS NOT SACRED IN AMERICA. Like Chris Rock said, Marriage is nothing sacred when you got TV shows with people wanting to get married just to get rich. Take Joe Millionaire for example, the woman only married the guy just because she thought he had 50 million dollars. Now that's my case and point about gay marriage. I'd much RATHER have gay marriage than heterosexual marriages because at least gay people don't showcase their stuff on TV like heterosexuals do!

I don't believe America has a right to tell people who they can marry and who they can't marry because simply, that's discrimination without a doubt. The fact of the matter is we have the Bill of Rights, we got all this stuff, we have this and we have that and yet no one has THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Damnit, what business is it of America who I marry and who I don't marry? That's my damn choice, that's like telling someone, "Hey, we keep saying that you have free rights and you can pursue whatever you want but just don't try to marry a guy or else we'll get mad." That's stupid and you know it! [/QUOTE]

The next time I play soccer I?ll be sure to walk around the field, ball In my hands, before I dash into the goal to score a point! I can?t wait! I?m sure they?ll be bothered that I?m not following their rules, but they have to accept me, Garelock, cause I?ve got my freedom of choice. I?ll play soccer however I damn well please!

Don?t you get it? You can be opposed to Joe Millionare, Brittany Spears, and other derogatory representations of marriage as well as supporting those marriages that are for a purpose! The government isn?t giving tax breaks to married couples because they are in love. They are giving those tax breaks because a monogamous couple BENEFITS SOCIETY. A homosexual couple is a detriment to society, I?m not even talking religiously. I don?t care if gay people get married in institutions or religions that accept them. I just DON?T want to pay for benefits I don?t believe they deserve!

[QUOTE=Garelock]

I repeat, YOU CANNOT RUN A COUNTRY BASED OFF RELIGION! That's what so many leaders have done wrong for years! That formula JUST DOES NOT WORK, IT WILL NOT WORK AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE WILL IT EVER WORK! America is a country that has so many religions, cultures, religion misunderstandings and cultural misunderstandings. How the hell do you run a country with so many beliefs off ONE belief?! It's impossible, you have to learn how to accept and tolerate any culture, creed, custom, belief and sexual orientation. If Bush can't accept people of other religions, if Bush can't accept gay marriage, if Bush can't accept anything that he doesn't believe in then that's all the more reason why he shouldn't be our commander-in-chief. [/QUOTE]

Theocracies? Ever heard of the Divine Right? What?s the difference between a person citing the Bible for his ethical answers, and your ethics? Please explain exactly what distinguishes a ?religious point of view? from any other opinion. Is it God? Is that?s what bugs you so much? Don?t you understand the merit of having absolutism? Or do you believe that man is the measure of all things. Governments HAVE been run religiously, and atheistically; both have worked in some situations and failed in others. Quit generalizing when our own government recognizes atheism AS a religion!

[QUOTE=Garelock]

You know Justin, the Bible says alot of things. The Bible also says:

Well, we try to remove Saddam and Osama before we tried to remove the KKK, the new black panthers, the crips, the bloods, folk, Jersey devils and ALL those people who are more of terrorists to me. I mean it was just last year where the KKK dragged a guy up and down the street in Texas, ripping his body to shreds. Now, if that isn't terrorism, I don't know what the hell terrorism is! We need to worry about the terrorists we have at home before we worry about the ones that other countries have! I mean, no Iraqi or Afghanistanian ever put dogs on my people, they never shot at my people, hung them, castrated them or anything, it was the KKK that did that so I think their regime should be taken over before anything else happens. I'm more afraid to walk around in New York City than Iraq right about now because at least in Iraq you'll only get shot, in New York, you'll get shot THEN mugged for everything that's valuable on your body..hell, I wouldn't be shocked if they stole my internal organs and tried to sell it to a hospital; hustlers are desperate you know. America is so worried about Al Queda, well, the fact is when you can get shot for wearing the wrong colors in a neighborhood then what goes on in Afghanistan should be your LAST CONCERN and what goes on in America should be your FIRST. We're so busy taking care of everyone else that we haven't stopped to take care of ourselves for once. [/QUOTE]

Ah yes.. the KKK wants to destroy America! So do the Crips, Bloods, etc. I?ll agree? Yup.. we?re doing nothing about it right? I dunno, maybe you should go down to your local police office and tell them to stop fighting terrorism and concentrate more on the gang warfare in our own cities! Go out now, Garelock! Fight the gang warfare! Do you really even CARE about your current situation? Sounds to me that if you really gave a **** you?d join the police force yourself! Oh, and in Iraq, you?d probably be tourtured, imprisioned, poisioned, walked over a mine field (only for kids under the age of ten  ), and mutilated BEFORE you were decapitated. Mugged? HA! First you need something valuable.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Jesus says:
Let he who has no sin cast the first stone?

Well, Bush has alot of sins so therefore, he didn't have a right to cast a single stone at Saddam. Bush and his daddy have screwed America up so badly that more than half the country doesn't even like him and that's even some of the Republican party who doesn't want anything to do with him. [/QUOTE]

Garelock, I hope you aren?t trying to be a hypocrite here. I suppose you can?t be... because according to what I can tell, you?ve been flinging many stones! That?s not very becoming of an individual who, like Bush, seems to have many sins. Don?t you read the context of the parable that you cite? You fail to distinguish between the law of that time and the law of today. Jesus saved an innocent man from death because of false accusations and hypocrisy. This was an example of false persecution and hatred for ones enemies, not a retaliatory attack upon another culture! You pick up the sword, but you do not know how to wield it!

[QUOTE=Garelock]

The bible says:
No man has the right to judge another unless they be perfect.

Bush judges other people like he's perfect. Well, he is perfect, A PERFECT LIAR! [/QUOTE]

Garelock, I suggest you read the Bible again if you want to misquote it. The parable concerning judgment refers to spiritual judgment. At the time the Jews believed spiritual judgment was in the hands of the Temple leaders. Jesus corrected them by saying that all judgment was by God, who is PERFECT. This doesn?t refer to the law at all! In fact, Romans distinguishes between law and God?s law. The judgment that Bush is taking is the law of the land, not the spiritual judgment that Jesus warned against.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
I mean, he keeps talking about No Child Left Behind. Well, of course, WE ALL KNOW that doesn't work and that is pretty pointless. As an education major, I've seen too many children left behind every day of the week. Not enough money is spent on education, not enough money is spent on improving our schools, not enough money is spent on America period. We live in a nation that will rather build a prision bus than a school bus, a bomb before a book and a gun before a peace of mind. That's the way Bush wants to run this country, hell, lets be honest, he did come from TEXAS, a place that kills more people with the death penalty than any other state, a place that builds prison buses like crazy but children are still walking to school and a place that has more gun violence than New York. [/QUOTE]

Really? Where did I read that No Child Left Behind didn?t work? Hey, I?ll agree that not enough is spent on education. I?ll also agree that we should re-instate chain gangs instead of prison buses. I?m glad you had the courage to come out on that point, but I?m sure others will rally to your cry. Correction: the Government doesn?t build (write) books or ? ?peace of mind?. I don?t know, I feel a lot better knowing that we are fighting terrorism, despite the slow and inevitably difficult conflict. I?m so glad you seem to support America when you just bashed (by generalization, no less, such a talent for it!) an ENTIRE ******* STATE. More gun violence than New York? PER CAPITA?

Nice run on sentence, Mr. Teacher.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
So in closing, I'd like to say that everyone should vote but before you do, and if you WILL vote for Bush just imagine America in complete ruins then cast your vote; therefore, you'll make the right choice.[/QUOTE]

?. That was touching really. I liked the part about ?America in complete ruins?, that drew a tear.

[quote name='Garelock']You know I normally don't like these long debates but this just gets easiier and easier for me. If there was a person who's a juggernaut at winning these types of debates, well, it's hard for anyone to argue that it's not me. So far, I've been making Bush look like the IDIOT he really is. So I'll just address a few points. [/quote]

You are actually one of those ?special? people that belives someone WINS a debate! I love that! This will be a sad reality check, it appears, my friend.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Some say that they don't understand why people criticize Bush for the war, well, I'll give you a few simple reasons why he's criticized for it:

1. He DID NOT have to send the troops to Iraq nor did he have to send ANY troops over to any place.

2. HE'S THE DAMN COMMANDER IN CHIEF! If you can't understand that then you got some serious mental problems and I don't mean the minor types. If anything goes wrong wtih a nation it is ALWAYS the leader's fault. A leader TAKES THE BLAME FOR THINGS LIKE THAT! It's the way things have been since the first dang American president so I don't see why people get so shocked when Bush gets blamed for everything. No matter what the problem is with America, IT'S HIS FAULT. He can DO something about it, he can CHANGE things and he can quit putting off the blame on everyone else but himself. But as he has proven in both debates with Kerry, he does nothing but say "That wasn't put in place because of my administration." I'll the illustration of the milk again. If you come home and see spilled milk on the floor aren't you going to clean it up? You aren't going to go around the house, trying to get everyone else to clean it up, no, YOU CLEAN IT UP! You're aren't going to let the damn milk sit there for [B]4 years straight[/B] are you? That's what Bush is doing, he's letting the milk get sour on the floor and he's not getting a mop to clean it up. [/QUOTE]

You are the epitomy of a whiner. All you do is piss and moan about how ?Bush does this and Bush does that?. Ever heard of a free market economy? Guess what Bush can do to control that! NOTHING . He can only work indirectly to help ?stimulate? it. I don?t care where tax cuts go? the economy is it?s own device propelled by the laws of economics. Don?t you understand the importance of voting? The importance of Congress? You think Bush is responsible for EVERYTHING? Kerry voted for this war, too. If enough people, INCLUDING Kerry had voted against it; perhaps we wouldn?t be there. If the nation hadn?t supported attacking Iraq prior to the invasion (one of the highest support rates for our president at that moment), why didn?t our congress reflect that? No, congress reflected America?s choice, maybe not yours, but the majority of congress?, executive body, and the people?s choice. As far as I?m concerned.. we?re cleaning up the milk right now.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
3. We are indeed the most hated country in the world and it's all Bush's fault. 9/11 didn't make us the most hated, our international ties didn't make us the most hated, hell, even the Clinton and Monica scandal didn't make us the most hated. What made most countries in the world despise us so? Well, it's Bush. His whole make-up is what pisses people off. You have to admit that all these other countries can't be wrong. Now, when you got one or two countries criticizing you, well, that's not bad but when you got half the world saying they hate you and even your allies hating, well, it's tough to argue that something isn't wrong with that picture. [/QUOTE]

Who cares? Why would other countries give a damn about the Lewinski scandal? We were the mockery of the world during that time. As far as I?m considered we are taking a policy that invests in the interests of OUR state.. NOT Europe. The Eiffel tower wasn?t bombed, the WTC was. Kerry has stated a unilateral precedence over multilateral in his last two debates claiming that we may have gone in early, but he STILL would have fought a war despite the UN?s ire. Speaking of the UN.. what the hell are we listening to them for anyway? Their usefulness has decreased DRAMATICALLLY since the end of the Cold War. They didn?t do jack **** in Latin America, Rwanda, Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, South Africa? nothing. The UN is nothing more than a supplement, not a world power. Europe is suffering superpower envy.. look at the EU. As far as I can tell, the only ?Great Satan? was the U.S. according to the caliph.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
4. Some people seem to think that Kerry is more war-proned than Bush. No, that is very much incorrect. The reason why Kerry wants to send more troops over to Iraq is so that he can get this stupid war over with and get our people out of there faster. With the current head count of American troops we have in Iraq now isn't exactly enough to end this fast, quick and in a hurry. With the increasing amount of deaths in Iraq, more troops are needed to finish off the remaining resistance. At least Kerry has a plan...as we've seen with Bush, he's just like his daddy, he doesn't have a damn clue what the hell he's doing as president. I mean, I've heard Republicans say that, most of my family are Republican. My brother is a Navy Seal and even he doesn't like Bush. Sorry, but once again, all those people can't be wrong... [/QUOTE]

Both presidential hopefuls care to finish the war. Bush?s daddy won the Gulf War within months considered one of the greatest military victories in history?. Bush dominated and continues victory after victory on the terrorist cells in that nation. Every new battle the casualties may read one or two Americans? to their three hundred or so assailants. As for the innocents.. I have two remarks. How many innocent people die in wars that you aren?t whining about? How about wars that aren?t bothered fighting? How can the democratic agenda be against policing the world, then pick and choose it?s pity-trips when it comes to foreign policy. Where was the demorcratic recorse during Kosovo? Sure people are dying, more will die. Every sacrifice is worth something, Garelock, don?t let your pessimism darken their heroism. They ARE fighting for our homeland because it WAS under attack, and as long as the terrorist network perpetuates, will be vulnerable to future attack.

Sorry to hear most of your family is so misled .

[QUOTE=Garelock]
5. I got reasons to dislike Bush for this war. He's telling me that I should be against terrorism and stuff, well, I'm more against America. Al Queda didn't enslave my people for almost 300 plus years, Al Queda didn't sick dogs and spray water hoses on my people for trying to vote, Al Queda didn't hang my people for trying to read a book, Al Queda didn't shoot at my people for trying to go to the same schools as whites did, no, American citizens did that. I know this stuff is pretty old but alot of it is still going on today. In Clariton county and Marlboro county, once again, in South Carolina, there's a court case currently taking place that's bigger than Brown v.s. Board of Education and it's about, once again, equal rights for minorities in schools. Now, isn't it funny how things like that can pass along? I'm led to believe that racial inequality only took place back in the days of Dixie, the Maurice Bessingers and Jim Crow years, well, from what anyone with a brain would see, it's not over. Not if you have to go to court if you want the same amount of funding that the white schools seem to get in such a high abundance. Now, this is what Bush calls fair. He lets the neighborhoods pay taxes to fund the schools. Know how biased that is? Suppose your school is in a low income or "ghetto" neighborhood? Just how much funding can a school get then?! NOTHING! It's like asking a homeless person to fund the war with Iraq! If this is Bush's view of fair and equal for all, then that's just another reason why I don't like him. [/QUOTE]

What the hell? I may not be supportive of the idea that neighborhoods pay for their own schooling, I have to ask the question: If paying for your own schooling was such a big deal, then why do you expect the burden to be laid upon others to do it for you? If you really want to improve your neighborhood, stop whining about your president and DO SOMETHING.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
6. People call Saddam a terroist, bad person and a dictator, more or less and among the other things that he's called. Well, what is Bush? I mean, he comes from Texas and when you look at the amount of death penalty sentences that Texas gives out a year, well, Bush doesn't have a right to talk about how others are killed in other countries. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that you'd get the death penalty if you litter over there; lol. I know some people would probably say something like tihs, "Well, those are criminals." Know what I'd respond to those people with? [U][B]DEATH IS DEATH! NO MATTER HOW BIG, NO MATTER HOW SMALL! YOU KILLL SOMEONE AND YOU'RE JUST AS BAD AS HITLER![/B][/U] I don't care what you did wrong, I don't believe it's worth killing someone over. That's wrong no matter how anyone would see it. Killing for any reason is wrong, from my Christian point of view and my moral and universal point of view. Just think, if you kill everyone who has killed someone then what have you accomplished? You've just managed to killl a whole bunch of people, plus the people that those people have killled and then all you'd have is a bunch of dead people on your hands. [/QUOTE]

Hey.. bravo. I?m all against the death penalty. But you seem to sidestep reason when you compare the death penalty with Sadaam?s torture and murder. Your brother is a Navy Seal, trained to KILL and blow things up. You now imply that your brother is Hitler? Be careful when picking the speck out of Bush?s eye before you remove the plank from your own. So you are saying the soldiers that fought the third reich are like Hitler? You are saying the men and women of the Union fighting the Civil War that would eventually lead to abolition were just like Hitler? If the world was perfect, killing wouldn?t need to be justified. What do we do against another force that is capable of hitting us at home? What about what the terrorists could do next? I?m not going to throw around ideas, but they hit us on our own soil, the first time since the war of 1812 (or the Aleutians if you want to be really technically). A dirty bomb in NYC harbor is going to kill plenty more than the deaths in Iraq.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
7. Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed. [/QUOTE]

What the hell? The whole point of Airforce One, the Secret Service is to keep our LEADER ALIVE so we don?t fall into GOVERNMENTAL CHAOS! What the hell? Do you even think before you typed this point up? What are YOU doing to fight terrorism Garelock? I don?t see you taking up arms if you are so pissed off about one person?s seeming non-involvement.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
8. Bush justifies what our allies do. Correction, what the allies who support us do. Let me give you a prime example. Israel attacked a guy in a wheel chair. Now, when you wake up in the morning, the last thing you want to open your window to see is an Apache helicopter with missiles ready to be launched at you. The guy was in a freaking wheelchair and was [U]PARALYZED from the WAIST DOWN![/U] They launched two Amran missiles at him and blowed him to smitherines! Bush doesn't do a SINGLE thing to stop actions like that but he has room to criticize Saddam and Osama. If blasting a guy in a wheelchair isn't a terrorist attack then what the hell is?! As a matter of fact, Bush even JUSTIFIED that attack. Yeah, who wouldn't vote for this guy? :laugh: [/QUOTE]

Your point is mute. First, give a source. Secondly, Apache helicopters are not a presence in the Isreili military. Thirdly, Apache helicopters do NOT FIRE AR-120 AMRAAM missiles! Lastly, AR-120?s are Air-to-Air missiles only, they lock onto another fighter by radar, an object the size of a person cannot be fired upon. Not only that, you cannot dumb fire them (you need to establish lock before you can fire).

Maybe you should consult your brother before spouting BS like this, ok Patton?

[QUOTE=Garelock]
9. The Iraquis don't want us in their country. Well, common sense tells you that if there's STILL RESISTANCE there. I mean, take it from my brother who's currently serving in the military. He personally said that when he talked to the Iraqis that they didn't want us in their country and they wished that we would leave. If someone came to your country and tortured your people as those American soldiers did, well, would you want them in your country? American troops have a history with doing that. It's one of the reasons why Japan hates us so much. We have troops still stationed in Japan but the Japanese have openly expressed and laid down a record that they don't want us in their country. Not after certain American troops were caught raping little Japanese girls and using them for sex slaves and of such. That's a known fact, I don't even have to offer proof... [/QUOTE]

The entire terrorist network doesn?t want to lose the country. This is religious for them. If they win.. and push us out by force alone, they win against the ?great satan?. No one likes WAR, the Iraquis have mixed opinions of the American occupation of their country just because the terrorists that are attacking us now from other nations (within Iraq) aren?t going to accept a free democracy! American troops torture people? Dear god, that?s the most ridiculous thing I?ve ever heard! I understand this Abu Grabe crap was an exception, but comparing us to Japanese brutality of WW2? Ever read [u]The Rape of Nanking[/u]? Check and Mate.

[QUOTE=Garelock]
10. People love to say that Kerry is a flip flopper, well, I'll officially put that to rest by calling Bush the very same thing he calls Kerry. Now, he says he's pro-life with the abortion issue YET he won't stop to launce bunker busters at a crowd of innocent people. And yes, innocent people have been killed in this war, the death toll of innocent bystanders, according to the military and my brother who's IN IRAQ NOW would be over 20 thousand people. 20 THOUSAND PEOPLE?! I wish someone WOULD try to justify that many people being killed because of a stupid war that they weren't even fighting! Anyways, Bush says Kerry is too much into science. Riiight....is this the same president who tried to spend 4 billion dollars on a space shuttle and Congress rejected that bill? Bush says Kerry wants to bill the American people too much with taxes. With the war deficient WELL over 100 billion dollars, hmm...I wonder who Bush thinks is going to pay off those taxes. Maybe his rich buddies who he's giving tax relief to will or maybe the poor guy you see walking down the street will pay off the debt. Either way, he can't say Kerry is charging Americans too much and turn around and put America in over 100 billion dollars worth of debt. He says that a lot of American people don't like Kerry. Dude, HALF THE WORLD DOESN'T LIKE YOU! How the hell can you criticize someone George? The only people who really likes you are the ones who either don't know what they're talking about or truthfully believe in what you're doing. Why do they believe? You got me on that one...Bush says that Kerry isn't Anti-war and his plan will take longer to go into success. Well, first off, AT LEAST KERRY HAS A PLAN! Bush's cabinet and Bush himself has proven time and time again that they are unorganized with their methods.Second of all, George, when it concerns you and war, you shouldn't even mumble when someone talks about war because between you and your daddy, I'm surprised that the 3rd world war hasn't already taken place. [/QUOTE]

Tell me where Bush orders the launch of Bunker Busters on crowds of people? Just like he shoots Air-to-Air missles at disabled people? Your entire point is pathetically debased. Think about it: You are an American soldier. There is someone shooting at you from a building. You return fire. Oh, the building has a few other people in it, you notice. Are they terrorists? Innocents? Do you try to run away, or do you return fire? The terrorists have NO REGARD for the lives of their own citizens! They are in full genocide in multiple hotspots around the world as we speak! Look at ISRAEL! Half the world doesn?t agree with us, that?s a real shame for that half of the world. Maybe if they were on Al-Queda?s target list, they?d change their minds (cough Spain). Bush never said Kerry was Anti-War.. just inexperienced. Kerry doesn?t know what the hell he wants as far as I can tell. Then again, how could he know what he?s doing if he missed 118 senate votes out of a total of 132 last year!

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Now, you can try to argue these points if you want to but most people have simply decided not to reply to my comments. Most of them are either known facts or hard to dispute when people live these Bush lies everyday. [/QUOTE]

Most people realize most of your information is made up, just plain wrong, or they suffer an epileptic seizure from the sheer frustration of reading such puerile posts!

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Signed,

A dude that's unbeatable in a debate...[/QUOTE]

*snicker*

[QUOTE=Garelock]

You may as well. It's what the rest of the world is doing now and officially, we are the #1 most hated country in the world according to a recent poll by ABC news. I used to say that the UK liked us but even they don't like us now. 9/11, terrorism, global warming and all that stuff doesn't have a hill of beans to do with the American image. Who do you think other countries judge us by? The actions of Bush. You can't really judge the people if you don't judge the leader. It's why Christians are sometimes looked down upon for discrimination and why God gets blamed for it so often. [/QUOTE]

You keep repeating yourself? Do you think the other countries would not hate us if Kerry were president? If you were given the same information Bush was.. wouldn?t you make the same decision.. or would you ignore the (unfortunately flawed) CIA.

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Yes I can really say the blame lies at his feet because that comes with the job description. Suppose you saw a platoon in the US Army acting like idiots and performing recklessness. Whom do you think would be questioned and dealt with first? Don't even say those people doing the deed because my bro, who's in Iraq curently, just told me about how a Battalion commander was relieved of his duties for not keeping his men in line. That's just how it works in America, that's how it has been since the beginning of the US leadership and chances are, that's how it will end. [/QUOTE]

He?s everyone?s whipping boy. If he did invade, he?d be wrong. If he didn?t invade, he?d be wrong. I doubt Kerry, who hasn?t led a war for nearly three years has the same experience Bush does in fighting the war on terrorism.

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Of course one man can be responsible for running a whole country. Ever heard of a dictatorship? :laugh: I'm just kidding. Anyways, yes, the US Congress tried to stop the war with Iraq and Afghanistan but Bush has the power to veto them and overstep them. It's not the Congressional powers' fault if Bush is a stubborn person and doesn't want to listen. If you KNOW he didn't listen to the UN, then what makes you think he listened to Congress? [/QUOTE]

?.. Please tell me you really aren?t going to be responsible for teaching the youth of our nation. Do you know what veto means? It means that you put a proposition forward, then it may be vetoed. A bill is not passed by veto, it is stopped. Bush can?t force anything to pass if congress doesn?t pass it.. they can VETO HIM. Didn?t you ever take a government class back in high school? Not only that, congress VOTED for the war! KERRY VOTED FOR THE WAR! Is Kerry any less stubborn and unyielding to the UN? And concerning the UN.. see previous comments concerning it.

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Americans are known for one thing; being hypocrits. Isn't it funny how we're still mad over 9/11 and just last week a line of US bombs destroyed a whole neighborhood, killing an amount of people that even I, a person in college couldn't count. We're hypocrits, we say things like 9/11 aren't supposed to happen to us and yet we cause Iraq's 9/11 every single day. It's the truth, take it or leave it. Again, the whole world can't be wrong... [/QUOTE]

You can?t count your tens and hundreds? More people died in two days in Somalia than the months we?ve been in Iraq. We took an entire nation from a dictatorship believed to be creating WMDs but wasn?t. Hey? don?t forget that we declared war on ALL TERRORISM! The whole world can?t be wrong?

Ok, how bout this? a good 60% of the world is NOT Christian. You believe Jesus is God. Are they wrong? Comon?? all those people can?t be wrong can they? Sometimes you have to stand up for what you belive in despite the fact that others around you don?t agree with you.

The countries that oppose us in Europe turned their backs on us?simple as that. As soon as we picked our enemies, they didn?t want to fight the war with us

[QUOTE=Garelock]
Need I bring up the fact that just last year a black man in Texas was tied to the back of a pick up truck and dragged up and down the street? Need I tell you that just last week a black man was hanged out in front of his lawn? Need I tell you that people are still running around with white cloths on their head? Need I tell you that not are Nazis are dead? Need I tell you that people are STILL trying to make it so that we're back in slavery? Need I tell you that the Confederate Flag still flies on South Carolina's statehouse dome, the very symbol of black oppression? People say "The flag is my heritage" and I respond, "Your heritage was my slavery." [/QUOTE]

?Need I tell you that not are Nazis are dead?? what college do you go to, really? Hey, I don?t like the Confederate Flag just like you, but with the freedom of speech comes the freedom of speech. People die every year in hate-related crimes. Aren?t all murders hate related? What?s with the dichotomy? You get pissed that we fail to generalize murder into a single category, yet you make it a point to mention racial hate crimes?

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Riiight..and what has Bush done that Hitler hasn't? Hitler has had innocent people killed, Bush has had people killed; it's all the REASONS why they did it. Again, a life is a life, death, prematurely, is something that you cannot excuse or try to justify. And yes I do know lots about Bush, most stuff that I'm not even mentioning because I want to make this a fair debate and not completely destroy his reputation like Kerry has done so often; again, polls don't lie. Bush didn't personally sentenced these people to death?! What do you call a war?! You understand perfectly clear that when you start a war, people are going to die! What?! Did Bush think that there would be no casualties? That the Iraqis were just going to put their weapons down and surrender? HA! Not in a million years! [/QUOTE]

Bush killed innocent people. FDR killed innocent people. You like your lunchmeat sandwich? That could?ve saved a starving boy?s life in some mid-African country. Read John Donne?s ?No man is an islande?, then comment exactly how you can selectively criticize one man without criticizing yourself? Bush is sentencing the people who wish to attack and are related (guilty by association, if you will) to them. That?s the Sept 12th declaration of war.

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Oh I don't know...the White House where all the REST of the American presidents had? I mean, lets be honest, if anything comes without 5 miles of the White House it'll be shot down immediately so I don't know what the big worry about that is. He could've went to the Pentagon, after all, there's a nuclear weapon-proof chamber down there where you can command the troops all over the world. He could've simply stayed on the ground where he wouldn't have been criticized about being a coward. What better way to make our enemies think that we're nothing more than cowards than to have a president who goes ducking and hiding everytime America is attacked? [/QUOTE]

How is hiding in a hole any less cowardice than commanding from the air? Don?t you realize that Air Force One is actually far safer than a little bunker underground? It?s undetectable by conventional standards, and a untouchable by enemy aircraft?

What exactly are you criticizing here? What did they do to Johnson after the Kennedy assassination? Rushed him to Air Force One. Do you think they would have spared that precaution on any president threatened like that?

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Bush is the leader, yes, I've said that lots of times before. But the problem I keep running into is that he's not leading! He's only placing the blame off on previous presidencies. PEOPLE! OPEN UP YOUR EYES! The president can change things if he wants. It doesn't matter if Congress passes a bill, it doesn't matter what Bush's cabinet members do and as the last election proved, it doesn't even matter what the American voter does, the American president is the most powerful man in America. He can change things instead of complaining, moaning and griping over them. You don't like a policy and you're the president? Here's a thought...CHANGE IT! You changed the tax bills a hundred and one times, why should you stop with the changes now? [/QUOTE]

?. You just bypassed 98% of our important governmental procedures. This war wouldn?t be possible without the Join Chiefs or Congress. He is changing things with our economy now, and has plans to continue. The war also has plans to continue, and has actually be an overriding success? ignored because of everyone?s disposition against it.

What? You have the nerve to classify Americans of hypocrisy, and you are a subject of it right now??

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Oh that isn't the first time America has supported an ally that's worth supporting. Remember the UK? The country whom, at one time, actually liked us? 5 people were killed in a massive raid. Want to know why they were killed? For holding up end the war signs in front of the Parliament building, though I can't recall the name; hell I don't live in the country. People getting shot over something stupid like that? I'm sure there was more involved but there's no real reason to shoot an unarmed person. What's the matter? You're so weak to the point where you have to shot a bullet into someone to overpower them? [/QUOTE]

Cite source. Secondly, how is this of relevance to OUR involvement in Iraq? The British government hates protesters? I would just love to see if this was true.

[QUOTE=Garelock]

Which news reports I listen to? Naw, I don't really listen to news reports when I got a brother who's serving in the military calling me every 2 months or so and giving me a primary source on the matter. It's hard to argue with him when he's actually THERE. He said that the people don't want us there, he has been shot at by people over and over again. Now, common sense tells you that if a citizen shoots at you, then another and then another and then the count of people shooting at you gets past 100, evidently, they don't want you in their country. Living free? Constant terror? What the hell do you call the current status? They're even worse off than when Saddam was there. We got grandmothers shooting at the American soldiers because simply, the Iraqis don't want us there. You call that freedom? Freedom to get bombed by "Big, Bad America?" How would you like it if one day you're sitting at home, minding your own business and a US war jet flies over your house and sends a bunker buster to blow you up? OH! Doesn't seem so fair now does it? [/QUOTE]

Wait, you don?t listen to the news? What the hell? How does your brother know exactly what happened with the parliamentary building then? How about the AMRAAMs being launched at the crippled person? Did your brother give you that juicy one? Your brother?s account is dubious at best from what you?ve shown me. Then again, the problems with our news agencies are another issue entirely.

? Worse off when Saddam was there? What the hell? You think a nation that slaughters it?s own people, tortures and rapes women, imprisons children, harbors terrorist networks is better off than the nation Iraq COULD BE? That?s like saying Germany under Hitler was better off than a Germany in the midst of war. SURE IT WAS! We?re STILL FIGHTING, lets finish before we draw conclusions! As for fairness on the battlefield, anyone who?s firing on American troops is still FIRING UPON THEM! We don?t suddenly open fire on grandmas and random passersby. You know why so many Americans die in conflicts? Because we follow the rules. Your brother will tell you this too. Soldiers do not fire until fired upon. Usually that first burst of automatic fire could kill a few soldiers before the Americans can retaliate. You think the militant Islamic organizations flooding Iraq care about the Geneva Convention? You think they care if they are firing on unarmed military personnel? How about the Iraqis they live with? They fire from the homes knowing that the U.S. would target them. Why, if they are so concerned with the well being of their people, not taking their war to the open ground without civilians? You think the U.S. isn?t fighting fair? Balderdash!

[QUOTE=Garelock]

DAMNIT BUSH! Yet another person has to suffer because of our president's STUPID policies. He killed Superman! He could've been saved damnit! He could've lived! But on well, I guess when you have an idiot for a president...things can't go your way. Then again, heart failure isn't something that can really be prevented. Christopher Reeves could've walked again if Bush had funded the research. Hell! He funds billion dollar spaceshuttles that have proven to kill more talent astronauts! Why is abortion so bad again?[/QUOTE]

What the hell? Do you even know how the drug companies work? Do you even consider that he spends lots of money on a space program so astronauts DON?T DIE? The astronauts that died in the Colombia were flying a craft designed in the 70?s and popularized in the 80?s, that flew under approximately 5 presidential terms without stop?.

You claim to be the king of debates, but all of your points are terribly hypocritical, infantile, and just plain pathetic? I pity the future of our education.
Sorry I bunched this all together, I wanted to pick up all the crap in one swoop. Looks like Garelock had another accident.. I?ll be posting again shortly to pick up those pieces again.. *sigh* Don?t make me sick PT on you?

Burninated >:- )

October 11, 2004

[QUOTE]Right here is a quote from the Encarta encyclopedia.

As the states of the Deep South seceded, Buchanan found himself at a loss to stop them. He was firmly convinced that any violence toward the South would only precipitate war. A policy of compromise, he believed, would see the nation through the secession crisis. So determined was he that his administration not risk a civil war by committing an overt act that he did nothing. His policy of inaction toward the seceded states averted war for the remainder of his administration, giving various compromise efforts a chance to develop

Seeing as how you don't even have the ability to reread your own postsI am going to explain to you and yourfriends so called history major dad means. This is the Encarta Encyclopedia. It is a well respected encyclopedia, that is a very intelligent composition of all things in this world. It has an online version, and a set of books. That is exactly what the other side said that I posted. Are we saying the Encyclopedia's are wrong? How many times have they been re-written. Please, think things through. It is not me who is wrong. It is you and your friend's father. I have no clue where he got his education, but he should go back and demand his money back.You have shown you don't even have the ability to actually read what is being said, so I hope you have the ability to actually think.[/QUOTE]

You know, I'm reading Encarta right now and still, you're wrong dude. I hate to have to give a whole history lesson but I'm pulling this from Encarta.com if you want to check it for yourself. And I don't know if you were born with a brain but sometimes people are born without them; you're just proving that over and over again. This is too easy, I mean, I wanted a challenge in a debate not a history lesson but I guess I'll have to put the lesser minded like you in your place.

[QUOTE]I Introduction
Print Preview of Section

American Civil War, military conflict (1861-1865) between the United States of America (the Union) and 11 secessionist Southern states, organized as the Confederate States of America (the Confederacy). In the South, the conflict is also known as the War Between the States. [B]During the time, President Buchanan tried his best to stop the war but was unsuccessful.[/B]

II Background
Print Preview of Section

The Civil War was the culmination of four decades of intense sectional conflict and reflected deep-seated economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. The South, overwhelmingly agricultural, produced cash crops?cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane?for export to the North or to Europe, but it depended on the North for manufactured goods and for the financial and commercial services essential to trade. Underscoring sectional differences, the labour force in the South included nearly 4 million enslaved blacks. Although the slaveholding planter class formed a small minority of the population, it dominated Southern politics and society. Slaves were the largest single investment in the South, and the fear of slave unrest ensured the loyalty of nonslaveholding whites to the economic and social system. It was to defend the right to maintain slavery that the Southern states eventually went to war.

A The Sectional Controversy

To maintain harmony between the Southern and Northern supporters in the Democratic and Whig parties, political leaders tried to avoid the slavery question. But with growing opposition in the North to the extension of slavery into the new territories, evasion of the issue became increasingly difficult. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 temporarily settled the issue by establishing the 36° 30? parallel as the line separating free and slave territory in the Louisiana Purchase. Conflict resumed, however, when the United States boundaries were extended westward to the Pacific after the Mexican-American War. The Compromise Measures of 1850 provided for the admission of California as a free state and the organization of two new territories?Utah and New Mexico?from the balance of the land acquired in the war. The principle of popular sovereignty would be applied there, permitting the territorial legislatures to decide the status of slavery when they applied for statehood.

B The Shifting Balance

Despite the Compromise of 1850, conflict persisted. The South had become a minority section, and its leaders viewed the actions of the US Congress, over which they had lost control, with growing concern. The Northeast demanded for its industrial growth a protective tariff, federal subsidies for shipping and internal improvements, and a sound banking and currency system. The Northwest looked to Congress for free homesteads and federal aid for its roads and waterways. The South, however, regarded such measures as discriminatory, favouring Northern commercial interests, and it found the rise of antislavery agitation in the North intolerable. Many free states, for example, passed personal liberty laws in an effort to frustrate enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act. The increasing frequency with which ?free soilers?, politicians who argued that no more slave states should be admitted to the Union, won elective office in the North also worried Southerners.

Continue reading article

The issue of slavery expansion erupted again in 1854, when Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois pushed through Congress a bill establishing two new territories?Kansas and Nebraska?and applying to both the principle of popular sovereignty. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, by voiding the Missouri Compromise, produced a wave of protest in the North, including the organization of the Republican party. Opposing any further expansion of slavery, the new party became so strong in the North by 1856 that its candidate, John C. Fremont, was nearly elected to the presidency. Meanwhile, in the contest for control of Kansas, Democratic President James Buchanan asked Congress to admit Kansas to the Union as a slave state, a proposal that outraged Northerners. Adding to their anger, the US Supreme Court, on March 7, 1857, ruled in the Dred Scott case that the US Constitution gave Congress no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. Two years later, on October 16, 1859, John Brown, an uncompromising opponent of slavery, raided the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), in an attempt to promote a general slave uprising. That raid, along with Northern condemnation of the Dred Scott decision, helped to convince Southerners of their growing insecurity within the Union.

C The Secession Crisis

In the presidential election of 1860, a split in Democratic party ranks resulted in the nomination by the Southern wing of John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky and the nomination by the Northern wing of Stephen Douglas. The newly formed Constitutional Union party, reflecting the compromise sentiment still strong in the border states, nominated John Bell of Tennessee. The Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln on a platform that opposed the further expansion of slavery and endorsed a protective tariff, federal subsidies for internal improvements, and a homestead act. The Democratic split virtually assured Lincoln's election, and this in turn convinced the South to make a bid for independence rather than face political encirclement. By March 1861, when Lincoln was inaugurated, seven states?South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas?had adopted ordinances of secession, and the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as president, had been formed.

In his inaugural address, Lincoln held that secession was illegal and stated that he intended to maintain federal possessions in the South. On April 12, 1861, when an attempt was made to resupply Fort Sumter, a federal installation in the harbour at Charleston, South Carolina, Southern artillery opened fire. Three days later, Lincoln called for troops to put down the rebellion. In response, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee also joined the Confederacy.

D Resources of North and South

Neither the North nor the South was prepared in 1861 to wage a war. With a population of 22 million, the North had a greater military potential. The South had a population of 9 million, but of that number, nearly 4 million were enslaved blacks whose loyalty to the Confederate cause could hardly be assumed. Although they initially relied on volunteers, necessity eventually forced both sides to resort to a military draft to raise an army. Before the war ended, the South had enlisted about 900,000 white males, and the Union had enrolled about 2 million men (including 186,000 blacks), nearly half of them towards the end of the war.

In addition, the North possessed clear material advantages?in money and credit, factories, food production, mineral resources, and transport?that proved decisive. The South's ability to fight was hampered by chronic shortages of food, clothing, medicine, and heavy artillery, as well as by war weariness and the unpredictability of its black labour force.

Even with its superior manpower and resources, however, the North did not achieve the quick victory it had expected. To raise, train, and equip a massive fighting force from inexperienced volunteers and to find efficient military leadership proved a formidable and time-consuming task. The South, with its stronger military tradition, had more men experienced in the use of arms and produced an able corps of officers, including Robert E. Lee. Only through trial and error did Lincoln find comparable military leaders, such as Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman.

III Hostilities
Print Preview of Section

The Confederacy enjoyed a certain advantage in conducting defensive operations on familiar terrain. If the South could keep its army in the field until the North lost the will to fight, the Confederacy would win the war. In contrast, the North needed to attack on a broad front and sustain long avenues of communication and supply.

Whereas the South merely had to defend itself, the North needed to destroy the South's capacity to make war and compel total surrender. The strategy for achieving this goal that was most popular with the Northern press, the public, and political leaders called for a direct overland march on Richmond, Virginia, the Confederate capital. They believed that the fall of Richmond would demoralize the South and bring the war to a rapid close. Lincoln's military advisers, however, convinced him to implement the ?Anaconda Plan?. Devised by General Winfield Scott, it called for the establishment of a naval blockade around the Confederacy to prevent the importation of supplies from Europe, followed by an invasion of the Mississippi Valley to cut the Confederacy in half.

Confederate leaders also differed on the most effective strategy. Davis thought in terms of a defensive war that would wear down the North, attract foreign sympathy and support, and result in the acknowledgement of Southern independence. But the long, exposed frontier between the North and the South rendered such a strategy unrealistic. An alternate plan called for an offensive strike into the North before that section could mobilize its superior manpower and material goods. Those who advocated this strategy believed that the more prolonged the war, the less chance the South had of winning it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]How is Hitler not a recognized madman? How do you consider Bush a recognized madman? Does Bush go around rounding people up into camps and then gassing them? Does he perform experiments on them while they are living? Hitler is the madman. As I have stated above, you need to read up on your history, not I. Of course America will fall. It is a known fact. All great empires fall. I have accepted this. Hitler was quite a smart man. He had one blunder that caused him the war. Had that not occured, the war definately wouldn't have turned out the way it is. He knocked out France in less than a month. Took over all off Europe. Not since the days of Napolean has that been accomplished.

Bush acted on the intelligence he had at the time. I am willing to admit that it wasn't the best of intelligence. But hey, if you have something in front of you that says some country has nuclear weapons, or that some country is going to bomb you, you are going to act on it. Think logically here. He made his decisions based on what was presented to him at the time. He had no idea of knowing if it was false or true. He made the decision that any President would do. You have stuff in front of you saying you are threatened, you are going to do something about it.[/QUOTE]

Well, lets look at it this way. Bush may not have gassed innocent people but he DID vote to reinstate the gas chamber for criminals. What's the difference? You kill an innocent person, you kill a criminal, there's no difference because either wau you're taking a life. He made the decision that any president would make? Really? Who else made that kind of decision BUT his daddy? Even Clinton had proof that Saddam had the weapons and afterwards, all Bush had to do was use Clinton's clear evidence and justify the war...no...what does he do? He tries to do it on his own. Don't take my word for it, take this:

[QUOTE]Top 30 Bush - Iraq Lies: A Reference For Seekers of Truth

So many lies have been spread by the Administration and their minions that it is hard to keep track. I suppose that?s part of their strategy. Overwhelm the opposition and the public with so much misinformation that the truth will never be clear. They can then press forward in an ambiguous cloud of fear and ?what if?? scenarios. Thus, we should take pains to document the trail of deceit. As our part, we have created this list, sort of a handy tip-sheet to refute the arguments of the tin-pot, would-be murderers who insist on seizing Iraqi oil in exchange for the blood of our military men and women and the Iraqi citizenry..

So here we go.

1) It is only appropriate that we start the list with the most recent fabrication:

?A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.?

?Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.?

And the Administration?s response?

"?We fell for it,? said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents."

Yeah right! As though the Administration had absolutely nothing to do with this "mysterious" fabrication.

Anyway, in no particular order, here are the other top lies currently being circulated by the Administration and the right-wing propaganda machine.

2) The Bush Administration insists Iraq is developing an 800-mile-plus range missile. A prior UN resolution made it illegal for Iraq to build missiles that had a range in excess of 93 miles.

In fact, The al-Samoud 2, the missile to which the administration refers, has indeed been flying too far in tests? ?by about 15 miles and that is because it isn't yet loaded down with its guidance system.

3) The administration claimed they had satellite photographs that showed new research buildings at Iraqi nuclear sites. However, when the U.N. went into the new buildings they found "nothing".

4) The administration asserted that specific presidential palaces were places the inspectors would find incriminating evidence. Again, they found "nothing".

5) It was reported that an al Qaeda informant claimed that terrorists had found a way of smuggling radioactive material through airports without being detected.

Unfortunately, the ?informant? then failed a polygraph test.

"'This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true,' Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief, told the news network."

Even so, the ?Orange? alert status, which was activated when the Administration made these claims public, remained. But wait, if the reason for the heightened alert status was proven false, then why keep it? Good Question. Let?s see?if I were Bush and I wanted to paralyze the populace with fear in order to force them behind me in all my criminal dealings, I would certainly take advantage of this miscue by allowing the alert to remain. Nothing like a little orange to make people see red. Besides, how many people could have possibly even heard about the whole ?Hoax? thing?

True to form, Tom Ridge made no mention of the ?Hoax? to anyone so why should Bush.

"We have not received any additional intelligence that would lead us to either raise or lower the threat level at this time."

6) Rupert Murdoch helped the Administration by spreading this lie (as though Fox News and the NY Post wasn't enough):

"Saddam Hussein's senior bodyguard has fled with details of Iraq's secret arsenal. His revelations have supported US President George W. Bush's claim [that] there is enough evidence from UN inspectors to justify going to war. [The bodyguard] has provided Israeli intelligence with a list of sites that the inspectors have not visited."

They include:

~ An underground chemical weapons facility at the southern end of the Jadray Peninsula in Baghdad.

~ A SCUD assembly area near Ramadi. The missiles come from North Korea.

~ Two underground bunkers in Iraq's Western Desert. These contain biological weapons.

And?

"William Tierney, a former UN weapons inspector who has continued to gather information on Saddam's arsenal, said Mahmoud's information is 'the smoking gun'."

Needless to say, all of these have proven to be 100% false.

7) As a centerpiece to it's argument for invading Iraq, the Administration has boldly pursued the idea that Saddam and al Qaeda are in cahoots. The CIA and the FBI disagree:

"?analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency have complained that senior administration officials have exaggerated the significance of some intelligence reports about Iraq, particularly about its possible links to terrorism, in order to strengthen their political argument for war, government officials said."

and?

"At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network. "We've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there," a government official said."

This is consistent with what they were saying back in October:

"They are politicizing intelligence, no question about it," said Vincent M. Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief. "And they are undertaking a campaign to get George Tenet [the director of central intelligence] fired because they can't get him to say what they want on Iraq."

In addition, in a January 30, interview, Blix revealed that:

? ?he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech.?

Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice alleged that al-Qaeda operatives have had a direct relationship with the Iraqi government:

"There clearly are contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented,"

She did not document them and a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated the evidence for linkage is tenuous, based on sources of varying reliability.

8) Central to the Saddam - al Qaeda connection claim is the assertion that Czech authorities had evidence of a meeting between one of the September 11 hijackers, Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague in April 2001.

Both Czech President Vaclav Havel and Czech intelligence refuted this report. To this day, members of the Administration cite the Prague report as evidence of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection.

9) The Administration latched onto the idea that Ramzi Yousef, who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, escaped from New York on a false passport provided by Iraqi intelligence. The reasoning for this speculation is so far-fetched as to be laughable.

10) Bush and Co. claimed that al-Qaeda refugees from the war in Afghanistan have found refuge in Iraq. Some of this relates to a group called Ansar al, which has taken over a small area near the Iranian border. This part of Iraq, however, is in Kurdish hands and outside the direct control of the Iraqi Government.

11) Rafed Ibrahim Fatah, an Ansar member now in Kurdish hands spoke of meetings between [Ansar] and al-Qaeda leaders, though not Osama Bin Laden himself. Although the implication was that the Iraqi's did indeed have ties to Iraq, as explained above, this in no way implicated the Iraqi government.

12) Rafed Fatah and a senior al-Qaeda operative captured in Morocco, Abu Zubair, supposedly underwent training in Iraq. This "evidence" was touted to be a feature in the British Government's dossier against Iraq. In fact, They were not mentioned in the report. Nor was any alleged link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

13) Blix touted a discrepancy in reported Chemical weapons as potential proof that Iraq has 1000 tons of chemical weapons stashed away. He reported that a document given to UN inspectors by the Iraqis:

?...gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War... The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998; while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1000 tons.?

The implication was clear: There are probably 1000 tons of chemical agent hidden from us, waiting to be used.

But Scott Ritter, former top UN weapons inspector, points out that the viable existence of these agents is impossible:

?Through its inspection activities, UNSCOM [the precursor to the current weapons inspection body UNIMOVIC] obtained reasonable information concerning Iraq's chemical weapons (CW) activities from 1981 to 1987, with the exception of data on the use of CW against Iran. Iraq consistently refused to provide details to UNSCOM regarding such use, probably because of the political fallout that such an admission would cause.?

and?

?While this refusal prevented a full accounting of Iraqi CW, Iraq could not still have viable CW from that period because the chemical agent would have long since deteriorated... As an internal UNSCOM working paper noted, an Iraqi declaration of CW use during the war with Iran was not required for any meaningful verification: `Taking into consideration the conditions and the quality of CW-agents and munitions produced by Iraq at that time, there is no possibility of weapons remaining from the mid-1980s'.?

and?

?What was overlooked in 1998 [when UNSCOM inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq] was the extent to which UNSCOM had actually eliminated Iraq's CW capability. The Muthanna State Establishment and most of Iraq's associated production equipment had been destroyed, either through aerial bombardment during Operation Desert Storm [the US military's operational designation for the 1991 Gulf War] or under the supervision of UNSCOM inspectors. Iraq's stockpiles of CW agent had either been destroyed in the same manner or could be assumed to have deteriorated.?

Blix made no mention of this in either his December 19, 2002 or January 27, 2003 report.

14) Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion:

"The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were 'not directly suitable' for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence."

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA's conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

"A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA's conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration's statement."

"[An IAEA] report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq's explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals."

15) Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain's assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

The IAEA reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

16) In a January 30 interview, Blix:

?...took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents."

17) In that same interview, Blix said:

" ?he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists..."

18) Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending [nuclear] rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said "the photograph had been misinterpreted".

19) [Bush] has consistently lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities as well as its missile-delivery capabilities...Bush tried to frighten Americans by claiming that Iraq possesses a fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used 'for missions targeting the US'. "[This statement is] false"

20) "Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed. Officials in the CIA, FBI and energy department are being put under intense pressure to produce reports that back the administration's line?

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence."

21) Publicly, President Bush's officials are touting reports that al-Qaeda operatives have found refuge in Baghdad and that Iraq once helped them develop chemical weapons. Privately, government intelligence sources are hedging on that subject, suggesting there might be "less than meets the eye".

22) Contrary to the assertion by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that Iraq kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, Charles Duelfer, who was deputy chairman of the U.N. inspection agency at the time asserts, "We made the decision to evacuate."

23) Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that Iraq will have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." In reality, no one outside Iraq really knows how close Baghdad is to that point.

24) Bush warned the United Nations that Saddam could have nuclear weapons within a year of acquiring fissionable material. Cheney said:

"On the nuclear question, many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire such weapons fairly soon."

The CIA's own forecasts do not support these assertions.

25) The administration characterizes Saddam as a supporter of terrorism generally. "Iraq's ties to terrorist networks are long-standing," Rumsfeld told Congress. Those ties are complex. In fact, one group the U.S. government brands as a terrorist outfit has been favored not only by Iraq but by many members of the U.S. Congress. That group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, advocates the violent overthrow of the religious government of Iran. It recently held a news conference two blocks from the White House.

26) The administration alleges al-Qaeda operatives, including senior figures, have been in Iraq. But AP reporter, Calvin Woodward notes that U.S. intelligence sources have said al-Qaeda members are believed to be simply moving through Iraq en route to their home countries. They have not offered evidence these sojourners are putting down roots in Iraq, setting up camps or making contact with Saddam's government.

27) The administration, as evidence of Saddam's venality, has repeatedly noted he used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s -- an event that barely elicited a response from Washington at the time. And one that, although known to US authorities, failed to shake US support for Iraq at the time. The lie in this instance would be the feigned Administration outrage toward the use of chemical weapons.

28) Regarding the alleged Iraqi-ordered assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush: "A senior White House official recently told me that one of the seemingly most persuasive elements of the report had been overstated and was essentially incorrect," said Seymour Hersh in a 1993 article. "And none of the Clinton Administration officials have claimed that there was any empirical evidence - a 'smoking gun' -directly linking Saddam or any of his senior advisers to the alleged assassination attempt. The case against Iraq was, and remains, circumstantial."

29) And let's not forget this little classic: "The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was 'six months away' from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist. 'There's never been a report like that issued from this agency,' said Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman."

30) And finally there is my favorite, the British Dossier, a highly anticipated document, touted as the piece of the puzzle that would unconditionally convince the world that Saddam is the greatest threat to humanity since...well... since George W. Bush.

That's right. it was revealed that the UK dossier on Iraq is a sham:

"Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old."

So did "Downing Street" apologize for deceiving the world and presenting heavily plagiarized, years-old information put together by post-graduate students in California? Not on your life. Even after being caught red-handed, they brazenly and unapologetically retorted:

"Dismissing the gathering controversy as the latest example of media obsession with spin, officials insisted it in no way undermines the underlying truth of the dossier, whose contents had been re-checked with British intelligence sources. 'The important thing is that it is accurate,' said one source."

It was not accurate.

So, in summary, remember that you will always be closer to the truth if you simply disbelieve whatever the Administration says. As a rule of thumb, you should remember what the UN inspectors said about the information that they regularly receive from the Bush Administration:

?U.N. sources have told CBS News that American tips have lead to one dead end after another?. So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage."

Credit given to politicalstrategy.com
[/QUOTE]

Lies, nothing but lies did Bush work off. And you're still telling me we had a reason to go into Iraq? Bush did NOT act on what he knew, he acted off the lies he told.

[QUOTE]Please don't lecture me on my spelling when you can't even get a abbreviated 3 letter name right. JFC? Has it suddenly become John F. Chicken? What other innocent people had to be movied out of the way? There were no other people that the American people could harm that would cause a massive retaliation from Osama. The only other people i n the country were the Americans. What, should we have moved them all to Canada? Palease. Again,think before you speak.

I brought up Johnson because you failed to understand what I was originally talking about. You said I was comparing JFK and Bush when I wasn't. How dare you compare George "The Madman" Bush Jr. to John F. Kennedy! JFK was one of the greatest American presidents of all time! That was posted by you. You didn't understand what I was taking about. I wasn't going to give you the false pleasure of thinking you were right in your argument there when you didn't even read my post. Let alone, you didn't go back and re-read your own post to see why I brought up Johnson.[/QUOTE]

Hmm...JFC...I wonder who said that. I got ONE spelling mistake when you have millions? A guy that read your posts told me that you were an idiot not only because your facts were so wrong that it made him laugh but you can't spell worth a good damn yet you want to argue with someone. There were no more people the American people could harm? OMG! MAN! Somebody get this guy a clue! The fact is that America has harmed person after innocent person regardless of what your feeble mind can attempt to justify! He thinks America hasn't harmed innocent people! Hold on, let me get a quote since you like to use websites as references...

[QUOTE]1.

From: [url]http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12195[/url]

Geov Parrish - Working For Change
10.22.01

Where the bodies are - News of civilian death tolls is being under-reported

Last week, when President Bush traveled to Shanghai for an APEC meeting, his first venture outside the country since Sep. 11, a few American reporters noted that some Chinese are skeptical of the current U.S. bombing campaign in Afghanistan because of the "mistaken" U.S. strike of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade two years ago. The U.S. claimed it had relied on outdated information.

But what virtually nobody -- at least in the United States -- has reported is that in the two most publicized instances of civilian death in the two-week-old Afghanistan campaign, the exact same thing appears to have happened. And that's only the tip of the iceberg. As survivors and refugees, and their stories, have begun to trickle into Pakistan, the scope of the civilian destruction the U.S. is creating is only starting to become clear.

CLIP

The civilian death toll is probably in the thousands, and sure to rise with two new developments. U.S. Air Force pilots may now fire "at will" -- at anything they desire, without pre-authorization from strategists peering at satellite and surveillance photos. In fact, there are now regions of the country that have been designated "kill boxes," reminiscent of Vietnam's "free-fire zones" but without benefit of advance warning to Afghanis. Kill boxes are patrolled night and day by low-flying aircraft with the mission to shoot anything that moves within the area.

American planes are also now dropping cluster bombs, an anti-personnel weapon that disperses small bomblets over a wide area -- essentially, hundreds of flying landmines, slicing through people, cars, trucks, and even certain types of buildings. About 8-12 percent of the brightly-colored bomblets don't explode on impact, leaving behind attractive but deadly toys for children to play with later.

Or, maybe the United States will drop a food packet on top of one. With winter coming on and an estimated seven million at risk of starvation, there's not much time left to kill civilians before they start dying on their own.[/QUOTE]

[URL=http://]http://www.cursor.org/stories/noncounters.htm[/URL]

[QUOTE]Casualties in Iraq
The Human Cost of Occupation
Edited by Michael Ewens :: Contact

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Military Casualties in Iraq
List last updated 9/14/03 1:42 pm EDT
Date Total In Combat

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 1075 824
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 936 713
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 615 519
Since Handover (6/29/04): 216 192
American Wounded
Total Wounded: 7480
Latest Fatality October 11th, 2004
Put a Casualty Counter on Your Website
Others
Other Coalition Troops 137
US Military Deaths - Afghanistan 136
Iraqi Body Count IBC
American Civilian Casualties
Sources: DoD, CentCom and iCasualties.org

Daily DoD Casualty Release

The Faces The List Sources American Casualties Iraqi Casualties Contact

The Wounded

The wounded numbers above reflect the official count as released by the U.S. military. However, there are other estimates that 12,000 soldiers have been treated for illness, non-combat injury and combat injury since March of 2002.

Casualties Increase (MSNBC)

The Landstuhl Regional Medical Center has been a fixture on America's military landscape for more than five decades, serving as midway point for wounded troops returning home for treatment.

Since President Bush declared Iraq combat operations over in May 2003, nearly 3,000 servicemen and women have been wounded in action. More than half that number did not return to duty, reflecting the high number of combat casualties, and serious nature of injuries, from Iraq.

This week, as U.S. forces battled insurgents and a fierce Shiite uprising, the upsurge in violence has reverberated here in Germany. Hospital officials say there has been a dramatic increase in patients.

"I'm trying to catch up with all the new arrivals," said Army Chaplain Richard Ross.

.::A Running Log of the Wounded::.

UPI reports :

As many as 1 of every 10 soldiers from the war on terror evacuated to the Army's biggest hospital in Europe was sent there for mental problems.

Between 8 and 10 percent of nearly 12,000 soldiers from the war on terror, mostly from Iraq, treated at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany had "psychiatric or behavioral health issues," according to the commander of the hospital, Col. Rhonda Cornum.

That means about 1,000 soldiers were evacuated for mental problems.

The hospital has treated 11,754 soldiers from the war on terror, with 9,651 from Iraq and the rest from Afghanistan, according to data released by the hospital.

Also see The Missing Wounded.

American Count

Dates and sources of Americans killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 are documented in this file. Admittedly the file is incomplete, for the Department of Defense does not maintain old records. All data was compiled from [url]http://www.defenselink.mil[/url]. If something is amiss in the data collection, please contact Michael Ewens.

Iraqi Civilian Count

We have not set up a database for these numbers, rather we direct you Iraq Body Count.

CIVILIAN DEATHS
Latest updates:
Oct 04: fourteen by car bomb near Green Zone, Baghdad
Oct 04: one in attack on municipal building, Baquba
Oct 04: Science Ministry official and female employee, Zayouna, Baghdad
Oct 04: police chief, Daud Mohammed al-Tai in Balad Ruz
Oct 04: policeman found beheaded in Kirkuk
Oct 01/02: 48 in US airstrike and fighting in Samarra
Oct 03: four by US airstrike and tankfire, Fallujah
Oct 01: 7 or 8 in US airstrike on Joghaifi, Fallujah
Oct 01: 3 in clashes between US forces and Mehdi Army, Sadr City
Aug 03: policeman shot dead in Mosul
Aug 08: policeman and 3 civilians in Muqdadiyah
Sep 22: 9-11 by suicide car bomb, Jamiyah, Baghdad
Sep 15: one in car bomb at checkpoint in Suwayrah
Sep 07: son of governor of Nineveh in western Mosul
Aug 12: 84 in US airstrikes on Al-Sharkia, Kut
Sep 30: four by car bomb in Tal Afar
Sep 30: two by suicide car bomb, Abu Ghraib
Sep 30: three in US airstrikes on Dhubat, Fallujah
Sep 27: five in US airstrikes on Sadr City, Baghdad
Sep 27/28: two or three in US airstrikes on Fallujah
Sep 25: eight in US airstrike on Jolan, Fallujah
Sep 25: 7 or 8 in US airstrike on Dhubat, Fallujah
Sep 25: one by rocket or mortar, Al-Karrada, Baghdad
Sep 25: police captain in or near Baquba
Sep 18: 16-21 at National Guard HQ, Kirkuk
Sep 25: 5-7 National Guard recruits, Al Jamiya, Baghdad
Sep 20: Sunni cleric, Sheikh Jadoa al-Janabi, al Baya, Baghdad
Sep 19 or 20: Sunni cleric, Sheikh Hazem al-Zaidi, Sadr City
Sep 24: four in rocket attack, off Palestine St., Baghdad
Sep 23: senior oil official, Sana Toma, in Mosul
Sep 14: twelve in attack on police van in Baqouba
Sep 21: inmate in Abu Ghraib Prison, Baghdad
Sep 21: one by roadside bomb in Baqouba
Sep 20: 2 or 3 in US airstrike in Fallujah
Sep 19: one by suicide car bomb in Samarra
Sep 19: two by tank fire in an industrial area of Fallujah

"War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say":

At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.

Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that over 10,000 civilians died in the conflict. More[/QUOTE]

Still don't think this war is stupid and pointless when all this money and lives are being counted? That was last updated LAST YEAR! We're not even talking about how many people have died since then.

[QUOTE]Again, learn to read. What happens if we just get out of there? Another Saddam will come to power, and then the war will truly have been for nothing. We are trying to keep order to the BEST OF OUR ABILITY. We aren't staying there for the heck of it, again, read my posts. We are there to try to reestablish a sense of order that will be missing if we pull out before that occurs.[/QUOTE]

What happens if we just get out of there? Well, for one thing, we'd stop being criticized like hell. Even if we "keep order" what the hell makes you think another Saddam won't come into power anyways? It's a proven fact that if a terrorist wants power then there's nothing America can really do about it but invade the country that the terrorist occupies, kill a bunch of people and call it a day. And you think American soldiers torturing people is keeping order? You think people being killed, innocent bystanders, even children being killed is keeping order? I guess with someone like you who seems to have no regard for human life, well, it would seem like keeping order.

October 11, 2004

[QUOTE]We invaded them because at the time, we believe they did. If a CIA document comes to your desk and says they have them, you will believe they do at that moment. Given the past of the CIA, they had no reason to think that it was wrong. They had no way of knowing. It is like nowadays. We act on what we are given because it is the only opprotunity at the time.[/QUOTE]

I'll disspell that with a quote from a website since you like to use them.

[QUOTE]The New York Times whitewashes Bush?s lies on Iraq war
By Bill Vann
30 September 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

In what amounts to a damning self-indictment, the New York Times admitted in a September 26 editorial that it ?never quarreled with one of [the Bush administration?s] basic premises? for launching its war on Iraq?the supposed threat from weapons of mass destruction.

The editorial, titled ?The failure to find Iraqi weapons,? never explains, however, why the newspaper?considered the most influential voice of what once passed for a liberal establishment in America?uncritically accepted the government?s premises.

The obvious question is why the Times, with its hundreds of reporters and annual revenues totaling over $3 billion, did not question the Bush administration?s official story. Why did it not use its considerable resources to conduct its own independent investigation and challenge the claims of the government? Is that not the supposed task of an independent media?

The Times did no such thing. On the contrary, it served as a willing conduit for the administration?s war propaganda. More than that, through its senior correspondent, Judith Miller, it collaborated in manufacturing false intelligence as a pretext for war. Miller published story after story alleging the existence of Iraqi WMD, which she later acknowledged were based on ?exclusive? information provided by Ahmed Chalabi, the convicted bank embezzler who heads the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi was universally viewed within intelligence circles as an unreliable source, given that his motive was to provoke a US invasion.

Now it has become undeniably obvious that the Bush administration?s allegations about Iraqi weapons were fraudulent. After a six-month search of Iraq, a draft report from a 1,400-member US-led team revealed that it has turned up not a trace of the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons that the administration claimed were in the hands of the Iraqi regime.

As the pretext given for the Iraq war crumbles, the Times has published what amounts to a ?preemptive? editorial. Its aim is to forestall any serious political conclusions about the fact that the government carried out an unprovoked war of aggression based upon lies.

?Now it appears that premise was wrong,? the newspaper declares. ?We cannot in hindsight blame the administration for its original conclusions. They were based on the best intelligence available.?

This statement was made just days before the release of a letter from the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee, headed by Florida Republican and former CIA agent Congressman Porter Goss. It described this ?best intelligence? as ?piecemeal,? ?fragmentary? and ?circumstantial.? For the most part, it added, the claims were based on estimates made a decade earlier.

?The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist,? the letter, addressed to CIA Director George Tenet, stated. ?The assessment that Iraq continued to pursue chemical and biological weapons remained constant and static over the past 10 years.?

The letter went on to charge that the government and the intelligence agencies observed a ?low threshold? or ?no threshold? in disseminating bogus claims that the regime in Baghdad was tied to terrorism.

?As a result, intelligence reports that might have been screened out by a more vigorous vetting process made their way to the analysts? desks, providing ample room for vagary to intrude,? the letter stated. This included reports from sources ?that would otherwise be dismissed,? it added.

This assessment echoed that of Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, who earlier this month stated his conclusion that the Iraqi regime had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons in 1991.

Blix compared the Bush administration?s efforts to prove otherwise to the witch-hunters of the Middle Ages. ?In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them,? he said, accusing the Bush administration and the Blair government in Britain of carrying out the ?spin and hyping? of phony intelligence concerning alleged Iraqi weapons.

Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the most senior Democrats on Capitol Hill and the brother of an assassinated president, went further, declaring that the pretext for war was a ?fraud,? based on ?distortion, misrepresentation, a selection of intelligence.? He charged that the Bush administration launched the invasion to secure domestic political advantage. ?There was no imminent threat,? Kennedy said. ?This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically.?

Meanwhile in Britain, the Hutton Inquiry into the suicide of weapons expert David Kelly has established beyond any reasonable doubt that Bush?s sole major international ally systematically lied and distorted intelligence to promote a war on Iraq.

Yet the Times insists that its readers assume only innocent motives and good intentions on the part of the Bush White House. While faulting the administration for its doctrine of preemptive war and suggesting that the absence of any weapons in Iraq is ?an uncomfortable question for the Bush administration,? the newspaper nonetheless suggests that all can end well: ?If Iraq can be turned into a freer and happier country in coming years, it could become a focal point for the evolution of a more peaceful and democratic Middle East.?

Two days after the editorial appeared, the Times published a piece by its foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman. While using the bully-boy language and cynical realpolitik arguments that are his trademark, his column essentially served the same purpose: to gloss over the vast implications of the US government having lied to the American people to provoke a war.

Citing the interim report indicating no trace of WMD in Iraq, Friedman writes: ?What this means for the American people is this: The war to oust Saddam Hussein was always a war of choice (a good choice, I believe). But democracies don?t like to fight wars of choice.... Knowing this, the Bush team tried to turn Iraq into a war of necessity by hyping the threat Saddam may have posed with WMD.?

What are the implications of Friedman?s argument that ?Democracies don?t like to fight wars of choice?? Such wars, commonly referred to as ?wars of aggression,? have previously been associated with fascist dictatorships, particularly Nazi Germany. It was the launching of such wars that formed the basis of the principal charge laid against the surviving leaders of the Third Reich during the war crimes trials at Nuremberg.

To convince the American people that it was not waging such a criminal war, the administration invented a threat where none existed. It lied and has continued to lie.

These lies are not, it should be added, about minor policies, let alone about the private sex life of a president, the grounds less than five years ago for the impeachment of Clinton.

The lies about Iraqi weapons involved the most momentous decision a US president can make?to send the country?s military to war. Bush carried out the Iraqi invasion based upon a Congressional resolution stating that military action was justified in ?self defense? against a supposed threat that Iraq would use biological or chemical weapons to carry out a ?surprise attack? on the US. No such weapons existed and the administration deliberately falsified intelligence reports to claim that they did.

The result has been the loss of tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Over 310 US soldiers have been killed and more than 1,600 wounded. The cost of this military intervention has skyrocketed to over $166 billion for the first year alone. The implications of this vast expenditure will be felt by millions of Americans in the form of even deeper cuts in health care, education and vital social programs, cuts that will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of innocent people in the US as well.

Exemplifying the corruption and outright criminality of the US media, Friedman?s response is: too bad. He could care less about the soldiers who are being killed and maimed on a daily basis in Iraq or that they were sent there on false pretenses. ?Sorry folks, we broke it, we own it,? he writes, demanding that the Democrats choose between ?wallowing in the mess, endlessly criticizing how we got into Iraq, or articulating a broader more realistic vision for successful nation-building there.?

Is there no connection between ?how we got into Iraq??based on systematic lying to both the American people and the world?and the debacle that now confronts the US administration?s attempt at ?nation-building?? This term is a euphemism for colonial conquest. Its objective in Iraq is the securing of US control over the Persian Gulf and its vast oil reserves in order to promote Washington?s goal of undisputed global hegemony. That this fact is understood by the Iraqis is reflected in a growing guerrilla war of resistance to the US-led occupation.

The Bush administration utilized criminal means to pursue criminal ends. As a result Iraqis died and American youth were sent to their deaths based upon a lie. The attempt to dismiss this by the Times and its thuggish international columnist makes them accomplices.

These issues cannot be swept aside. At stake are the democratic rights of the American people, not to mention the threat that those who hold power in Washington will continue with their ?wars of choice? until they escalate into a worldwide conflagration.

It is clear that Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and every other principal figure in the administration lied in order to promote a war of aggression. They must be held accountable.

What is called for is a full and independent investigation into the way in which the illegal war against Iraq was prepared. Those responsible must be punished. All those government officials who launched this war on false pretenses must be impeached and criminally prosecuted.

As the role of the New York Times clearly demonstrates, a similar investigation is needed into the role of the mass media in serving as a willing propaganda arm for US militarism.

The fight to bring those responsible for the war to account must be joined with the demand for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Bush?s ?big lie? and the crisis of American imperialism
By the editorial board
21 June 2003
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

More than two months after the US occupation of Baghdad, and three months after the onset of the American invasion, the Bush administration has been unable to produce any evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. It is increasingly obvious that the entire basis on which the White House and the American media ?sold? the war was a lie.

In the months leading up to the war, Bush warned repeatedly that unless the United States invaded Iraq and ?disarmed Saddam Hussein,? the Iraqi leader would supply terrorists with chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons to use against the American people. He cited this allegedly imminent threat as the reason for rejecting international law and unleashing the US war machine against a half-starved, impoverished country that has been under economic blockade for more than a decade.

That these claims have proven to be lies hardly comes as a surprise. Even before the conquest of Iraq, the US charges were widely rejected around the world. No government in Europe or the Middle East regarded Iraq as a serious military threat. The UN weapons inspectors had been unable to locate any WMD after months of highly intrusive inspections. Tens of millions of people?the supposed targets of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?marched in the streets of cities on every continent to denounce the US decision to launch an unprovoked war of aggression.

While US war propagandists presented the attack on Iraq as an extension of the ?war on terrorism,? it is well known that the Bush administration had drawn up plans to use military force to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein long before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. September 11 was seized on as a pretext for stampeding public opinion to accept US military intervention.

The charge that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction was selected , as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz later admitted, for ?bureaucratic reasons??i.e., it was the one allegation that the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all agreed could provide a serviceable cover for the real motives: seizing vast oil resources and establishing US dominance of the Middle East.

Since the war began, however, every element of the Bush administration campaign on weapons of mass destruction has been shown to be false.

* The claim that Iraq has sought uranium from Niger, in west Africa?this proved to based on forged documents and was exposed as a lie nearly a year before Bush included the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address.

* The claim that thousands of aluminum tubes imported by Iraq could be used in centrifuges to create enriched uranium?debunked by the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as by American nuclear scientists.

* The claim that Iraq had up to 20 long-range Scud missiles, prohibited under UN sanctions?no such rockets have been found, nor were any fired during the military conflict.

* The claim that Iraq had massive stockpiles of chemical and biological agents, including nerve gas, anthrax and botulinum toxin?nothing has been found, despite searches at hundreds of sites targeted before the war by US intelligence reports.

* The claim that Saddam Hussein had issued chemical weapons to front-line troops who would use them when US forces crossed into Iraq?no such weapons were used and none were found when the Iraqi military collapsed under the weight of the US assault.

The Bush administration was reduced to citing the discovery of two tractor trailers near Mosul as proof that Iraq possessed mobile biological weapons labs?a charge that featured prominently in Secretary of State Colin Powell?s presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5. But no trace of a biological agent was found on the trucks, and the White House has been compelled to backtrack even on this threadbare claim, suggesting that the trucks may be evidence of a weapons ?program,? not of weapons themselves.

A pretext for aggression

It is necessary to reiterate, in the face of ongoing attempts by the Bush administration and its media apologists to rewrite history, that Iraq?s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction was the principal reason given for the US drive to war. The congressional resolution last October which gave Bush the authority to launch the war, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, and the war resolution adopted by the British Parliament at the behest of Prime Minister Tony Blair, all centered on the dangers of Iraq?s alleged arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, and its active efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

There were repeated, explicit claims by US government officials, not only that Iraq was in possession of huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons, in violation of UN resolutions, but that US intelligence agencies had pinpointed the precise locations where these weapons were stored, the identities of those involved in their production, even the military orders issued by Saddam Hussein for their use in the event of war.

There were dozens of such statements, of which only a few need be cited here:

August 26, 2002?Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, ?There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.?

September 18, 2002?Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, ?We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons?including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.?

October 7, 2002?President Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq ?possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.?

January 7, 2003?Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news briefing, ?There?s no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.? This certainty was based on contemporary intelligence, he said, not the fact that Iraq had used chemical weapons in the 1980s.

January 9, 2003?White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, ?We know for a fact that there are weapons there.?

February 8, 2003?Bush said in his weekly radio address: ?We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons?the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.?

March 16, 2003?Cheney declared on NBC?s ?Meet the Press,? referring to Saddam Hussein, ?We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.?

March 17, 2003?In his final prewar ultimatum, Bush declared, ?Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.?

March 30, 2003?On ABC?s ?This Week? program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld reiterated the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, adding, ?We know where they are.?[/QUOTE]

CIA paper coming across Bush's desk?! HA! I BET he wants his lies to have come from the CIA; then he'd have someone to bum his lie off of.

[QUOTE]Which is exactly what he is doing. Past Presidents didn't do anything about Iraq or the terrorist problems, so now he is doing something about it.

I personally see no reason to continue this argument. To me you are just an angry man who feels he has to get his words out without even thinking. Countless times you have read my posts and have gone completely off the topic I was talking about. There is a difference between reading, and just seeing words. You have shown me nothing to make me think you know what you are talking about. On countless occasions I have shown you to be wrong about something because you either didn't read it, or you yourself have false information. If you wish to continue this, we should do it over PM and not turn this into a personal vendetta.[/QUOTE]

What do you call Clinton bombing the weapons factories in Iraq? What do you call George Bush, Sr.? The more you type, the more I realize that you don't know a single thing about the issue that we're debating.

I personally see a reason to continue this argument because you're just plain out humourous. You think people agree with you? Naw, they'll lie about it but deep down inside they are putting a dunce cap on your head. If anyone has gone off topic it has been you. If anyone hasn't been reading, it has been you. If you read what YOU wrote every now and then you wouldn't make as many spelling errors as you make nor would you look as stupid as you do. On a countless amount of occassions I've proven you to be wrong over and over again. You can't debate with me because you're not even on the same intellectual level as I am; you're a mere child compared to me.

Drix D'Zanth · October 11, 2004

[quote name='Garelock'] If anyone hasn't been reading, it has been you. If you read what YOU wrote every now and then you wouldn't make as many spelling errors as you make nor would you look as stupid as you do. On a countless amount of occassions I've proven you to be wrong over and over again. You can't debate with me because you're not even on the same intellectual level as I am; you're a mere child compared to me.[/quote]

I know your rebuttal was in response to Zeta, but really... this is pathetic.

Don't double post. Not only that, who are you to even comment on spelling errors? You've got the grammar of a 5th grader. Not only that, your last post just affirmed the fact that your desire isn't the exchange of ideas or information.. but an ego trip held up by shoddy points and half-truths.

You're [i]on[/i] an intellectual? You mean.... [i]sexually[/i]? *shudders*

Zeta · October 11, 2004

[B]?Now it appears that premise was wrong,? the newspaper declares. ?We cannot in hindsight blame the administration for its original conclusions. They were based on the best intelligence available.?[/B]

That is a part of the article that you just posted. That sounds vaguely familiar to something. Could it be something that I had said in the previous post? I think so. ;) It doesn't matter how it was made, it was still the best intelligence available, which is exactly what I said. You seem to be concuring with my points without you realizing it. The intelligence was faulty yes, which is what I have been saying. And which you just supported.

Yes you idiot. Pardon my language. He tried his best, failed, and then did nothing. NOTHING. He obviousley didn't try hard enough. Had he done all that you make him out to do, he would have stopped the war before it even started. When you fail on something that grand of a scale, you do not give up entirely. Which is what Buchanan did. How many battles did the Union get their butts whooped in at the start of the war? Did Lincoln give up? No. He fought on, something which Buchanan should have done and didn't. You are missing my point, don't bother.

[b]Well, lets look at it this way. Bush may not have gassed innocent people but he DID vote to reinstate the gas chamber for criminals. What's the difference? You kill an innocent person, you kill a criminal, there's no difference because either wau you're taking a life.[/b]

Criminals who themselves too a life as well eh? They took a life, why not do it back. It is called the death penalty, which is allowed under the Constitution, regarding of course they follow certain rules. Go back and re-write the Constitution while you are at. It serves no purpose. Gassing innocent civilians is not allowed, but the case of a criminal is quite different.

[b]Even Clinton had proof that Saddam had the weapons and afterwards, all Bush had to do was use Clinton's clear evidence and justify the war[/b]

So what, He DOES in fact have weapons? Or doesn't he? You said earlier he didn't, but the President before Bush knew he had them? And according to your article, it was said they were destroyed in 1991. But Clinton was Presidnet after 1991, so he did in fact have them afterwards? What is the point in bring that point up, with your article as well. They only cancle each other out. Think before you post.

[b]Hmm...JFC...I wonder who said that. I got ONE spelling mistake when you have millions? A guy that read your posts told me that you were an idiot not only because your facts were so wrong that it made him laugh but you can't spell worth a good damn yet you want to argue with someone. There were no more people the American people could harm? OMG! MAN! Somebody get this guy a clue! The fact is that America has harmed person after innocent person regardless of what your feeble mind can attempt to justify! He thinks America hasn't harmed innocent people! Hold on, let me get a quote since you like to use websites as references...[/b]

Again you only prove your inability to read. I said what other innocents could we harm in America, that would lead to a response from Osama? Name one. I don't deny we did things outside of America, but we haven't on the homefront. Name one time when we went into lets say Chinatown, and blew up a bomb. There was no on in the US that we could hurt that would cause a response from Osama.

If we pull out, there will be no chance for the Iraqi's to mantain control. With the Americans helping them get on the right steps to being able to protect themselves, a terrorist won't be able to just walk up like you said. Be reasonable. Without help, they are nothing at this point in time. They need some sense of order, wether it be small or large. And right now it is small, I am not afraid to admit that. But it is keeping another Saddam from walking up and talking over. And when they have a stable government and are able to protect themselves, it won't be as easy as walking up and taking over.

[b]What do you call Clinton bombing the weapons factories in Iraq? What do you call George Bush, Sr.? The more you type, the more I realize that you don't know a single thing about the issue that we're debating.[/b]

Look at it again. Did those actions accomplish anything? Saddam was still in power after the Gulf War. Still in power after Clinton's bombings. Is he in power anymore? No. Their actions did nothing.

[b]I personally see a reason to continue this argument because you're just plain out humourous. You think people agree with you? Naw, they'll lie about it but deep down inside they are putting a dunce cap on your head. If anyone has gone off topic it has been you. If anyone hasn't been reading, it has been you. If you read what YOU wrote every now and then you wouldn't make as many spelling errors as you make nor would you look as stupid as you do. On a countless amount of occassions I've proven you to be wrong over and over again. You can't debate with me because you're not even on the same intellectual level as I am; you're a mere child compared to me.[/b]

I never said I was a great speller. ;) And personally, spelling isn't a big deal to me. I have no reason to spell right for you. If you would read what you typed, you would see that you contradict yourself many times as pointed above, and have taken my comments out of context. You have read it, and immediatly warped it to fit your needs, when it was not meant to be taken in that way.

You said I compared JFK to Bush, when if you will go back and read, will see that is not true. And when I bring up that fact, and say what I really meant, you are at a loss as to why he was brought up in the first place, lol.

I don't need people to agree with me. If they agree with me, good for them, if they don't again, good for them. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if they think I am humerous, because to be honest, I have gotten many IMs saying that you yourself are funny and stupid as well. *shrug* It's a message board. No big deal. This is just a debate, in which I am participating in. If I lose, so be it. If I win, so be it. You haven't shown me anything to imply that you have won yet, so it will continue. But again, if you wan't this to continue, I would suggest we take it up in PMs. With the way we are, I don't know if this will remain open for like. And I would very much like to see who everyone else is voting for. Good topic, shouldn't be closed for our quarrel.

Baron Samedi · October 12, 2004

[size=1][quote]Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special Olympics...even if you win you're still retarded.[/quote] Very applicable here.

Let me see if I can make an [undoubtedly vain ~_^] attempt to simplify the issue here.

Side A contests that Bush is an idiot with no clue, no plans, and should be kicked out and lynched for the war on Iraq and just being a general moron.

Side B contests that Bush isn't actually that bad, and that whilst he has done wrong things, and questionable things, you cannot lay all the blame solely at his feet.

Side B seems to have more going for it, I'm afraid. Bush may have known that the reasons for the war on Iraq were false. But if we're going to ge into the whole conspiracy theory of it,why don't we say that some ex-CIA boss wants to run the coutnry himself. Or something, right ~_^

But, you cannot say with 100% assurance that he did know all about it.

The internet can say whatever you want it to. Most information published on the Net is highly biased.[/size]

ChibiHorsewoman · October 12, 2004

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1'] Side B contests that Bush isn't actually that bad, and that whilst he has done wrong things, and questionable things, you cannot lay all the blame solely at his feet.[/size][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I'm going with side B since it seems to be a bit more moderate. I think Bush did a decent job in the beginning of his term. Especially during 9/11 and going to Afghanistan. We actually have order over there and Saturday was their first democratic election post Taliban.

For all we know Bush may have had a somewhat decent plan for Iraq, but you really can't go through with any plans when nobody is willing to cooperate. But the reasons for going to war with Iraq were false and the American people were lied to. Even worse, or troops were lied to as to why they were put in a foreign country in harms way. I find that unforgiveable.

I think that if it weren't for the war in Iraq, the fact that he's against a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, the fact that he actually voted against a budget to supply the troops in Iraq with better body armor, which could have saved many lives, and the fact that during last Friday's presidental debate he lied to millions of Americans when asked if he has chosen anyone he'd like to elect as supreme court judges (he has and they are all anti Roe vs Wade) if he gets to go another term. I might vote for him...then the sky will fall, hell will freeze over and I'll agree with Death Bug on everything. (Just kidding bro!)

But Baron, you forgot about group C, the ones that feel Bush can do no wrong, has done no wrong and can't be held accountable for anything that has happened these past four years.[/color]

Sui Generis · October 12, 2004

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]I'm going with side B since it seems to be a bit more moderate. I think Bush did a decent job in the beginning of his term. Especially during 9/11 and going to Afghanistan. We actually have order over there and Saturday was their first democratic election post Taliban.

For all we know Bush may have had a somewhat decent plan for Iraq, but you really can't go through with any plans when nobody is willing to cooperate. But the reasons for going to war with Iraq were false and the American people were lied to. Even worse, or troops were lied to as to why they were put in a foreign country in harms way. I find that unforgiveable.

But Baron, you forgot about group C, the ones that feel Bush can do no wrong, has done no wrong and can't be held accountable for anything that has happened these past four years.[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]

First off I agree with your first paragraph. I really honestly think that Bush did a uniquely well job in Afghanistan, and although every anti-Bush/anti-War on Terror advocate stated that we never got Osama, the simple fact is: we helped a country, we stopped the tyrany and well...how much terrorism is there no compared to before?

I think the main difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is two things. First off Iraw didn't directly (or we couldn't create any true connections) attack us like the Taliban did. So naturally America hated the taliban, but a tyrant killing thousands (possibly millions) of people during his reign is ok. Secondly, the U.N. backed up the war in Afghanistan, where as it didn't back up the war in Iraq.

Personally I think the countries that had the best intelligence in the matter supported us, namely Great Brittian. Now I know that isn't exactly the most fair point of view, I guess you could say, but the fact is as I stated before I find the UN to be deplorable, counter productive, and corrupt.

Now onto paragraph two. You know although I really like the war on Iraq, because in my mind no one else would've taken the measures to stop Suddam, I don't think he lied to us. As it has been said in this thread even Clinton stated there were WMD's in Iraq. That was the information we had at the time, granted it was bad information, it was the info we had on the time. I respect Bush on the fact that he acted on the information that he had. Many people call this idiotic, but the simple fact is most people don't do that now, and in a world of genocide and terrorism I think thats important.

I know a lot of people would consider me to be in Group C, and frankly I'm not. I agree with you on a lot of issues, I just think Bush is a better candidate. I mean he messes up, everyone does. I just think he doesn't get the true image through the media for reasons I stated before.

I don't like that he's anti-choice, but I like that he's taking a stand, does that make sense? I just like a president thats not afraid to take a stand, and not afraid to act on morals.

All in all my biggest beef with President Bush is, obviously, his anti-gay attitude. Granted Kerry isn't any better on the issue, so thats a mewt point.[/color]

If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?

If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for? 91 members have voted

1. If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?

Recommended Posts

Guest ScirosDarkblade

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ScirosDarkblade

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest ScirosDarkblade

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Garelock

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

If the elections were held tomorrow, who would you vote for?
91 members have voted