NationStates Jolt Archive


When Kerry speaks all I hear is

Culebra
22-07-2004, 00:59
blah, blah, blah.

sorry, but i have just seen the first commercial with HIM actually doing all the talking(about how to make America safer from terrorism by renewing our alliences?) and I almost fell asleep during the 15-30 second spot!!

I am amlmost excited that with Bush OR Kerry as president we will be pretty safe. Bush will just start a war somewhere and suck all the terrorist into the trap OR Kerry will just dull them into submission and bore them to death :)

(sorry i am bored and just thought i would try out these damn forums again..)
Roach-Busters
22-07-2004, 01:08
Is it just me, or does Kerry's face look like clods of dog feces molded into the shape of a human face?
_Myopia_
22-07-2004, 01:10
Every one of Bush's "war on terror" actions simply recruits more people to al-Quiada (sp?) etc, so I fail to see how you'll be safe with him in charge for another term.
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 01:11
Is it just me, or does Kerry's face look like clods of dog feces molded into the shape of a human face?

It's just you.

A better question would be: Why are you so interested in dog feces?
Roach-Busters
22-07-2004, 01:11
It's just you.

A better question would be: Why are you so interested in dog feces?

I'm not.
Chess Squares
22-07-2004, 01:12
blah, blah, blah.

sorry, but i have just seen the first commercial with HIM actually doing all the talking(about how to make America safer from terrorism by renewing our alliences?) and I almost fell asleep during the 15-30 second spot!!

I am amlmost excited that with Bush OR Kerry as president we will be pretty safe. Bush will just start a war somewhere and suck all the terrorist into the trap OR Kerry will just dull them into submission and bore them to death :)

(sorry i am bored and just thought i would try out these damn forums again..)

thats ironic because all i hear when bush speaks is "ooh ooh ooh AHH AHH, OOH AHH"
Roach-Busters
22-07-2004, 01:14
thats ironic because all i hear when bush speaks is "ooh ooh ooh AHH AHH, OOH AHH"

Same here.
Culebra
22-07-2004, 01:20
Every one of Bush's "war on terror" actions simply recruits more people to al-Quiada (sp?) etc, so I fail to see how you'll be safe with him in charge for another term.



as i stated i started this thread out of fun, but i will amuse you with a more serious answer :)

but first a ? . Was not 'al-quiada' against the USA during Clintons TWO terms also? I seem to remember some bombings, etc. going on during those years. I love how some(and i aint picking on you, alot do it) think that terrorism is a new thing that just happened. lets face it, many folks in the Middle East and other parts of the world, HATE the USA, freedom, democracy and other things we believe in here in America. Its not just some overnight thing, its a difference in culture, in ideals and MOSTLY in education. Its sad, because i believe there are alot of folks who want peace thoughout that area, and would welcome reforms to their governments, but they are afraid to speak out. They are afraid of being labeled as traitors, as those against Allah, w/e, you get the point.

Bush did nothing more that stir up an already pissed off hornets nest. And while its sucks fot the many innocent Iraqis and others who have suffered and died because of it, I would rather have the terrorists over there, then over here. Because the only way terrorism will EVER be defeated, is when those who tolerate, overlook or bury their heads in the sand finallly stand up and say NO MORE to those who promote terrorism. Maybe after enough of their fellow Muslims/Arab brothers have been killed and tortured, they will finally stand up those who have misled them, who have lied to them and who have taken the words of their Holy Koran out of context and put an end to it.
_Myopia_
22-07-2004, 01:32
I never said it didn't exist before, just that its getting worse. And the attacks are going to start hitting the West on home ground more often if Bush keeps giving them more recruitment materials.
The United Leader
22-07-2004, 01:40
And if the US had not done anything about the terrorist attack? What would the terrorists have thought then?
_Myopia_
22-07-2004, 01:41
He didn't have to attack Iraq. And the situation in both iraq and afghanisatn could have been handled far better, even if you think war was necessary.
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 01:44
Every one of Bush's "war on terror" actions simply recruits more people to al-Quiada (sp?) etc, so I fail to see how you'll be safe with him in charge for another term.


We will be safer because Bush will oust all Terror supporting nations and then work with the new government to create a safer and better world!
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 01:44
That's funny, cause when I hear Bush speak all I hear is "Duh, duh, duh, war"
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 01:45
He didn't have to attack Iraq. And the situation in both iraq and afghanisatn could have been handled far better, even if you think war was necessary.



Handled better? HA! Care to explain how?
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 01:45
When I hear any American president or presidential candidate I hear nothing. Cause I quikly switch channels.
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 01:46
That's funny, cause when I hear Bush speak all I hear is "Duh, duh, duh, war"



You are hearing what you want to hear.
Culebra
22-07-2004, 01:46
He didn't have to attack Iraq. And the situation in both iraq and afghanisatn could have been handled far better, even if you think war was necessary.


ok, i'll bite...How?

and please, don't say "give the UN more time". Beside the 12 years they gave Iraq, hell, just look at the current situation in Sudan while the UN twiddles its thumbs up its ass. The UN is a freaking Joke, imo. So give me a more clear answer, because nothing that comes out of the UN is ever 'clear'...
Grontus
22-07-2004, 01:46
No matter what anyone does, terrorism will exist. Try as we might to beat it down, it will always resurface because there will be people who disagree with someone else, and they will disagree with violence if they believe that they are in the right.
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 01:46
You are hearing what you want to hear.

Ditto!
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 01:47
We will be safer because Bush will oust all Terror supporting nations and then work with the new government to create a safer and better world!

Oh yes, I know I feel safer now that Iraq has been "ousted" from...well, I presume you mean the world, but I could be wrong. I feel so much safer that those two press conferences by Ashcroft and Ridge telling us to expect an attack anyday now hardly phased me at all, seeing as how we've caught bin Laden and all.

Oh, wait...
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 01:48
ok, i'll bite...How?

and please, don't say "give the UN more time". Beside the 12 years they gave Iraq, hell, just look at the current situation in Sudan while the UN twiddles its thumbs up its ass. The UN is a freaking Joke, imo. So give me a more clear answer, because nothing that comes out of the UN is ever 'clear'...

Well, how about by not attacking Iraq at all, since it is now quite clear that it presented neither a clear nor an immenent threat?
_Myopia_
22-07-2004, 01:51
Or, y'know, they could have made proper plans well in advance for what to do after winning. And you know Afghanistan is now falling to pieces - the US is decreasing the effort they put in there cause all eyes are on iraq.
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 01:51
Well, how about by not attacking Iraq at all, since it is now quite clear that it presented neither a clear nor an immenent threat?

Now, now, that makes too much sense, that's just crazy talk...lol ;)
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 01:54
Now, now, that makes too much sense, that's just crazy talk...lol ;)



Iraq was a threat, I suggest you look into Saddams relationship with an Al Queda terrorist that he gave hospital care to, and the fact he supported Hamas!
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 01:56
Iraq was a threat, I suggest you look into Saddams relationship with an Al Queda terrorist that he gave hospital care to, and the fact he supported Hamas!

With all due respect, we have been going over this for months.. There is no argument left.. it was the wrong country at the wrong time.. the argument is lost. Please feel free to try it on others, however, you're wasting it on me.
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 01:57
Iraq was a threat, I suggest you look into Saddams relationship with an Al Queda terrorist that he gave hospital care to, and the fact he supported Hamas!
Yeah. And while your at it look into the USA's relationship with AQ, Saddam and other dictators and terrorist/criminal organisations as well.
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 01:58
With all due respect, we have been going over this for months.. There is no argument left.. it was the wrong country at the wrong time.. the argument is lost. Please feel free to try it on others, however, you're wasting it on me.


It was wasted on you months ago! :D Oh well, I will keep trying to show you the light! :)
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 01:59
Yeah. And while your at it look into the USA's relationship with AQ, Saddam and other dictators and terrorist/criminal organisations as well.


The US had no relationship with AQ and France had a stronger relationship with Iraq, ours ended in '91. Open your eyes!
Culebra
22-07-2004, 02:00
well, since this topic has moved on to the subject of Iraq and terrorism (funny how things are the same, no matter how much they change: the forums that is), lets see:

would you say that there is NO way that al-quida and Saddam would have collaberated in the future? they(meaning his supporters) are doing it now in Iraq. Look at ww2. we didnt like the Russians, but we still used them to help defeat a great evil, Hitler. Al-quida and other radicals may have some very different ideals and phillosphies than most Bathist or even most Arabs, but most do not like and ALOT HATE the USA and all we stand for.

anyway this is a tired subject for someone who has been around here for along time....but i still think we were right to take the fight to Saddam and free Iraq, then sit around and wait for something concrete to show up, like a bomb in LA or Miami...
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:01
as i stated i started this thread out of fun, but i will amuse you with a more serious answer :)

but first a ? . Was not 'al-quiada' against the USA during Clintons TWO terms also? I seem to remember some bombings, etc. going on during those years. I love how some(and i aint picking on you, alot do it) think that terrorism is a new thing that just happened. lets face it, many folks in the Middle East and other parts of the world, HATE the USA, freedom, democracy and other things we believe in here in America. Its not just some overnight thing, its a difference in culture, in ideals and MOSTLY in education. Its sad, because i believe there are alot of folks who want peace thoughout that area, and would welcome reforms to their governments, but they are afraid to speak out. They are afraid of being labeled as traitors, as those against Allah, w/e, you get the point.


Actually, it was '96 when Al Qaeda officially declared Jihad against the US, so you can really only consider them as being on the offesive for the second of Clinton's terms. There have been some suggestion as to if some of the terrorist acts against US interests prior to that were done by groups affiliated with al qaeda, however these groups do also pursue their own agendas indepenantly as well. It was aslo assumed that some of the rebel groups in Somalia that the US battled in their search for the warlords who were destabalizing the country did have ties to al qaeda, but the actions there were mostly a case of response to the invasion rather than overt terrorism. Not pleasant, but not targetting civilians either.

The first significant targetting of US interests under the fatwa by people formally affiliated with Al Qaeda was the embassy bombings in Africa. Clinton responded with the attempted assassination of Osama by cruise missile. He was chastised by the republicans who claimed that it was an attempt to distract the world from his penis. Nowadays it is popular to blame him for not invading Afghanistan at the time, however realistically there is no way he would have got a declaration to invade Afghanistan at that time. There was no political will to do that until after 9-11.

There were other smaller attacks in the Middle East in places like Saudi Arabia, but the Arabs were not terribly cooperative at the time in helping with intel and so firm linkages back to Osama were hard to make. After all, unlikeother groups he has never been one to take credit for deeds.

Then there was also the Cole. The CIA did not get firm intel linking it back to Osama until after the 2000 election, so Clinton never did get a chance to act on it. Bush didn't bother either.

Bush did nothing more that stir up an already pissed off hornets nest. And while its sucks fot the many innocent Iraqis and others who have suffered and died because of it, I would rather have the terrorists over there, then over here. Because the only way terrorism will EVER be defeated, is when those who tolerate, overlook or bury their heads in the sand finallly stand up and say NO MORE to those who promote terrorism. Maybe after enough of their fellow Muslims/Arab brothers have been killed and tortured, they will finally stand up those who have misled them, who have lied to them and who have taken the words of their Holy Koran out of context and put an end to it.

IT would be nice to believe that the terrorists will stay there. Frankly though - I doubt it. Nor do I think that killing and torturing people neccessarily gets them to get pissed at the people who call the torturers evil. Quite the opposite in fact.
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 02:02
It was wasted on you months ago! :D Oh well, I will keep trying to show you the light! :)

Actually, yes, I was one of the ones from the very beginning of this who said it was bogus, as it turns out, I was right. Who knew. I said it was bogus before it happened and it's been proven bogus now.. but hold on to that hope that they might find some 12 year old Sarin again.. Gosh, what a threat! :rolleyes:
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 02:03
The US had no relationship with AQ and France had a stronger relationship with Iraq, ours ended in '91. Open your eyes!
I guess Osama just read a book then eh? How to become a terrorist for dummies.
And Saddam got to power through fair elections.
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:05
The US had no relationship with AQ

Er, you mean other than training Osama and giving him the tools, equipment and manpower to create the terrorist network in Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviets, right?
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:05
Actually, yes, I was one of the ones from the very beginning of this who said it was bogus, as it turns out, I was right. Who knew. I said it was bogus before it happened and it's been proven bogus now.. but hold on to that hope that they might find some 12 year old Sarin again.. Gosh, what a threat! :rolleyes:


You were wrong, It was proven correct and more evidence is coming out to further prove it was right! Looke into what some people are saying about WMD's now.


BUSH IN '04!
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:06
I guess Osama just read a book then eh? How to become a terrorist for dummies.
And Saddam got to power through fair elections.


If you believe the US put Saddam in power you are more brainwashed than I thought!
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 02:06
Er, you mean other than training Osama and giving him the tools, equipment and manpower to create the terrorist network in Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviets, right?
No, no. Real Americans wouldn't do a thing like that. Those were liberals, communists and probably atheists.
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 02:07
BUSH IN '04!

Nah, I think not. Hey, maybe I'll be right again! Whooo :D
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:07
Er, you mean other than training Osama and giving him the tools, equipment and manpower to create the terrorist network in Afghanistan in a proxy war against the Soviets, right?


What network? Osama went back to Saudi Arabia after that war was over and then was deported to Sudan, he THEN created his network!
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 02:07
If you believe the US put Saddam in power you are more brainwashed than I thought!
Like I said. He won through fair elections. :rolleyes:
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:08
Nah, I think not. Hey, maybe I'll be right again! Whooo :D



I pray to god you are wrong!
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 02:08
If you believe the US put Saddam in power you are more brainwashed than I thought!

The blind leading the ...ummm informed? Tisk, Tisk.

Lessons In Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:09
Like I said. He won through fair elections. :rolleyes:


No, The Baath party overthrew Iraq and then Saddam seized power. The USA did not put him there. Man, No wonder so many Americans hate the left!
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:12
What network? Osama went back to Saudi Arabia after that war was over and then was deported to Sudan, he THEN created his network!

It would be the network he created during the mujaheddin period of the Soviet-Afghanistan war in the 80s, sweetness. The network that we, along with Pakistan, helped to finance, build and train in order to "stop the spread of Communism." That's why he's in Afghanistan in the first place because we helped him build his hideouts.

And people say American's do shoddy work.
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:13
The blind leading the ...ummm informed? Tisk, Tisk.

Lessons In Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)


Pure propaganda! If you believe that you are hopeless! You are very uninformed and should be ashamed of yourself! Even the NEW YORK TIMES says we didn't install him. Go about your lies, I feel sorry for you and everybody who knows you!
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:15
It would be the network he created during the mujaheddin period of the Soviet-Afghanistan war in the 80s, sweetness. The network that we, along with Pakistan, helped to finance, build and train in order to "stop the spread of Communism." That's why he's in Afghanistan in the first place because we helped him build his hideouts.

And people say American's do shoddy work.


He is in Afghanistand because he was kicked out of Sudan, turn off CNN!
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 02:15
The blind leading the ...ummm informed? Tisk, Tisk.

Lessons In Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)
*Blubber*
Liberal atheist lies. Any fool can see that. The US promised Saddam intelligence in his war with Iran. You can't give something you don't posses.
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 02:15
Pure propaganda! If you believe that you are hopeless! You are very uninformed and should be ashamed of yourself! Even the NEW YORK TIMES says we didn't install him. Go about your lies, I feel sorry for you and everybody who knows you!

Yes, you must be right, PBS's "Frontline" and the "UPI" amoung other respected news outlets are all wrong.. Let me guess, Fox News watcher? ;)
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:16
Okay, how about straight from the CIA then?

God Bless the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB57/us.html
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:18
He is in Afghanistand because he was kicked out of Sudan, turn off CNN!

No, he's in Afghanistan because that's where his powerbase is and the Taliban invited him in there, since he proved so effective in ousting the Soviets.
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:18
Yes, you must be right, PBS's "Frontline" and the "UPI" amoung other respected news outlets are all wrong.. Let me guess, Fox News watcher? ;)


I have nothing left to say to you, I will go about my bussiness before I do something here I will regret!

BTW, PBS is the most far left network in America and is NOT respected by more than 80% of Americans!
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:19
No, he's in Afghanistan because that's where his powerbase is and the Taliban invited him in there, since he proved so effective in ousting the Soviets.


He was kicked out of Sudan, Because Europe and the USA forced the Sudan to do it, he then fled to Afghanistan!
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 02:19
I have nothing left to say to you, I will go about my bussiness before I do something here I will regret!

BTW, PBS is the most far left network in America and is NOT respected by more than 80% of Americans!

*Giggle* umm okay, if you say so..lol :rolleyes:
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:20
*Blubber*
Liberal atheist lies. Any fool can see that. The US promised Saddam intelligence in his war with Iran. You can't give something you don't posses.

What makes you think the US had no intel on Iran? Iran WAS a huge target back then - although perhaps you have forgotten the hostages and the Ayatollah... or the fact that the US military actually helped Iraq attack Iranian oil rigs in the Gulf.... or even that they played it duplicitously as they also helped arm Iran as part of Iran-Contra.

I suppose you have forgot that it was Colin Powel who brokered those illegal weapon's sales too?
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:22
Iraq doesn't need to have legitimate WMDs to be a threat (nuclear and chemical.) Afterall, did Afghanistan have any? Absolutely not. But you do apparently endorse that war. That was a war to attempt to eliminate or severely damage the Al Qaeda network as well as it's protectors...something that was never done in the past. Interestingly enough, in the past nothing was done after the first attack on the WTC, the embassy bombings in Africa, The bombing of the USS COle, and the foiled millenium plot. All of which occured during the previous administration.

Before 9/11 nobody would have believed (despite the previous attacks) that Al Qaida was capable of such an attack...yet they were able to carry it out and succeed. The result, the US finally attempts to do something about it and is mostly applauded. Such an attack could easily have come out of another oppressive regime like Iraq was. A regime that happily would have aided in any way that they could any organization such as Al Qaida to carry out an attack against their hated enemies; the US. What will you wait for to take action? Another 9/11? Is your policy wait until we're all dead until we take action? We need to be proactive and take out these potential threats before another 9/11 occurs either directly or indirectly.

I believe that most people agree with these statements, what they do not agree with is Bush undertaking the task. They hate HIM not necessarily his policies. Why do they hate him? 2 reasons, the 2000 election scandal AND his southern accent and way of speaking (some would say "hickly"). This prejudice by the people against southerners makes them think that Bush is a moron (yet how could a moron be elected or even be smart enough to steal an election according to you others.) I bet none of you would have a problem with these policies if Al Gore had been president. Only problem is, I bet you a whole lot, that after 9/11 a few more tomohawks would have been launched into Afghanistan. When are you ignorant people who call the Democratic Party home going to wake up and realize that what Schwarzenegger said is true "girlie men."
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:22
He was kicked out of Sudan, Because Europe and the USA forced the Sudan to do it, he then fled to Afghanistan!

Fled to his power base that we helped him build and an invitation from the Taliban. See how it's all circular.

By the way, no comment on the CIA documents?
Von Witzleben
22-07-2004, 02:22
What makes you think the US had no intel on Iran? Iran WAS a huge target back then - although perhaps you have forgotten the hostages and the Ayatollah... or the fact that the US military actually helped Iraq attack Iranian oil rigs in the Gulf.... or even that they played it duplicitously as they also helped arm Iran as part of Iran-Contra.

I suppose you have forgot that it was Colin Powel who brokered those illegal weapon's sales too?
I meant another kind of intel(ligence). Not one for wordplay are you?
Cold Hard Bitch
22-07-2004, 02:24
Fled to his power base that we helped him build and an invitation from the Taliban. See how it's all circular.

By the way, no comment on the CIA documents?


LOL, Yeah, You keep thinking that.....
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:24
What makes you think the US had no intel on Iran? Iran WAS a huge target back then - although perhaps you have forgotten the hostages and the Ayatollah... or the fact that the US military actually helped Iraq attack Iranian oil rigs in the Gulf.... or even that they played it duplicitously as they also helped arm Iran as part of Iran-Contra.

I suppose you have forgot that it was Colin Powel who brokered those illegal weapon's sales too?
It's all about priorities Zeppistan. At that time the elimination of the Soviet Union was our priority. And taking them out of Iran was our number one priority. Averting armageddon was more important than preventing terrorism (at that point) in the middle east.
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:24
Oh, and for those who also need a reminder on how Clinton was pilloried when he DID try to go after Osama.

It's hard to find news articles online that old, but here is an example of the sort of rhetoric that went on:

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml

"Notwithstanding White House claims to the contrary, it is obvious that the military strikes were undertaken not to counter an unspecified terrorist threat to the United States, but to stave off the more immediate danger of a political collapse of the Clinton administration. The attacks were intended to send a message, not so much to Osama bin Laden--the latest in a long line of bogeymen invoked by US governments--but rather to the powerful right-wing faction of the ruling elite which has spearheaded the attack on Clinton.

Given the timing of the bombings, the administration could not avoid the widespread suspicion that the purpose of the attacks was to distract attention from the wave of revelations in which Clinton has been all but engulfed. It is certainly true that such considerations influenced the precise timing of the assault. But considerations of a more fundamental character are involved in the decision to launch the cruise missiles."


Indeed, a common cry from the right was that this was Clinton Wagging the Dog.


Now, of course, it's all his fault that he didn't take greater force, despite that nagging little detail that the Republican controlled houses of government wouldn't have authorize military action if he had tried. They made that very clear.
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:28
Oh, and for those who also need a reminder on how Clinton was pilloried when he DID try to go after Osama.

It's hard to find news articles online that old, but here is an example of the sort of rhetoric that went on:

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/aug1998/bomb-a22.shtml

"Notwithstanding White House claims to the contrary, it is obvious that the military strikes were undertaken not to counter an unspecified terrorist threat to the United States, but to stave off the more immediate danger of a political collapse of the Clinton administration. The attacks were intended to send a message, not so much to Osama bin Laden--the latest in a long line of bogeymen invoked by US governments--but rather to the powerful right-wing faction of the ruling elite which has spearheaded the attack on Clinton.

Given the timing of the bombings, the administration could not avoid the widespread suspicion that the purpose of the attacks was to distract attention from the wave of revelations in which Clinton has been all but engulfed. It is certainly true that such considerations influenced the precise timing of the assault. But considerations of a more fundamental character are involved in the decision to launch the cruise missiles."


Indeed, a common cry from the right was that this was Clinton Wagging the Dog.


Now, of course, it's all his fault that he didn't take greater force, despite that nagging little detail that the Republican controlled houses of government wouldn't have authorize military action if he had tried. They made that very clear.

I haven't visited that website Zeppistan, but if all is in order (and it may be) than you're right. These WERE POLITICAL attacks against Clinton. However, it is just the same as yours against the Bush administration today. Both are/were wrong.

Edit - I just checked the website...and with it being Socialist I'm not sure how trustworthy what it states is. It may have very weel been taken out of context. Then again maybe not. It'd be best to choose somewhat non-partisan websites. Maybe CNN or even The New York Times.
Zervok
22-07-2004, 02:31
When I hear candidates talk all I hear is "blah evil blah blah fight blah values blah morals blah satan blah god bless blah devil incarnite blah blah"
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:34
Iraq doesn't need to have legitimate WMDs to be a threat (nuclear and chemical.) Afterall, did Afghanistan have any? Absolutely not. But you do apparently endorse that war. That was a war to attempt to eliminate or severely damage the Al Qaeda network as well as it's protectors...something that was never done in the past. Interestingly enough, in the past nothing was done after the first attack on the WTC, the embassy bombings in Africa, The bombing of the USS COle, and the foiled millenium plot. All of which occured during the previous administration.


Riiiighhhht. Nothing except Clinton trying to assassinate OSama after the embassy bombings - and getting pilloried for it :rolleyes:

And Iraq had nothing of any meaning to do with Al Qaeda. The Senate Report says so, the 9-11 commision says so, even most republicans realize that now.


Before 9/11 nobody would have believed (despite the previous attacks) that Al Qaida was capable of such an attack...yet they were able to carry it out and succeed. The result, the US finally attempts to do something about it and is mostly applauded. Such an attack could easily have come out of another oppressive regime like Iraq was. A regime that happily would have aided in any way that they could any organization such as Al Qaida to carry out an attack against their hated enemies; the US. What will you wait for to take action? Another 9/11? Is your policy wait until we're all dead until we take action? We need to be proactive and take out these potential threats before another 9/11 occurs either directly or indirectly.


Yep - nobody ever thought about that, except Norad who practiced the scenario, Bush's security team who was warned of a suicide-aircraft attack plot against him on a trip to Europe earlier in 2001, and Tom Clancy who used the idea in a book. If only he was a widely read author perhaps people might have noticed....

I believe that most people agree with these statements, what they do not agree with is Bush undertaking the task. They hate HIM not necessarily his policies. Why do they hate him? 2 reasons, the 2000 election scandal AND his southern accent and way of speaking (some would say "hickly"). This prejudice by the people against southerners makes them think that Bush is a moron (yet how could a moron be elected or even be smart enough to steal an election according to you others.) I bet none of you would have a problem with these policies if Al Gore had been president. Only problem is, I bet you a whole lot, that after 9/11 a few more tomohawks would have been launched into Afghanistan. When are you ignorant people who call the Democratic Party home going to wake up and realize that what Schwarzenegger said is true "girlie men."

Actually, I hate his policies. I don;t know the man personally so I can't very well hate him.
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:37
Iraq doesn't need to have legitimate WMDs to be a threat (nuclear and chemical.)

Er, um, then why was this such a selling point in going to war in the first place?


Afterall, did Afghanistan have any? Absolutely not.

Other than the Taliban and Al Qaeda?


But you do apparently endorse that war.

I "endorse" no war, period.


That was a war to attempt to eliminate or severely damage the Al Qaeda network as well as it's protectors...something that was never done in the past. Interestingly enough, in the past nothing was done after the first attack on the WTC, the embassy bombings in Africa, The bombing of the USS COle, and the foiled millenium plot. All of which occured during the previous administration.

Hi, yeah, do you remember the late 90s? Cause all I really remember is a bloodthirsty Republican Congress that would be damned before it allowed a well-liked Democratic president to do anything of that scope and a grinning little troll doll named Ken Starr who tried to crucify that President by dragging the entire office through the muck.


Before 9/11 nobody would have believed (despite the previous attacks) that Al Qaida was capable of such an attack...yet they were able to carry it out and succeed.

Other than the FBI who repeatedly warned the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was coming, via the air, and was aiming at US targets, you mean?


The result, the US finally attempts to do something about it and is mostly applauded.

Are you referring to Afghanistan or Iraq, because I don't think by any stretch of the imagination the US actions in Iraq have been "applauded," either at home or abroad.


Such an attack could easily have come out of another oppressive regime like Iraq was.

Or North Korea. Or Canada. Or Syria. Or the former Soviet Union. Or Palestine. Or England. Or just about any other country in the world. Iraq is not unique, so why was it treated differently? I'm sorry, "Could have" is not enough justification for this mess. You can't go around invading countries willy-nilly because they could possibly, at some point in the future, maybe have some possible technology to perhaps do something that might hurt you.


A regime that happily would have aided in any way that they could any organization such as Al Qaida to carry out an attack against their hated enemies; the US.

Er, then why did they never return Al Qaeda's calls when Osama wanted to chat about joining forces? Senate report, you know.


What will you wait for to take action? Another 9/11? Is your policy wait until we're all dead until we take action? We need to be proactive and take out these potential threats before another 9/11 occurs either directly or indirectly.

And why, then, are we all supposed to be so worried about a possible attack around our elections? Have we eliminated the threat? Obviously not if both Ashcroft and Ridge feel the need to interrupt The View to tell us that Al Qaeda is still out there and plotting.


I believe that most people agree with these statements, what they do not agree with is Bush undertaking the task.

That's the amazing power of human belief. It's very elastic.


They hate HIM not necessarily his policies.

Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you. They like him and hate his policies.


Why do they hate him? 2 reasons, the 2000 election scandal AND his southern accent and way of speaking (some would say "hickly").

Ah, now we're going to get racial up in this piece. Actually, people dislike his policies because they're out of work, have no health care or safety nets, are sending their sons and daughters overseas till who knows when and to possibly die for a war they no longer see the relevance in while Jenna mugs it up for the camera, have yet to see any real evidence of these "tax breaks" that were supposed to save the nation, cure cancer and bring peace to the middle east, and is doing a fandango on the Constitution. The Southern Accent doesn't figure into it and the 2000 elections, while still a sore spot, are certainly not any reason to hate Bush. Rove and Scalia, possibly, but not Bush The Pawn.


This prejudice by the people against southerners makes them think that Bush is a moron (yet how could a moron be elected or even be smart enough to steal an election according to you others.)

No, the fact that Bush is a moron makes people think that Bush is a moron. Again, many very intelligent people speak with Southern Accents and are from the south. Bush just doesn't happen to be one of them. Of course, he was also born in the Northeast, so perhaps that's a loophole.


I bet none of you would have a problem with these policies if Al Gore had been president.

Yes, I would. But these policies wouldn't have happened then, now would they?


Only problem is, I bet you a whole lot, that after 9/11 a few more tomohawks would have been launched into Afghanistan.

Say, did you know that the plans Bush used to invade Afghanistan were actually drawn up by the Clinton administration and never used because Congress wouldn't allow that sort of a sweeping military action? It's true.


When are you ignorant people who call the Democratic Party home going to wake up and realize that what Schwarzenegger said is true "girlie men."

Namecalling. The last refuge of a scoundrel.
Berkylvania
22-07-2004, 02:38
LOL, Yeah, You keep thinking that.....

CIA documents. Still no comment?

Thought not.
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:39
I haven't visited that website Zeppistan, but if all is in order (and it may be) than you're right. These WERE POLITICAL attacks against Clinton. However, it is just the same as yours against the Bush administration today. Both are/were wrong.

Edit - I just checked the website...and with it being Socialist I'm not sure how trustworthy what it states is. It may have very weel been taken out of context. Then again maybe not. It'd be best to choose somewhat non-partisan websites. Maybe CNN or even The New York Times.

Like I said, it was hard to find news articles that old, but I'll try and find a better source. However the embassy bombins occurred during the whitewater hearings, and the air strike attempt happened shortly after the Lewinski details came out. The republicans were ruthless calling it all just a political ploy.

Now of course they blame him for it.

The rule is simple. No matter what - if it was Clinton it was wrong.
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:40
Riiiighhhht. Nothing except Clinton trying to assassinate OSama after the embassy bombings - and getting pilloried for it :rolleyes:

And Iraq had nothing of any meaning to do with Al Qaeda. The Senate Report says so, the 9-11 commision says so, even most republicans realize that now.




Yep - nobody ever thought about that, except Norad who practiced the scenario, Bush's security team who was warned of a suicide-aircraft attack plot against him on a trip to Europe earlier in 2001, and Tom Clancy who used the idea in a book. If only he was a widely read author perhaps people might have noticed....



Actually, I hate his policies. I don;t know the man personally so I can't very well hate him.
1 - The 9/11 report hasn't come out.
2 - Just because Iraq MAY not have had anything to do with 9/11 doesn't mean it couldn't have had to do in the future.
3 - I don't know about Norad knowing or practicing it. But just imagine if on the morning of 9/11 4 aircraft were shot down by us before they ever attacked. No survivors. What a perfect opportunity for leftists to seize on and make up some huge conspiracy theory. You just can't win on either side. People have lost all common sense.
Culebra
22-07-2004, 02:42
ok here is where most of you fail to see the problem AND the solution. I even hinted at it earlier, and only one of you commented on it, and i honestly have no idea what they were saying...

so here it is again:

problem hate: hate is something that comes about from several reasons. I will just list what i personally think are the reasons some hate freedom and/or the USA(which most of us Americans believe is one and the same)

(inpo)

1. jeolousy. they see our lifestyle, our freedoms, our way of thinking and tolorance and they are jeolous they can't have the same thing

2. education or lack of: do you realize that the literacy rate in most Arab natinos would make a 4th grader in the Western world look like a Harvard grad? and for women forget about it. They are still WAY undereducated, if they are at all. Whats the problem here? well if you don't know how to read, then how can you tell if what someone says in the one book that most Arabs have(the Koran) is true? when some razzle dazzle firestone Muslim "preacher" (Forgot what they are called) gets a crowd a fired up and says that its right here in the word of Allah that Americans are the devil and must be destroyed, what basis do they have to argue with it? or when the leader of their community or country say to do something or its their law to do something, how does the majority who are uneducated defend themselves or know what the difference between right and wrong is? And then look at the education most of them DO get. Alot of the teaching over there is very religous(if not all of it) and has a very bias that is anti-American and reallly anti-Isreal.

3. years of oppresion by corrupt leaders, but in ways that work. imagine yourslef in jail, accused wrongly for a crime you did not commit. you spend 20 years in jail, being harresed, tortured, humilated, and loosing most if not all of your self respect. now imagine yourself freed with no training for how to adapt in the new world you find yourself in. How will you feel? will you not be resentful, angry and filled with some amount of hate? Now place yourself in modern day Iraq. after years of oppresion, but in a way that created 'general security', the area is now being changed and going through crazy amount of turmoil. Angry people attract others who are resentful. why do you think gangs are popular in low income areas? its the feeling of togetherness, of being united in a common cause. its a shame, but thats probably why many over there are tolerant of some of the terrorists. Its easy to blame the USA and the coalition and the new government then their fellow arabs. They can no longer blame Saddam, so now its somebody else for them to direct their anger at. And until the new government can earn their trust, but instilling new programs to create jobs, educate, provide health care for those in need, etc, the madness will continue.

but this post will not, as i am tired of thinking so much about this...
Suicidal Librarians
22-07-2004, 02:44
Is it just me, or does Kerry's face look like clods of dog feces molded into the shape of a human face?

No he looks more like a tortured horse.
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 02:45
1 - The 9/11 report hasn't come out.

The 9/11 report comes out tomorrow, it will cite 10 mistakes that could of maybe stopped 9/11... 4 are at Clinton's feet, 6 are at Bush's...
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:49
Er, um, then why was this such a selling point in going to war in the first place?



Other than the Taliban and Al Qaeda?



I "endorse" no war, period.



Hi, yeah, do you remember the late 90s? Cause all I really remember is a bloodthirsty Republican Congress that would be damned before it allowed a well-liked Democratic president to do anything of that scope and a grinning little troll doll named Ken Starr who tried to crucify that President by dragging the entire office through the muck.



Other than the FBI who repeatedly warned the Bush administration that Al Qaeda was coming, via the air, and was aiming at US targets, you mean?



Are you referring to Afghanistan or Iraq, because I don't think by any stretch of the imagination the US actions in Iraq have been "applauded," either at home or abroad.



Or North Korea. Or Canada. Or Syria. Or the former Soviet Union. Or Palestine. Or England. Or just about any other country in the world. Iraq is not unique, so why was it treated differently? I'm sorry, "Could have" is not enough justification for this mess. You can't go around invading countries willy-nilly because they could possibly, at some point in the future, maybe have some possible technology to perhaps do something that might hurt you.



Er, then why did they never return Al Qaeda's calls when Osama wanted to chat about joining forces? Senate report, you know.



And why, then, are we all supposed to be so worried about a possible attack around our elections? Have we eliminated the threat? Obviously not if both Ashcroft and Ridge feel the need to interrupt The View to tell us that Al Qaeda is still out there and plotting.



That's the amazing power of human belief. It's very elastic.



Strike that. Reverse it. Thank you. They like him and hate his policies.



Ah, now we're going to get racial up in this piece. Actually, people dislike his policies because they're out of work, have no health care or safety nets, are sending their sons and daughters overseas till who knows when and to possibly die for a war they no longer see the relevance in while Jenna mugs it up for the camera, have yet to see any real evidence of these "tax breaks" that were supposed to save the nation, cure cancer and bring peace to the middle east, and is doing a fandango on the Constitution. The Southern Accent doesn't figure into it and the 2000 elections, while still a sore spot, are certainly not any reason to hate Bush. Rove and Scalia, possibly, but not Bush The Pawn.



No, the fact that Bush is a moron makes people think that Bush is a moron. Again, many very intelligent people speak with Southern Accents and are from the south. Bush just doesn't happen to be one of them. Of course, he was also born in the Northeast, so perhaps that's a loophole.



Yes, I would. But these policies wouldn't have happened then, now would they?



Say, did you know that the plans Bush used to invade Afghanistan were actually drawn up by the Clinton administration and never used because Congress wouldn't allow that sort of a sweeping military action? It's true.



Namecalling. The last refuge of a scoundrel.

1. WMD's were such a selling point because of faulty intelligence (hindsight is 20/20). Intelligence I might add from an organization formerly headed by a man that your previous savior, Clinton, appointed.
2. You admit that Al Qaida and the Taliban are in and of themselves WMD's. Therefore, all you need is will and people to be a threat.
3. Thankfully there are still a few people that endorse SOME wars. Without some of them, this world would be anarchy at the very least. Then again, we probably wouldn't have to worry about France. It'd be under a fascist regime.
4. I didn't like Clinton. He milked what others laid down before him. And the only reason that happened was Perot. A man I also liked, but did cost Bush the election. Sorta like a Nader for you leftists.
5. I have heard no warning by the FBI..is that a part of the unpublished 9/11 report? Wait 'till tomorrow I believe.
6. I was talking about Afghanistan.
7. I agree completely, I endorse attacking any other country either directly or indirectly (diplomacy or funding the opposition) to eliminate these potential threats.
8. We are currently attempting to eliminate the threat. And we are worried about attacks during the elections due to "girlie men" setting the example in Spain and the Phillippines. They have demonstrated that the ignorant voters are easily swayed.
9. Let me remind you that on 9/11 the priorities for a nation on 2000 were completely altered. The war endorsed by many others in Afghanistan is not free. And there needs to be priorites. Money does not grow on trees.
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:50
ok here is where most of you fail to see the problem AND the solution. I even hinted at it earlier, and only one of you commented on it, and i honestly have no idea what they were saying...

so here it is again:

problem hate: hate is something that comes about from several reasons. I will just list what i personally think are the reasons some hate freedom and/or the USA(which most of us Americans believe is one and the same)

(inpo)

1. jeolousy. they see our lifestyle, our freedoms, our way of thinking and tolorance and they are jeolous they can't have the same thing

2. education or lack of: do you realize that the literacy rate in most Arab natinos would make a 4th grader in the Western world look like a Harvard grad? and for women forget about it. They are still WAY undereducated, if they are at all. Whats the problem here? well if you don't know how to read, then how can you tell if what someone says in the one book that most Arabs have(the Koran) is true? when some razzle dazzle firestone Muslim "preacher" (Forgot what they are called) gets a crowd a fired up and says that its right here in the word of Allah that Americans are the devil and must be destroyed, what basis do they have to argue with it? or when the leader of their community or country say to do something or its their law to do something, how does the majority who are uneducated defend themselves or know what the difference between right and wrong is? And then look at the education most of them DO get. Alot of the teaching over there is very religous(if not all of it) and has a very bias that is anti-American and reallly anti-Isreal.

3. years of oppresion by corrupt leaders, but in ways that work. imagine yourslef in jail, accused wrongly for a crime you did not commit. you spend 20 years in jail, being harresed, tortured, humilated, and loosing most if not all of your self respect. now imagine yourself freed with no training for how to adapt in the new world you find yourself in. How will you feel? will you not be resentful, angry and filled with some amount of hate? Now place yourself in modern day Iraq. after years of oppresion, but in a way that created 'general security', the area is now being changed and going through crazy amount of turmoil. Angry people attract others who are resentful. why do you think gangs are popular in low income areas? its the feeling of togetherness, of being united in a common cause. its a shame, but thats probably why many over there are tolerant of some of the terrorists. Its easy to blame the USA and the coalition and the new government then their fellow arabs. They can no longer blame Saddam, so now its somebody else for them to direct their anger at. And until the new government can earn their trust, but instilling new programs to create jobs, educate, provide health care for those in need, etc, the madness will continue.

but this post will not, as i am tired of thinking so much about this...
This is so true! But make sure it gets applied everywhere. In our own society in the US...this hate is rampant.
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:51
1 - The 9/11 report hasn't come out.
2 - Just because Iraq MAY not have had anything to do with 9/11 doesn't mean it couldn't have had to do in the future.
3 - I don't know about Norad knowing or practicing it. But just imagine if on the morning of 9/11 4 aircraft were shot down by us before they ever attacked. No survivors. What a perfect opportunity for leftists to seize on and make up some huge conspiracy theory. You just can't win on either side. People have lost all common sense.

1.) The 9-11 Commision has already made public statements on the link. And stated that they could find no grounding for it.

2.) According to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, it was deemed highly unlikely that Saddam would associate itself with terrorists except as a last resort in the event of an imminent US invasion. Sort of a posthumous "fuck you". Besides - we aren't supposed to go to war's on "what ifs". Because I can think up a "what if" for any country on the planet.

3.) So you don't keep up with the news. Wow - you're really helping your credibility. But you may be right about your common sense...
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:51
The 9/11 report comes out tomorrow, it will cite 10 mistakes that could of maybe stopped 9/11... 4 are at Clinton's feet, 6 are at Bush's...
Actually, I heard that neither administration is blamed. Do you work in a high level position with the government to know the 4/6?
El Aguila
22-07-2004, 02:53
1.) The 9-11 Commision has already made public statements on the link. And stated that they could find no grounding for it.

2.) According to the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, it was deemed highly unlikely that Saddam would associate itself with terrorists except as a last resort in the event of an imminent US invasion. Sort of a posthumous "fuck you". Besides - we aren't supposed to go to war's on "what ifs". Because I can think up a "what if" for any country on the planet.

3.) So you don't keep up with the news. Wow - you're really helping your credibility. But you may be right about your common sense...

Answer to 2: Yeah this sounds a lot like the report on intelligence who said there WERE WMD's in Iraq.

Sorry about the numbering but I'm not the best at HTML. I'd like to quote in the text but not sure how. I'm sure you'll insult me about that too. Sorry for not being a geek (not to say you are...had to learn somewhere).
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 02:57
ok here is where most of you fail to see the problem AND the solution. I even hinted at it earlier, and only one of you commented on it, and i honestly have no idea what they were saying...

so here it is again:

problem hate: hate is something that comes about from several reasons. I will just list what i personally think are the reasons some hate freedom and/or the USA(which most of us Americans believe is one and the same)

(inpo)

1. jeolousy. they see our lifestyle, our freedoms, our way of thinking and tolorance and they are jeolous they can't have the same thing




Hmmm, while it may have some relevance in some cases - you blew it right here regarding Al Qaeda. Of all the things that Islamic fundamentalists want - our lifestyles, our freedoms, and our way thinking and tolerance are sure at the bottom of the list. Indeed, those are the very things that they are fighting against.
Rubina
22-07-2004, 03:01
No, no. Real Americans wouldn't do a thing like that. Those were liberals, communists and probably atheists.

On behalf of all liberals, communists and atheists in America, you have our apologies for training and/or propping up Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (yep, thank you CIA), Noriega, the Taliban and just about every freaking dictator who has ever turned around and bitten us in the butt.

You'd think the righty pinheads in Washington would cop a clue one of these days.
Culebra
22-07-2004, 03:02
Hmmm, while it may have some relevance in some cases - you blew it right here regarding Al Qaeda. Of all the things that Islamic fundamentalists want - our lifestyles, our freedoms, and our way thinking and tolerance are sure at the bottom of the list. Indeed, those are the very things that they are fighting against.


i was generalizing ALL of those who are in an oppressed area, not JUST al-quida. Of course those who wish to have power to themselves or their closest allies do not respect freedom. sorry for not being more clear, my bad :)
Culebra
22-07-2004, 03:07
On behalf of all liberals, communists and atheists in America, you have our apologies for training and/or propping up Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (yep, thank you CIA), Noriega, the Taliban and just about every freaking dictator who has ever turned around and bitten us in the butt.

You'd think the righty pinheads in Washington would cop a clue one of these days.


again, you fail to remember what the 'pinheads' were trying to accomplish by having these so called 'alliences'. Remember my ealier post talking about the Allies and Russian in ww2? same thing here imo. During the cold war, the USA AND the USSR made many 'allies' and did many secret work with governments in todays world we would never have supported. It was the policy that it was better to see a brutal dictator (easier to topple) then a large spread out communist country. Was it wrong? in hindsight, maybe. BUT that was the policy back then and sometimes in regular life as well as on a large National scale, we have to learn the hard way. Without the cold war, the world is changing in a radical way. A world economy is trying to break out, and freedom is getting more of a chance, but unfortanlty, there are a lot of folks who are scared to give up or who want the power still. and they will fight till the death to preserve their lavish lifestyle, no matter how many of their own they kill...
Zeppistan
22-07-2004, 03:12
Answer to 2: Yeah this sounds a lot like the report on intelligence who said there WERE WMD's in Iraq.

Sorry about the numbering but I'm not the best at HTML. I'd like to quote in the text but not sure how. I'm sure you'll insult me about that too. Sorry for not being a geek (not to say you are...had to learn somewhere).

Actually, one of the exact quotes from page 493 of the Senate Report:


In an October 7, 2002 letter to Chairman Graham members of the Intelligence Community stated:

Baghdad for now appears to drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks using conventional or CBW against the US.

Should Saddam conclude that a US attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become far less contained in adopting terrorist actions.

Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a WMD attack agains the US would be his last chance to exact revenge by taking a large number of victims with him.


So, months BEFORE the invasion, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was told that

a) Saddam was not affiliating himself with terrorists.
b) Saddam was not considered a risk to involve himself in terrorist actions agains Americans.
but that
c) if he's going down he has WMD and he might throw the final "screw you" out to his invaders.

Note that the CIA was also implying that Saddam would have considered affiliating himself with ISlamic terrorists to be an "extreme step"


In other words, the CIA was telling the government that the US citizenship were not at a real risk from Iraq currently, but that by initiating a war they very well might force him into bed with Osama and put American citizens into more risk. Not less risk - more.

This administration, therefore, played with the lives of US civilians with this action according to the CIA. And they were told that in no uncertain terms

Bet you're happy now how wrong they were about WMD.....
Fritzburgh
22-07-2004, 03:23
I am amlmost excited that with Bush OR Kerry as president we will be pretty safe. Bush will just start a war somewhere and suck all the terrorist into the trap OR Kerry will just dull them into submission and bore them to death :)


Go see "Fahrenheit 9/11" and then tell me the world is safe with Bush in the White House.
Rubina
22-07-2004, 03:54
again, you fail to remember what the 'pinheads' were trying to accomplish by having these so called 'alliences'. ... It was the policy that it was better to see a brutal dictator (easier to topple) then a large spread out communist country. Was it wrong? in hindsight, maybe. BUT that was the policy back then and sometimes in regular life as well as on a large National scale, we have to learn the hard way.

The only thing our pinheads were trying to accomplish was to keep themselves in power. It doesn't take a lot of brains or foresight (hindsight's damn painful for everyone but the pinheads it seems) to see that arming a whole slew of tinpot dictators is a really bad idea.

The historical policy and one the current regime has made no indication of changing is to arm whoever appears to oppose whomever it is we've decided is our (current) enemy and screw tomorrow. Why should that regime be rewarded with more time in office?
Sudaea
22-07-2004, 04:09
Go see "Fahrenheit 9/11" and then tell me the world is safe with Bush in the White House.
Fahrenheit 9/11. Though a act of free speech, michael moore is little more than a Liberal Democratic ASS kisser
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 04:11
Actually, I heard that neither administration is blamed. Do you work in a high level position with the government to know the 4/6?

You'll hear it tomorrow.. 4 for Clinton, 6 for Bush.. (mistakes)
Sudaea
22-07-2004, 04:15
John Kerry actually bares resemblance to a French version of Lurch.
Rubina
22-07-2004, 04:19
John Kerry actually bares resemblance to a French version of Lurch.
Hey! I liked Lurch. He was helpful and efficient and intelligent. So there. :P
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 04:38
John Kerry actually bares resemblance to a French version of Lurch.

As opposed to Bush who is a lot like "Cousin IT" ..
BackwoodsSquatches
22-07-2004, 04:46
Bush did nothing more that stir up an already pissed off hornets nest. And while its sucks fot the many innocent Iraqis and others who have suffered and died because of it, I would rather have the terrorists over there, then over here. Because the only way terrorism will EVER be defeated, is when those who tolerate, overlook or bury their heads in the sand finallly stand up and say NO MORE to those who promote terrorism. Maybe after enough of their fellow Muslims/Arab brothers have been killed and tortured, they will finally stand up those who have misled them, who have lied to them and who have taken the words of their Holy Koran out of context and put an end to it


Okay..you really dont understand the situation.

The people who use terrorism dont hate America becuase we have a democracy, or Wal-Marts.
They hate America becuase of WHAT WE DO.
Especially what we have done to them, and their countries.

Like putting many leaders into power who end up being like Saddam Hussein..
Or building military bases on their HOLY LAND.
Or starting unjustified wars with them over oil, and killing innocent civillians.

They arent going to stop becuase a few of them get killed...that only makes more of them.
The more that the US continues to do what we have done all along that pisses them off, the more people will resort to terrorism.
CanuckHeaven
22-07-2004, 05:22
Is it just me, or does Kerry's face look like clods of dog feces molded into the shape of a human face?
Perhaps but the important thing is the amount of gray matter between the ears and I guess that is in short supply for you?
Stephistan
22-07-2004, 14:45
Actually, I heard that neither administration is blamed. Do you work in a high level position with the government to know the 4/6?

"Tomorrow, the 9/11 Commission concludes its 20-month investigation by releasing a nearly 600-page final report. We still do not know all the details of what is inside, but some members of Congress and the Bush administration have been briefed on it.

A source who has seen a final draft tells CNN that it finds intelligence duties spread too widely across the government, too many turf battles, too many budget fights. The report also rebukes Congress for not having done more to correct earlier problems. Sources also say the commission will outline 10 operational opportunities that the government missed to potentially unravel the September 11 plot.

According to "The Washington Post," six of those happened during the Bush administration and four clocked during the Clinton years. The upcoming report is already drawing reaction from both Republican and Democratic leaders."

Source (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/21/pzn.01.html)
The Chaos Sentinels
22-07-2004, 14:57
Fahrenheit 9/11. Though a act of free speech, michael moore is little more than a Liberal Democratic ASS kisser
That's right. Farenheit 9/11 was an over-ripe piece of propaganda, and even some Liberals polled said that it was just a Bush-bashing.
_Myopia_
22-07-2004, 15:52
8. We are currently attempting to eliminate the threat. And we are worried about attacks during the elections due to "girlie men" setting the example in Spain and the Phillippines. They have demonstrated that the ignorant voters are easily swayed.

I don't know about the Philippines, but I seem to remember that Spanish polls showed the socialists winning before the attacks, and the postal votes which were, I think, mostly socialist, came in before the attacks anyway. Sorry I can't produce a source, but I am fairly sure this is true.

Anyway, being attacked for doing the wrong thing doesn't mean you should carry on doing the wrong thing.
The Holy Word
22-07-2004, 16:30
michael moore is little more than a Liberal Democratic ASS kisserNope. The Liberal Democrats are a British party, not an American one. Typical right-winger grasp of geopolitics. :D
_Myopia_
22-07-2004, 16:37
Nope. The Liberal Democrats are a British party, not an American one. Typical right-winger grasp of geopolitics. :D

Uh...I think he was saying moore is a kisser of the (American) Democratic Party's arse, and using Liberal as a separate adjective.