NationStates Jolt Archive

*It was only a matter of time but we all saw it coming.I see that they thought better of playing the WMD scare card this time around

Rumsfeld Blames Iraqi Resistance on Iran
In an interview with the Washington Times, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of fueling the resistance in Iraq. Rumsfeld said "They have put people in there. They have put money in there... And it's a very difficult thing to stop. Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior." Rumsfeld claimed the Bush administration was finding it difficult to convince other countries to pressure Teheran to stay out of Iraq.
www.democracynow.org

*It was only a matter of time but we all saw it coming.I see that they thought better of playing the WMD scare card this time around

Rumsfeld Blames Iraqi Resistance on Iran
In an interview with the Washington Times, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of fueling the resistance in Iraq. Rumsfeld said "They have put people in there. They have put money in there... And it's a very difficult thing to stop. Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior." Rumsfeld claimed the Bush administration was finding it difficult to convince other countries to pressure Teheran to stay out of Iraq.
www.democracynow.org

On an upside, at least we know they're going to have WMDs.

Meh. No surprise here. Can't wait until Bush decides an invasion of Canada is needed because our 'unrestictive immigration policies have allowed terrorists to make a home in Canada'.

Oh, whats that? Bush isn't that crazy?

Meh. No surprise here. Can't wait until Bush decides an invasion of Canada is needed because our 'unrestictive immigration policies have allowed terrorists to make a home in Canada'.

Oh, whats that? Bush isn't that crazy?

If Quebec ever gets "the bomb", you better believe there'll be war. Never will America allow something so French and so close to America have nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.

in Bush's defense, he won't have to lie about Iran

in Bush's defense, he won't have to lie about Iran

He'll figure out something. Probably find some way to lie about Kerry giving Iran aid and comfort by criticizing the Iraqi war.

in Bush's defense, he won't have to lie about Iran

have to, no. but i think you misunderestimate him.

have to, no. but i think you misunderestimate him.
This is OT but what does "misunderestimate" mean?

If Bush gets (re)elected, expect more wars and more deaths. If Kerry is elected, he'll find alternative solutions to problems, and he'll only use war as a LAST resort.

man, he's going to invade every country in the middle east escept israel isn't he?

If Bush gets (re)elected, expect more wars and more deaths. If Kerry is elected, he'll find alternative solutions to problems, and he'll only use war as a LAST resort.

(Sarcastic) Yeah right

If Bush gets (re)elected, expect more wars and more deaths. If Kerry is elected, he'll find alternative solutions to problems, and he'll only use war as a LAST resort.

Of course he will...of course he will...because Kerry is, after all, the great peacemaker...

This is OT but what does "misunderestimate" mean?

it's a bush-ism. at several points he has said that his opponents 'misunderestimate him'. it means something like halfway between 'underestimate' and 'judge wrongly'.

i prefer 'making the pie higher' myself.

This is OT but what does "misunderestimate" mean?

Misunderestimate is a classic Bushism, along the lines of "Is our children learning?" (Think on grammar in that one.)

Bush Didn't Misspeak!!

...he was strategerizing...

man, he's going to invade every country in the middle east escept israel isn't he?

Yup.. that's the plan.. his current friends are getting too stubborn.. so it's time for change.. send em down the crapper and establish new tyrants..

Better yet, give the entire middle east to Israel!...

For anyone who likes "Make the pie higher" have a look at this, its positively hilarious.

http://www.sablesys.com/pie-high.html

(Sarcastic) Yeah right

Why do you say that? Kerry has promised time and time again that he will only use war as a last resort.

Which is better: Kerry using war as a last resort or Bush using war right away?

Yeah right... I'm confident that Kerry will be considerably less trigger-happy than Bush, but he'll hardly consider war a "last resort". I'm skeptical of ANY politician saying that nowadays.

man, he's going to invade every country in the middle east escept israel isn't he?

Good. How many countries in the Middle East are harboring terrorists? ........
Ummm. How about ALL of them!! First Iran, then Pakistan, then Syria....then we'll have an election in '08.

If only the socialist pigs in the U.S. realized that the best way to protect this country is to take the battle to the terrorists.

Misunderestimate is a classic Bushism, along the lines of "Is our children learning?" (Think on grammar in that one.)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up

np look at my last post for a good link

Yup.. that's the plan.. his current friends are getting too stubborn.. so it's time for change.. send em down the crapper and establish new tyrants..

Better yet, give the entire middle east to Israel!...

well I'm all for it. :)
Think about it, the world will have one big Israel stuck in its throat...
I like that idea. :D

Good. How many countries in the Middle East are harboring terrorists? ........
Ummm. How about ALL of them!! First Iran, then Pakistan, then Syria....then we'll have an election in '08.

If only the socialist pigs in the U.S. realized that the best way to protect this country is to take the battle to the terrorists.
Yeahh their are less terrorists when peoples families and homes are destroyed(sarcasm) Your statement is idiotic not all people in the mid east are terrorist its like saying im in the IRA cause im an Irish. Terrorists arent born they are created because of war and suffering, Who is more litely to be a terrorist someone who has had his house and family destroyed and has nothing to lose or someone who hasnt??

Sure, perhaps President Bush got us into a war and had a vague idea on how we were going to get out...as a member of the armed forces that kinda sucks. But allow me to tell you this--I prefer to deal with the devil I know than the devil I do not know. Kerry may be a fine man, but there is no way he should be allowed to run this country. The man has no spine and would have the U.S. leashed to the U.N for the rest of time.

well I'm all for it. :)
Think about it, the world will have one big Israel stuck in its throat...
I like that idea. :D
I think that is too much to chew for you. You aren´t even able to pacify and control the palestinian territories although they are so small.

Yup.. that's the plan.. his current friends are getting too stubborn.. so it's time for change.. send em down the crapper and establish new tyrants..

Better yet, give the entire middle east to Israel!...
Bahrain, the UAE, Kuwait and Quatar belong to the coalition of the willing. So, there is no need for you to be concerned. Why do you care about the rest?

It's actually good not to have wars on such things as terrorism. I think Michael Badnarick said it best.

We have a war on drugs, and drug use went up astronomically.
There is a war on poverty and we now have the biggest poverty rate in 50 years.
We have a war on terrorism and terrorism happens more.

Get what I'm saying?

Sure, perhaps President Bush got us into a war and had a vague idea on how we were going to get out...as a member of the armed forces that kinda sucks. But allow me to tell you this--I prefer to deal with the devil I know than the devil I do not know. Kerry may be a fine man, but there is no way he should be allowed to run this country. The man has no spine and would have the U.S. leashed to the U.N for the rest of time.

Kerry has no spine? Who volunteered to go over to Vietnam and fight the Viet Cong? Who volunteered to run a swift boat campaign? Who got three purple hears from injury from his battles with the Viet Cong? Who got a Silver Star for saving a man's life (under heavy gunfire, I might add) in Vietnam? Who walks around this very day with shrapnel in his leg from injuries sustained in Vietnam?

I'll give you a hint: It's not George W Bush.

Where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Ahhh yes, he was cowering in Texas.

Where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Ahhh yes, he was cowering in Texas.
We all know that he courageously defended Texas against communism.

Yeahh their are less terrorists when peoples families and homes are destroyed(sarcasm) Your statement is idiotic not all people in the mid east are terrorist its like saying im in the IRA cause im an Irish. Terrorists arent born they are created because of war and suffering, Who is more litely to be a terrorist someone who has had his house and family destroyed and has nothing to lose or someone who hasnt??


Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And 9/11 never happened. Who is the idiot? I didn't say that everyone in the middle east is a terrorist. Reading is a skill; perhaps you should develop yours.

The U.S. did not turn Iraq into a parking lot. We went through considerable expense and loss of life to reduce the amount of collateral damage. I don't think you should spit on the sacrifice of a thousand U.S. soldiers who have gone out of their way to focus their fire on those who deserve it (terrorists, and those who harbor or support them).

i'm crackleberry and i don't give a fuck about anyone. hahahah. cunts!

i'm crackleberry and i don't give a fuck about anyone. hahahah. cunts!

I believe this was the smartest statement I have ever read in these boards.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. And 9/11 never happened. Who is the idiot? I didn't say that everyone in the middle east is a terrorist. Reading is a skill; perhaps you should develop yours.

The U.S. did not turn Iraq into a parking lot. We went through considerable expense and loss of life to reduce the amount of collateral damage. I don't think you should spit on the sacrifice of a thousand U.S. soldiers who have gone out of their way to focus their fire on those who deserve it (terrorists, and those who harbor or support them).
Riiiiiiiiiiiight and there was no wars in the middle east before 9/11.
eh there wasnt as many terrorists in Iraq before you invaded there are more now.
Never said they where aiming for civilians reading is a skill prehaps YOU should develop yours!

which doesn't say much for us, does it Kerenor?

Why do you say that? Kerry has promised time and time again that he will only use war as a last resort.

Which is better: Kerry using war as a last resort or Bush using war right away?

I don't trust anything Kerry says. He says one thing whilst doing the exact opposite. The Iraq War is a good example of this.

First of all Kerry vocally opposed the Iraq War. At the same time as he was speaking out against it, he voted for it in the Senate. Then he came out in support of the war. A while after that, he said if he'd been President he wouldn't have started the war. A few weeks later, he said that if he'd been President he would have gone to war. He recently made an anti-Iraq war speech, that is almost identical to the one he criticised Howard Dean for making last December. When Dean made the speech, Kerry accused him of being "indecisive". Now Kerry has made almost the exact same speech.

Kerry may say that he would only use war as a last resort, and that's great. Ordinarily someone who spoke out in such a way would get my support. However, based on his current form of back-tracking, I honestly don't believe a word that man says, so I stand by my previous flippancy.

Bush didn't use war right away. Contrary to popular belief, he went to the UN first. Resolution 1441, dated 8 November 2002 clearly states that "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Iraq's "obligations" being disarmament under the terms of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire and UNSC Resolution 687, as well as other obligations related to the following UNSC Resolutions: 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284 and 1382. I've read them all, and I believe that the through all of these the UNSC had justified some military intervention in Iraq.

Serious consequences can (and in this case did) mean war. Everyone who agreed to Resolution 1441 and then subsequently opposed the war knew that, and they ratified it anyway. It had already been shown that sanctions hadn't worked. A tougher response was needed. In my own opinion, the WMD argument didn't warrant a full-scale invasion, but military action directed at suspected WMD sites were certainly justified.

Meh. No surprise here. Can't wait until Bush decides an invasion of Canada is needed because our 'unrestictive immigration policies have allowed terrorists to make a home in Canada'.

Oh, whats that? Bush isn't that crazy?


Already been done, or don't you watch those old John Candy documentaries?

Kerry has no spine? Who volunteered to go over to Vietnam and fight the Viet Cong? Who volunteered to run a swift boat campaign? Who got three purple hears from injury from his battles with the Viet Cong? Who got a Silver Star for saving a man's life (under heavy gunfire, I might add) in Vietnam? Who walks around this very day with shrapnel in his leg from injuries sustained in Vietnam?

I'll give you a hint: It's not George W Bush.

Where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Ahhh yes, he was cowering in Texas.
True, he did fight in Vietnam.....30 YEARS AGO!!! Good for him. I will never question his bravery at that time. But that really does not play into what is happening in the world today. I am a registered Democrat, and still am unimpressed by John Kerry. I know this is a touchy subject, so I will also not downplay anybodies thoughts on the subject. I just think that President Bush is the better choice.

Good. How many countries in the Middle East are harboring terrorists? ........
Ummm. How about ALL of them!! First Iran, then Pakistan, then Syria....then we'll have an election in '08.

If only the socialist pigs in the U.S. realized that the best way to protect this country is to take the battle to the terrorists.

I know of a country with WMD. It not only harbours terrorists (http://www.alpha66.org/index.html) it also invades countries without grounds or UN backing. It uses its economic power to take over other countries and dictates which systems of governemt should be implemented. Furthermore it chooses leaders which will bring it the most profit. This country breaches human rights, and has biological and chemical weapons. It's leader was not fairly elected and is a danger to the free world. This country is the 'great' USA.

which doesn't say much for us, does it Kerenor?

Ha.

You know what I liked about that statement?
It wasn't trying to disrespect anyone. It wasn't trying to convince you in anything. It wasn't trying to flame.
And above all that, it was a little bit of humor in all this political madness. I liked it. :)

I know of a country with WMD. It not only harbours terrorists (http://www.alpha66.org/index.html) it also invades countries without grounds or UN backing. It uses its economic power to take over other countries and dictates which systems of governemt should be implemented. Furthermore it chooses leaders which will bring it the most profit. This country breaches human rights, and has biological and chemical weapons. It's leader was not fairly elected and is a danger to the free world. This country is the 'great' USA.
I couldn't agree more. Bush is a real threat... After all, they do have WMDs, lack of common sense; disrespect for the UN, even though they host it in New York and they fight the evil that contradicts the UN. They usurp dictators they put in place, get rid of leaders they don't like, even if they did back them. They control a lot of the money in the world and are some of the biggest hypocrits! Hell, this gives Russian bureaucratic corruption some competition.

You all do realize that USA has been supporting Iraq for quite some time?

And that they gave Bin Laden quite a load of cash. Which he used to bomb the towers.

You all do realize that USA has been supporting Iraq for quite some time?
They put Hussein in power, did they not? So, DUH! No surprises there!

And that they gave Bin Laden quite a load of cash. Which he used to bomb the towers.
Of course... I don't expect anything less from them...

Serious consequences can (and in this case did) mean war. Everyone who agreed to Resolution 1441 and then subsequently opposed the war knew that, and they ratified it anyway.

Quick question for anyone, what is the legal term used by the UN to give the thumbs up for military action?

Hint: Its not "serious consequences"

Kerry has no spine? Who volunteered to go over to Vietnam and fight the Viet Cong? Who volunteered to run a swift boat campaign? Who got three purple hears from injury from his battles with the Viet Cong? Who got a Silver Star for saving a man's life (under heavy gunfire, I might add) in Vietnam? Who walks around this very day with shrapnel in his leg from injuries sustained in Vietnam?

I'll give you a hint: It's not George W Bush.

Where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Ahhh yes, he was cowering in Texas.Who thinks any of this is the slightest bit relevant?

Do you want Rambo for President? The President does not fight wars, the President orders wars, picks policies, directions and aims, gives orders for the Generals to carry out etc - whether or not the President has fought or not is absolutely and entirely irrelevant.

Kerry has decades of political history, this is the real meat on which to judge him. Look at his position on the original Gulf War, military funding etc to see how to judge him - these are serious things which affect a Presidency, not 4 irrelevant months 35 years ago.

They put Hussein in power, did they not? So, DUH! No surprises there!No, they did not. Hussein got himself into power all on his own accord.

Kerry has no spine? Who volunteered to go over to Vietnam and fight the Viet Cong? Who volunteered to run a swift boat campaign? Who got three purple hears from injury from his battles with the Viet Cong? Who got a Silver Star for saving a man's life (under heavy gunfire, I might add) in Vietnam? Who walks around this very day with shrapnel in his leg from injuries sustained in Vietnam?

I'll give you a hint: It's not George W Bush.

Where was Bush during the Vietnam war? Ahhh yes, he was cowering in Texas.
oh yea three purple hearts from SELF INJURY that required NO medical help, Who was FORCED to go to veitnam due to the draft, and who did get a man from faliing into the water, but there was no heavy gunfire...Kerry is a two faced liar, I'm glad we took out Saddam and we are doing someting about the terrorist attacks that have been going on in the las 10 years.

What I find quite amusing and actually quite depressing is that there are people here who rightfully treat Bush with disdain but then go on about how what a great hope Kerry is.

Face it chaps and chappettes, politicians are not to be trusted. Bush is a puppet for the advocates for the New American Century, and he was the perfect candidate when it came to conquering Iraq. They had someone willing to invade Iraq for oil and to boost shares in the companies that will have contracts in Iraq, but also someone who wanted to finish Daddy's job.

Kerry may speak nicer, but he'll still be a puppet. People in the background will pull his strings, policies won't change much. Less Wars perhaps.

The Republican vs Democrat set up is a perfect way to stifle true political change.

You get fed up with the Reps, you vote for the Dems, you get fed up with the Dems you vote for the Reps and it goes on. No alternative.

Yes, Bush has to go, but to try to make out Kerry is something akin to the second coming of Christ is daft. Don't get your hopes up for change, that is all I'm saying.

On the subject of Iran....I find it quite sick it is even being considered. 1000 US soldiers have died in Iraq, estimated at least 1000 times that number in Iraqi deaths.

Did you hear about the man so distressed that his son had been killed in Iraq he set fire to himself? How many more dead from invading? Is 1000 not enough? 2000? 3000? 100,000? And this is only US Soldiers I speak of, what about civillians?

If the Bush thinks he is having a hard time in Iraq, here's something things to consider:

Iran is bigger physically.

There are people in Iran who dislike their government but hate America more.

The Arab League has said that if America declares war on another Arab country, it would consider this as a new world disorder, and will see it as a declaration of war on the entire Arab world.

Go ahead. Destabilise the middle East. Bin Laden is laughing his jolly arse off as you are doing his work for him, and recruiting many to his cause.

For every person that is killed as a result of military action there is at least a family enraged into anger and resistance.

Death......death.....death......genocide. The Cycle of violence is pedalled by the murderous, two wheels of opposing forces.

good post I agree

*It was only a matter of time but we all saw it coming.I see that they thought better of playing the WMD scare card this time around

Rumsfeld Blames Iraqi Resistance on Iran
In an interview with the Washington Times, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of fueling the resistance in Iraq. Rumsfeld said "They have put people in there. They have put money in there... And it's a very difficult thing to stop. Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior." Rumsfeld claimed the Bush administration was finding it difficult to convince other countries to pressure Teheran to stay out of Iraq.
www.democracynow.org

And, this is an issue? It sounds good to me! Let's invade Syria too. :mp5:

oh yea three purple hearts from SELF INJURY that required NO medical help, Who was FORCED to go to veitnam due to the draft, and who did get a man from faliing into the water, but there was no heavy gunfire...Kerry is a two faced liar, I'm glad we took out Saddam and we are doing someting about the terrorist attacks that have been going on in the las 10 years.
ignored, again

On an upside, at least we know they're going to have WMDs.

Well, WMDs and a host of other illegal weaponry were found in Iraq. Certain people just don't like to talk about that because it doesn't fit their agenda.

:headbang:

If Bush gets (re)elected, expect more wars and more deaths. If Kerry is elected, he'll find alternative solutions to problems, and he'll only use war as a LAST resort.

Actually, if Kerry is elected, you can expect more terrorist attacks against Americans. If that makes you feel comfortable, elect him.

ignoring the people who can be seen to bw ignorant and unwilling to listen to reason before talknig to them is alot easier than trying to talk to them to find out

What I find quite amusing ....

You're a bozo.

There are people in Iran who dislike their government but hate America more.

Exactly. Currently the fundamental Muslims are in a minority. But once they get invaded, they can rally people against the American Imperialism. Ben Anderson said it better (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/axis.shtml)...

In some places, Iran for example, it's almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. You've got a tiny group of people there, Ayatollah Khomeini's old guard, who control the military, the police and the law courts but are hated by at least 90% of the population.
Most people would love to see these guys go but then George Bush starts saying, "Iran is evil and sponsors terrorism". That old guard can say they were right all along, you can't have dialogue with America, they're imperialist, come with us, fight imperialism. They have actually gained a bit of support.

And that was pre-Iraq. It's only gonna have gotten worse since, and if Bush continues to spew this crap it'll become even worse still.

GWB has done more for international terrorism, extremism and racial tensions than the men he's chasing.

Actually, if Kerry is elected, you can expect more terrorist attacks against Americans. If that makes you feel comfortable, elect him.
So your saying Bush controls the terrorists! Quick vote him out so you can arrest him!
:mp5:

On a more serious note what difference will voteing one way or the other have on terror attacks.

(i love twisting meanings of posts)

Bush will win unless there is a major gaffe in the debates.

Kerry is just to wishy washy to trust with terror.

Bush will win unless there is a major gaffe in the debates.

Kerry is just to wishy washy to trust with terror.
for the love of mary and all the saints, dont you idiots friggin die?

You're a bozo.
You dont appear to be the brightest penny in the fountain yourself.

:confused: :mp5:
:confused: :mp5:
:confused: :mp5:

execution by firing squad.

__________________
| :confused: :mp5:
| :confused: :mp5:
|___________
|
|
|

^^^ a city street

for the love of mary and all the saints, dont you idiots friggin die?
lol, if only, if only.

No, they did not. Hussein got himself into power all on his own accord.

That is incorrect. He had CIA backing, and this has been proven.

All I have to say about this is "This Land"

www.JibJab.com :D

Meh. No surprise here. Can't wait until Bush decides an invasion of Canada is needed because our 'unrestictive immigration policies have allowed terrorists to make a home in Canada'.

Oh, whats that? Bush isn't that crazy?

Actually maybe he is that crazy, but you know what else? It would cause WWIII, Germany was stronger then any one country in WWII.. and in the end, we as the world brought them to their knees, America would be no different then Germany, enough countries already loath them.. it wouldn't be a huge leap.. but it would be a big mistake for America to be so stupid, it would spell their end. Canada is loved by all, hated by none!

except people form the USA
All I have to say about this is "This Land"

www.JibJab.com :D
funny but seen it.

I do not believe Bush will invade Iran. He is a bully and they already have WMD. Bullies only go after people who can not defend themselves.

Bush Didn't Misspeak!!

...he was strategerizing...


I wasn't aware bush possesses that type of knowledge.

Actually maybe he is that crazy, but you know what else? It would cause WWIII, Germany was stronger then any one country in WWII.. and in the end, we as the world brought them to their knees, America would be no different then Germany, enough countries already loath them.. it wouldn't be a huge leap.. but it would be a big mistake for America to be so stupid, it would spell their end. Canada is loved by all, hated by none!

Excuse me but not all Americans agree with bushes policies. So don't try
to make it sound like we are all warmongers. I don't appreciate your liking
the U.S. to the NAZI'S.

Excuse me but not all Americans agree with bushes policies. So don't try
to make it sound like we are all warmongers. I don't appreciate your liking
the U.S. to the NAZI'S.
so sensitive! Not likening you to the Nazis to their position the most powerful army(not sure think im right though). As for the rest you make the germans of the time sound like they where all warmongers.

Actually maybe he is that crazy, but you know what else? It would cause WWIII, Germany was stronger then any one country in WWII.. and in the end, we as the world brought them to their knees, America would be no different then Germany, enough countries already loath them.. it wouldn't be a huge leap.. but it would be a big mistake for America to be so stupid, it would spell their end. Canada is loved by all, hated by none!
Are you mad? Germany never was the strongest country. It just had the best and most quick military tactic. Well: and the French were really stupid and weakened due to internal disputes.
And the Soviets. They had spies prewarning them. But Stalin was so stupid not to react. He even rejected more defense forces at the border or putting them on alert. An issue which was raised by Chrustev during the destalinasation.

The position of the US is - if at all - rather comparable to Britain at the peak of its empire in the 19 th century or to the Roman Empire.
The American strength can be great for the world. It could lead to a "Pax Americana" in the long-run just like there was a Pax Romana established by Augustus (after the interventions by Ceasar) which lasted for centuries.

As for the rest you make the germans of the time sound like they where all warmongers.
They were not: World War I was at the begining very popular in all European countries by the way. In Germany and Austria it was seen as a just response to Serbian terrorists who killed the Austrian crown prince.
And of course: the loyality to our ally Austria was "unlimmited". Pretty stupid though.
And the fact that it led to a major european war was taken into account.
The begining of World War II was in contrast not seen as a great thing, especially due to the experience of world war I. But the leadership decided that way. And order is order and people were used to follow. The opinion shifted after the military successes in 1940 and began to shift again in 1943 after the defeat in the battle in Stalingrad.

the point I was making^^^ Not all americans agreed with bush noone said they did.

oh yea three purple hearts from SELF INJURY that required NO medical help, Who was FORCED to go to veitnam due to the draft, and who did get a man from faliing into the water, but there was no heavy gunfire...Kerry is a two faced liar, I'm glad we took out Saddam and we are doing someting about the terrorist attacks that have been going on in the las 10 years.

Hahaha. It appears to me you cannot look at the facts, so instead, you listen to the Swift Boat Liars and believe in what they say, when in fact, they themselves have even said the same things Kerry has said about the events that happened.

Also, yes, in military terms, Kerry did get hit by a self-inflictid wound (Just like Bob Dole did in WWII). He threw a grenade and the shrapnel hit him. He didn't do it on purpose (take that Michelle Malkin).

And Kerry DID volunteer to join the military. Where do you get your information from, free republic?

I'll make the list with facts (from my FAVORITE website, Democratic Underground):

*Alfred French, who signed an affidavit accusing John Kerry of exaggerating his war record, is in trouble after it was revealed that he didn't serve with Kerry and did not actually witness [http://www.kval.com/x30530.xml?ParentPageID=x2649&ContentID=x46616&Layout=kval.xsl&AdGroupID=x30530] his behavior in Vietnam. Lying in affidavits is obviously not a good idea when you're a county prosecutor. Oh yes, he also got caught lying about an extra-marital affair [ http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/109360837947360.xml ]

* After Ken Cordier's departure from Team Bush, it was the turn of Benjamin Ginsberg to quit [ http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10572967%255E1702,00.html ] two weeks ago when it was revealed that not only was he a lawyer for George W. Bush's campaign, he was a lawyer for - surprise - Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

* Jim Russell (who, unlike the Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth," was actually there the day that Kerry pulled Jim Rassmann out of the river) composed a stirring letter contradicting their story. "The picture I have in my mind of Kerry bending over from his boat picking some hapless guy out of the river while all hell was breaking loose around us, is a picture based on fact and it cannot be disputed or changed," he wrote. [ http://www.telluridegateway.com/articles/2004/08/20/news/opinion/opinion01.txt ]

* Larry Thurlow signed an affidavit accusing Kerry of lying about being under fire when he rescued Rassmann, saying "no return fire occurred.... I never heard a shot." This directly contradicts his own Bronze Star citation. [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html ] But a third Bronze Star was awarded that day, to another Swift Boat skipper, Robert Lambert. Lambert's recently-released citation says that [ http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1692 ] "all units came under small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks," and that Lambert "directed accurate suppressing fire at the enemy." The citation praises his "coolness, professionalism and courage under fire." Thurlow claims that Kerry faked the citations by falsely describing events to superior officers. But Kerry is not the eyewitness on Thurlow's citation - Lambert is. Can it be any more obvious that Thurlow is lying?

* John O'Neill has been making a big stink lately over whether John Kerry was in Cambodia or not during the Vietnam War. It appears that nobody - including Kerry - is really sure. But O'Neill - as usual - made himself look like a complete idiot by claiming [ http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/24/asb.00.html ]to CNN that he (O'Neill) had never been in Cambodia and in fact it was impossible to cross the border by river. Whoops! It turns out that O'Neill appears on an audio tape recorded in the Oval Office telling the complete opposite to Richard Nixon. O'NEILL: "I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water." NIXON: "In a swift boat?" O'NEILL: "Yes, sir." Ah, credibility. We hardly knew ye."

Here is a document that outlines the relationships of the Swift Boat Liars to the Bush Administration: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820_SWIFT_GRAPH.html

Ok. Try proving those wrong.

Game over. Thanks for playing my freeper friend.

I don't appreciate your linking
the U.S. to the NAZI'S.

Hmm. Personally I would never make that direct link - that would be insane and untrue and I'm not doing it - If any of the following sounds like that, please read it again and try and understand the comparison that is not calling you nazis, but is comparing you to their gaining national support before gaining power and their methods of keeping support. The whole world could see what was going on, but still the average german was convinced that things would change for the better for him personally if he voted H.

Seen from outside USA (I'm in Scandinavia) something is definetely cooking over there. It's rhetorics. Someone (Bush, that is) has a plan that US and what it stands for is good and what does not correspond with that is Evil. There are no grey zones. No in betweens. And that is IMHO Nazi Rhetorics. Things are Black/white good/evil us/them US/terrorism the enemy/us

The Bush administration masters that kind of rhetorics to perfection. How many times have you listened to 'arguments' such as "imagine the opposite" or "imagine what would happen if we didn't..." aso. The guy is scaring his population and at the same time calming it not to listen to these threats from the outside world. This means (in his black/white rhetorics) that if you don't vote Bush, you'll all have total chaos and live in fear forever. If you remove him from power you will still have the threats, but not the guy to fix it. It's very simple and horribly effective.

That is NOT true. He is manipulating you. He had his 4 years which was more than enough. I don't know if Kerry will be better for you guys, but please take that chance. thanks.

"You don't like bush? - that must mean you think Saddam is a saint" Could be your next question. And no, of course not. "You don't think it was good for Iraq that they got rid of him?" Yes, I do. But these are typical examples of what you guys learned form Bush. There are grey zones. There are international rules. You cannot just invade a country to liberate it.

the point I was making^^^ Not all americans agreed with bush noone said they did.
But the Americans have good intentions. That can´t be said for Hitler though, especially in respect to his intentions towards the Czech area, Poland, Russia and Serbia.
Other countries in Europe after all even allied with him. A fact that is often forgotten though.

The American strength can be great for the world. It could lead to a "Pax Americana" in the long-run just like there was a Pax Romana established by Augustus (after the interventions by Ceasar) which lasted for centuries.

So, can you imagine that some of us in civilized, democratic countries - your allies - do not see that as heaven? You are not policemen of the world.

*It was only a matter of time but we all saw it coming.I see that they thought better of playing the WMD scare card this time around

Rumsfeld Blames Iraqi Resistance on Iran
In an interview with the Washington Times, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of fueling the resistance in Iraq. Rumsfeld said "They have put people in there. They have put money in there... And it's a very difficult thing to stop. Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior." Rumsfeld claimed the Bush administration was finding it difficult to convince other countries to pressure Teheran to stay out of Iraq.
www.democracynow.org

"Another well-known specialist warned that the 'general strategy of preventive war' is likely to provide others with 'overwhelming incentives to wield weapons of terror and mass destruction' as a deterrent to 'the unbridled use of American power.' Many have noted the likely impetus to Iranian nuclear weapons programs. And "there is no question that the lesson that the North Koreans have learned from Iraq is that it needs a nuclear deterrent," Selig Harrison commented.

As the year 2002 drew to a close, Washington was teaching an ugly lesson to the world: if you want to defend yourself from us, you had better mimic North Korea and pose a credible military threat, in this case, conventional: artillery aimed at Seoul and at US troops near the DMZ. We will enthusiastically march on to attack Iraq, because we know that it is devastated and defenseless; but North Korea, though an even worse tyranny and vastly more dangerous, is not an appropriate target as long as it can cause plenty of harm. The lesson could hardly be more vivid."

Noam Chomsky Hegemony or Survival

Emphasizes my point pretty well.

So, can you imagine that some of us in civilized, democratic countries - your allies - do not see that as heaven? You are not policemen of the world.
I´m not American though. And I also see the problem. Power concentrated too much in one country can lead to the abuse of it.
On the other hand: a world of rivaling powers can be much more dangerous. Just think about European history - our history. A continent of rivaling powers fighting each other. Not just in the first half of the 20 th century. Look to the time before: even then: full of wars. Balcanic wars, Franco-German wars, Crimean War, Napoleonic wars, Revolutionary wars, Seven-Year-War or - the biggest war before World War one and the bloodiest: the 30-year-war (1618-48) which devasted and destroyed Central Europe. Or the Hundred-year war (1337-1451).
Probably it is better that one country leds to end this misery. I rather like the US taking that role than any other country. Probably Blair is right supporting this policy of an unipolar world in order to prevent the even more dangerous mulit-polar world of rivaling powers which we had all the centuries before and which was causing all that destruction.

What I find quite amusing and actually quite depressing is that there are people here who rightfully treat Bush with disdain but then go on about how what a great hope Kerry is.

Face it chaps and chappettes, politicians are not to be trusted. Bush is a puppet for the advocates for the New American Century, and he was the perfect candidate when it came to conquering Iraq. They had someone willing to invade Iraq for oil and to boost shares in the companies that will have contracts in Iraq, but also someone who wanted to finish Daddy's job.

Kerry may speak nicer, but he'll still be a puppet. People in the background will pull his strings, policies won't change much. Less Wars perhaps.

The Republican vs Democrat set up is a perfect way to stifle true political change.

You get fed up with the Reps, you vote for the Dems, you get fed up with the Dems you vote for the Reps and it goes on. No alternative.

Yes, Bush has to go, but to try to make out Kerry is something akin to the second coming of Christ is daft. Don't get your hopes up for change, that is all I'm saying.

On the subject of Iran....I find it quite sick it is even being considered. 1000 US soldiers have died in Iraq, estimated at least 1000 times that number in Iraqi deaths.

Did you hear about the man so distressed that his son had been killed in Iraq he set fire to himself? How many more dead from invading? Is 1000 not enough? 2000? 3000? 100,000? And this is only US Soldiers I speak of, what about civillians?

If the Bush thinks he is having a hard time in Iraq, here's something things to consider:

Iran is bigger physically.

There are people in Iran who dislike their government but hate America more.

The Arab League has said that if America declares war on another Arab country, it would consider this as a new world disorder, and will see it as a declaration of war on the entire Arab world.

Go ahead. Destabilise the middle East. Bin Laden is laughing his jolly arse off as you are doing his work for him, and recruiting many to his cause.

For every person that is killed as a result of military action there is at least a family enraged into anger and resistance.

Death......death.....death......genocide. The Cycle of violence is pedalled by the murderous, two wheels of opposing forces.


Iranian's aren't Arab's they are Persians

Turk's aren't Arab's, they are Turks

But they both are Muslim's

there is a difference

The Arab world Stretchs from Southern Spain in the West to Iraq in the East. Thats as far east as they go

Bush Didn't Misspeak!!

...he was strategerizing...

Another Bush quote. Bush-"Most of our imports come from other countrys."

Bush isnt going into Iran because they have WMDs, if that WAS the case he would have known that they are Nuclear bombs NOT missles and can not be fired internationally (such as our ICBMs) Hes probably just looking out for his Jewish friends in Israel. And his Muslum friends in Saudi Arabia (the royal family.)

So your saying Bush controls the terrorists! Quick vote him out so you can arrest him!
:mp5:

On a more serious note what difference will voteing one way or the other have on terror attacks.

(i love twisting meanings of posts)

Well actually, YES! By taking the war to Iraq, Bush is keeping the terrorists busy in their own region of the world. If you think that's a problem, vote him out. I actually prefer the present situation. If you put Kerry in that situation, not only will we lose more soldiers, we'd risk increased attacks on our foreign embassies and potentially here at home. Democrats are incapable of handling these situations very well. That doesn't sit well with me.

Probably it is better that one country leds to end this misery. I rather like the US taking that role than any other country.

I like to think that a supernational governing body like the UN should take care of that. But of course, for that to work, countries must do what they say - and not go on a solo raid like USA.

So, can you imagine that some of us in civilized, democratic countries - your allies - do not see that as heaven? You are not policemen of the world.

*ignoring you* Where do you live anyway? France maybe England, Spain Germany, Italy. Either way all of Europe fought and invaded other countrys for many years. hundreds thousands. And France overthrew their royal family because they liked OUR democracy, it gave them the idea. And Bush is our only policeman, the dumbest one on the force, and only of the Middle East.

So, can you imagine that some of us in civilized, democratic countries - your allies - do not see that as heaven? You are not policemen of the world.

Yalls falt were are the policemen of the world.

I like to think that a supernational governing body like the UN should take care of that. But of course, for that to work, countries must do what they say - and not go on a solo raid like USA.

Umm hmm, a solo raid with England, Italy, Spain, Japan, South Korea etc.

Yeah while the UN just sat back and did nothing to remedy the problem that was Saddam Hussein.

I like to think that a supernational governing body like the UN should take care of that. But of course, for that to work, countries must do what they say - and not go on a solo raid like USA.
That would require a world of democracies. Or do you think that a country like Saudi-Arabia, Iran, China or Russia would stop human rights abuses and change their policy because the UN says so?
No, we haven´t reached that point. European integration was only possible after the democratisation of Europe.
But the world is mainly undemocratic and ruled by dictators. We can´t judge the world the same way we look at Europe of today: an Europe of mainly democratic countries. But we weren´t able to solve the problems at the Balkans without the US and under its leadership. That is the truth.
Under Americas leadership the world may be changed in a way that it is more democratic, more free and more peaceful. And that could give rise to a world order based on cooperation of democratic states. But we are far away from that point. Therefore the situation is as it is: The US is the leading power of the world. And America must lead because noone else can.

Yeah while the UN just sat back and did nothing to remedy the problem that was Saddam Hussein.

When did Saddam Hussein become a 'problem' since '91?

Sanctions have murdered tens if not hundreds of thousands and crippled Iraqi Infrastructure, his armed forces are not even a skeleton of what they used to be, and the pinnacle of his 'amazing ub3r ballistic tech and WMD!!!!1' was the Al-Samoud 2, which he agreed to dismantle.

I'm sure Saddam could have overrun powerhouses such as Saudi Arabia, you know, hes such a tactical genious even though his army would be decimated by the smallest of Arabic Armies.

Well actually, YES! By taking the war to Iraq, Bush is keeping the terrorists busy in their own region of the world. If you think that's a problem, vote him out. I actually prefer the present situation. If you put Kerry in that situation, not only will we lose more soldiers, we'd risk increased attacks on our foreign embassies and potentially here at home. Democrats are incapable of handling these situations very well. That doesn't sit well with me.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Kerry wants to put more troops in Iraq not to increase war just to keep the forces from spreading too thin and giving the troops better body armor. And this whole democrats are incapable of handling this situation is Bullshit, Kerry would probably be better in times of war because HE WAS IN ONE! Unlike Bush a YEE-HAW from Texas who served in the Alabama Air National Guard just long enough so he would not be drafted for Viet Nam. Kerry knows what wars are like and could be better for us plus he didnt make such quotes as "We get most of our imports from other countrys." and "We should get NASA to explore the Solar system." I have a whole page of his really really stupid quotes just ask me if you want them. my E-Mail Bball8266@hotmail.com if you want the quotes.

Yeah and we were allowed to keep going in to Iraq in 91 this would not have happened.

*ignoring you* Where do you live anyway? France maybe England, Spain Germany, Italy. Either way all of Europe fought and invaded other countrys for many years. hundreds thousands. And France overthrew their royal family because they liked OUR democracy, it gave them the idea. And Bush is our only policeman, the dumbest one on the force, and only of the Middle East.
And does the US want to repeat all mistakes European countries did?
The use of force should only be used as a last resort. I however have to say that I don´t see how the issue and the geostrategic aims could have been realized without a regime change in Iraq and its invasion, though.

That would require a world of democracies. Or do you think that a country like Saudi-Arabia, Iran, China or Russia would stop human rights abuses and change their policy because the UN says so?
No, we haven´t reached that point. European integration was only possible after the democratisation of Europe.
But the world is mainly undemocratic and ruled by dictators. We can´t judge the world the same way we look at Europe of today: an Europe of mainly democratic countries. But we weren´t able to solve the problems at the Balkans without the US and under its leadership. That is the truth.
Under Americas leadership the world may be changed in a way that it is more democratic, more free and more peaceful. And that could give rise to a world order based on cooperation of democratic states. But we are far away from that point. Therefore the situation is as it is: The US is the leading power of the world. And America must lead because noone else can.

HELL YEAH! Why dont you Europeans go back to your tea and crosoints and sit around kissing the UNs ASS.

I like to think that a supernational governing body like the UN should take care of that. But of course, for that to work, countries must do what they say - and not go on a solo raid like USA.

LOL. In every military action the UN has ever sanctioned, the US has had to provide the vast majority of troops (i.e. Korea). Once again, we supplied the vast majority of troops. However, we had the help and support of numerous nations. Just because the UN is as weak and ineffective as ever does not mean any country should be shackled by it. The UN couldn't fight a fire without US help. It couldn't buy a dinner without US money. Then, we come to it for assistance in freeing people who are oppressed by a tyrannical leader, and it gives us only the vague shadow of approval, so that it can always stand back and condemn us if popular opinion turns against the war. Perhaps the US and its allies are the only nations of this world that are capable of doing something that actually will benefit the people of another nation. True, around 13,000 civilians may have died. However, that is mostly attributed to terrorist actions, and not to US troops. When you compare it to the number of people Saddam put to death in a year during his reign, trust me, the numbers shrink.

To this end, I think that, if the UN and the EU weren't being held back by socialist and autocratic nations like Spain and France, they might possibly be able to do some good. Unfortunately, some nations are too blinded by their hatred of the US to support an action that will be good for the world. Which, by the way, foots the bill for all damage it does, and even for damages that are not attributed to it.

HELL YEAH! Why dont you Europeans go back to your tea and crosoints and sit around kissing the UNs ASS.

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/downloads/images/European_Unions_Babel.JPG

EUROPE OWNS AMERICA

Yes people, Europe is so culturally advanced we are the envy of the world

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/downloads/images/European_Unions_Babel.JPG

EUROPE OWNS AMERICA

Yes people, Europe is so culturally advanced we are the envy of the world
I think it must have been a joke. Because the last time I checked, no one was immigrating from America to Europe.

*It was only a matter of time but we all saw it coming.I see that they thought better of playing the WMD scare card this time around

Rumsfeld Blames Iraqi Resistance on Iran
In an interview with the Washington Times, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld accused Iran of fueling the resistance in Iraq. Rumsfeld said "They have put people in there. They have put money in there... And it's a very difficult thing to stop. Iran is a country that is not part of the civilized world in terms of its behavior." Rumsfeld claimed the Bush administration was finding it difficult to convince other countries to pressure Teheran to stay out of Iraq.
www.democracynow.org

Paranoid

I think it must have been a joke. Because the last time I checked, no one was immigrating from America to Europe.

Check again

Yeah while the UN just sat back and did nothing to remedy the problem that was Saddam Hussein.

They were searching for evidence. Everytime they came back emptyhanded they set a new deadline. Eventually you guys lost patience and invaded because Powell saw a photo of a truck... NOT to remove Saddam, but to find and remove WMD. Saddam cooperated, showed everything UN wanted to see. But you attacked. And that you did. in no talks about good/evil - you attacked them, you were not defending yourselves...

During the war the object changed to "we are liberating them from their dictator"

And - with reference to the rhetorics-talk before - I cannot in my heart say that that was wrong. Saddam was oppressing his people in no coherence with international laws of freedom. Basically what I am saying is: It was not wrong to remove Saddam from power. But why you? why then? why Iraq? why? You were mislead to believe that the guys had nukes. So they didn't - Oops?

Its not our fault we were mislead

http://www.thechristadelphians.org/downloads/images/European_Unions_Babel.JPG

EUROPE OWNS AMERICA

Yes people, Europe is so culturally advanced we are the envy of the world

No, AMERICA OWNS EUROPE. think of Americas influence on Europe, Rock, Rap, mainly all music after those classical fruitjobs, we have chains all over your stupid continent. Such as McDonalds, one of the many. other American influences, though I dont support it, IRAQ! YES! ITSA TRUEA ITALIA! YOU ARE IN THIS WAR! AND OI! YA WEE LITTLE GIRLS IN ENGLAND! SO ARE YOU! SPAINS ACCENT I CANT DESCRIPE SO I WILL SAY THE SAND DWELLERS ARE IN IT TOO! Name one European influence on America, I realize we may have formed some of our principals on the Greek and Roman empires I have no problem with Greece, and Rome is dead (I dont count fascist Italy as the great Roman Empire.) Otherwise many European countrys copied our ideas after we formed. Oh and lets see, American influences, our expansion on TV, our computers of which you will be replying to me on, oh and most important, OUE ELECTRICITY! BEN FRANKLIN MAY NOT HAVE EXHISTED TO DISCOVER IT HAD HE NOT BEEN BORN IN AMERICA, AND THOMAS EDISON AND HIS RIGHT HAND MAN (MY ANCESTOR WALTER MALLORY) WOULD CERTAILY NOT HAVE BEEN BORN AND INVENTED ELECTRICITY! So try living un-American for awhile, turn off your electricity and dont use anything electric for a month ignore all great music and fashions from America basically GO TO A FARM AND SLOUGHTER PIGS!

HELL YEAH! Why dont you Europeans go back to your tea and crosoints .
I´m neither British nor French. And I personally consider the UN as pretty irrelevant. So, no thanks.

Its not our fault we were mislead

That is so true. The only thing you can do is to democratically punsih the people who mislead you. In your version of democracy that means voting for 'The other one' - so do that, please...

They were searching for evidence. Everytime they came back emptyhanded they set a new deadline. Eventually you guys lost patience and invaded because Powell saw a photo of a truck... NOT to remove Saddam, but to find and remove WMD. Saddam cooperated, showed everything UN wanted to see. But you attacked. And that you did. in no talks about good/evil - you attacked them, you were not defending yourselves...

During the war the object changed to "we are liberating them from their dictator"

And - with reference to the rhetorics-talk before - I cannot in my heart say that that was wrong. Saddam was oppressing his people in no coherence with international laws of freedom. Basically what I am saying is: It was not wrong to remove Saddam from power. But why you? why then? why Iraq? why? You were mislead to believe that the guys had nukes. So they didn't - Oops?

why do you refer to Americans as YOU, I hate this war I support it 0% we arent all the same, That would be like blaming FREKIN FRANCE OR ITALY FOR THE HOLICAUST! Say Bush, can you say Republicans or just Americans? Say RE-PUB-LI-CANS! or BUSH! We dont all follow that fagget, just the stupid ones!

No, AMERICA OWNS EUROPE. think of Americas influence on Europe, Rock, Rap, mainly all music after those classical fruitjobs, we have chains all over your stupid continent. Such as McDonalds, one of the many. other American influences, though I dont support it, IRAQ! YES! ITSA TRUEA ITALIA! YOU ARE IN THIS WAR! AND OI! YA WEE LITTLE GIRLS IN ENGLAND! SO ARE YOU! SPAINS ACCENT I CANT DESCRIPE SO I WILL SAY THE SAND DWELLERS ARE IN IT TOO! Name one European influence on America, I realize we may have formed some of our principals on the Greek and Roman empires I have no problem with Greece, and Rome is dead (I dont count fascist Italy as the great Roman Empire.) Otherwise many European countrys copied our ideas after we formed. Oh and lets see, American influences, our expansion on TV, our computers of which you will be replying to me on, oh and most important, OUE ELECTRICITY! BEN FRANKLIN MAY NOT HAVE EXHISTED TO DISCOVER IT HAD HE NOT BEEN BORN IN AMERICA, AND THOMAS EDISON AND HIS RIGHT HAND MAN (MY ANCESTOR WALTER MALLORY) WOULD CERTAILY NOT HAVE BEEN BORN AND INVENTED ELECTRICITY! So try living un-American for awhile, turn off your electricity and dont use anything electric for a month ignore all great music and fashions from America basically GO TO A FARM AND SLOUGHTER PIGS!
guess where nikolai (sp) tesla was from then stick your self righteous bullshit in your ear

That is so true. The only thing you can do is to democratically punsih the people who mislead you. In your version of democracy that means voting for 'The other one' - so do that, please...

Nope sorry wrong again we vote for Nadar. We try to ingore the other one, but wait, maybe your British and have no choice! You pay your taxes to a monarchy! Were so sorry for misjudging YOU Europeans, why dont you enjoy electricity a little more, or another great thing invented in America.

Why Dont The Europeans Get Out Of What Is Clearly An American Conversation! Remember What Thread Your On? Go Away! We Dont Bother You When You Want To Talk About Tony Blair Or Whoever!

if the UN and the EU weren't being held back by socialist and autocratic nations like Spain and France, they might possibly be able to do some good.

See, this is excactly what I sit over here and fear. When does Bush suddenly feel like 'liberating' the puny civlizations like Spain and France? When will we be taught the hard way to be free and democratic in the cool way US thinks it is?

Americans have a choice between 2 right wing parties and a 3rd guy who just ends up moving votes in favor of one of the other 2. if americans cannot choose to vote for a version of democratic socialists - then how can they call it a democracy?

Edit: changed the You's to Bush/America etc :-)

See, this is excactly what we sit over here and fear. When do you suddenly feel like 'liberating' the puny civlizations like Spain and France? When will we be taught the hard way to be free and democratic in the cool way you think you are?

You have a choice between 2 right wing parties. if you cannot choose to vote for a version of democratic socialists - then how can you call it a democracy?

Would you like us to Liberate you? And sorry we dont really rely that much on our President, he annoys the piss out of me but since we have many branches and congress and senate it doesnt bother me, I can and so can hundreds of millions of Americans get on with our normal life start a business get a job that good stuff. You can look to Queen, or King or Duke or whatever but dontbother us! Ill say it again (man Europeans are slow) WHY DONT THE EUROPEANS GET OUT OF WHAT IS CLEARLY AN AMERICAN CONVERSATION! REMEMBER WHAT THREAD YOUR ON? GO AWAY! WE DONT BOTHER YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TONY BLAIR OR WHOEVER!

GO AWAY! WE DONT BOTHER YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TONY BLAIR OR WHOEVER!

Awright, i'm off. I like to think a conversation gets better the more different points of views it has.

PS: no need to shout. Bye.

Would you like us to Liberate you? And sorry we dont really rely that much on our President, he annoys the piss out of me but since we have many branches and congress and senate it doesnt bother me, I can and so can hundreds of millions of Americans get on with our normal life start a business get a job that good stuff. You can look to Queen, or King or Duke or whatever but dontbother us! Ill say it again (man Europeans are slow) WHY DONT THE EUROPEANS GET OUT OF WHAT IS CLEARLY AN AMERICAN CONVERSATION! REMEMBER WHAT THREAD YOUR ON? GO AWAY! WE DONT BOTHER YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT TONY BLAIR OR WHOEVER!
When people talk about someone's country, or the EU, the UN, etc., people are allowed to come to their defence, no matter where they live. It's not like your little threats are going to deterr them, they're just going to give them the satisfaction of having pissed off someone that doesn't agree with them. And they have that right.

oh yea three purple hearts from SELF INJURY that required NO medical help, Who was FORCED to go to veitnam due to the draft, and who did get a man from faliing into the water, but there was no heavy gunfire...Kerry is a two faced liar, I'm glad we took out Saddam and we are doing someting about the terrorist attacks that have been going on in the las 10 years.
no vet injures themselves deliberately--thats gotta be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard and even if Kerry is lying about whether he deserved those medals (which is doubtful) Bush is lying about his ENTIRE MILITARY SERVICE. Now you tell me which is the bigger lie

Actually, if Kerry is elected, you can expect more terrorist attacks against Americans. If that makes you feel comfortable, elect him.
you have it totally backwards--Bush is the one actively recruiting terrorists

Bush will win unless there is a major gaffe in the debates.

Kerry is just to wishy washy to trust with terror.
But Bush is the one who allowed the worst terrorist assault to occur in American history

Well actually, YES! By taking the war to Iraq, Bush is keeping the terrorists busy in their own region of the world. If you think that's a problem, vote him out. I actually prefer the present situation. If you put Kerry in that situation, not only will we lose more soldiers, we'd risk increased attacks on our foreign embassies and potentially here at home. Democrats are incapable of handling these situations very well. That doesn't sit well with me.
Bush turned a MINOR problem of terrorism into a full fledged GLOBAL epidemic by inflaming an entire region needlessly-In this regard that makes Bush a terrorist himself doesnt it?

First allow me to say, this is a great discussion. Second, I think the Brits and anybody else from the EU or any part of the world should feel free to place their input into these posts, it add flavor to things, and the situation in Iraq effects the entire world. Last: the facts that Kerry served in the Navy during Nam and that Bush served in the Nat'Guard at the same time SOULD NOT HAVE BEARING ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ELECTIONS! These events took place 30 years ago. It makes not a shit of diffrence if Kerry had one ass cheek blown off or if Bush accidently dropped a 500 pound bomb into the ocean in 1970. What matters is what they are going to do not only about the war, but also what they are going to do about the problems in our own country. I personaly support Bush, but if I converse with a Kerry supporter, I sure don't call them a dumb ass. We are all entitled to an opnion. Military service aside, lets look at what these men might do for the country and the world as a whole.

First allow me to say, this is a great discussion. Second, I think the Brits and anybody else from the EU or any part of the world should feel <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=free&v=56">free</a> to place their input into these posts, it add flavor to things, and the situation in Iraq effects the entire world. Last: the facts that Kerry served in the Navy during Nam and that Bush served in the Nat'Guard at the same <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=time&v=56">time</a> SOULD NOT HAVE BEARING ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ELECTIONS! These events took place 30 years ago. It makes not a shit of diffrence if Kerry had one ass cheek blown off or if Bush accidently dropped a 500 pound bomb into the ocean in 1970. What matters is what they are going to do not only about the war, but also what they are going to do about the problems in our own country. I personaly support Bush, but if I converse with a Kerry supporter, I sure don't call them a dumb ass. We are all entitled to an opnion. service aside, lets look at what these men might do for the country and the world as a whole.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have friends in England and value thier opinions and have had many good political discussions with them. Different opinions are not wrong, just different. Just like Bush supporters and Kerry supporters are all Americans-unless there are other nationalities who support a canidate for some reason. I am also a bush supporter and am rather tired of hearing whether or not Bush skipped out on war and jokes about kerry's war wounds. In the end they all signed up and who cares about events that far back? I wasn't even born then. Lets focus on the future and what the canidates stands are and stop attacking each other.

Why Dont The Europeans Get Out Of What Is Clearly An American Conversation! Remember What Thread Your On? Go Away! We Dont Bother You When You Want To Talk About Tony Blair Or Whoever!

How is this a solely an american thread?
Should Bush or his successor choose to invade another country, especially such an oil wealthy country, don't you think it would have repercussions on the entire world. Especially with certain terrorists groups being linked to them?

How is this purely american? Other people are allowed to voice their opinions, and their is nothing anyone can do over the 'net to stop them, so just hear them out because they might actually have something interesting to say on the matter.

The US wouldn't dare invade Iran.

The US wouldn't dare invade Iran.
bush IS pretty stupid...

The US wouldn't dare invade Iran.

who knows?

If Iran gave us an excuse(like oh say killing a bunch of student protestors) we could do a little more liberating. Iran doesnt have much militarily

Seriously though, our armed forces in the region AND a democratic Iraq should be enough to destabilize that pathetic government. It wouldnt even need to be violent because they already have elections there, it is just that the govt who can run.

The younger generation is fairly pro western, so with a little support they could problem take control of the govt through the election process. Hopefully.

wasn't it part of the plan to use iraq as a staging post to attack iran?, or anyone else in the region for that matter?

if you look at a map it does look quite suspicious as well.
Iran's western neighbour = Iraq
Iran's eastern neighbour = Afganistan

they could be attacked from both sides quite easily.

We don't need an excuse. Iran declared war on the US in 1979 when they invaded our embassy. We will fight and defeat them in time as well.

We don't need an excuse. Iran declared war on the US in 1979 when they invaded our embassy. We will fight and defeat them in time as well.

Eh..so because of an event 25 years ago, it will be all the justification we need to invade an entire nation and occupy it?

man, he's going to invade every country in the middle east escept israel isn't he?

Well, they do have some 200 nuclear warheads ...

Eh..so because of an event 25 years ago, it will be all the justification we need to invade an entire nation and occupy it?

Well...it would be a thin excuse...but it would be legitimate. Iran committed an act of war against the US. Carter should have invaded then, or sent in troops to help Iraq in overthrowing the theocracy. Iran will be dealt with in time. If they do finish their nuclear program, Israel might take them out as a preventive measure.

Well, they do have some 200 nuclear warheads ...


How many nuclear warheads do we have?( America ) I don't think we should be using the nuclear card when we refuse to get rid of our Nukes.
:rolleyes:

This is OT but what does "misunderestimate" mean?

"To underestimate for the wrong reason(s)." He has said that a lot of people misunderestimate him, and it's true. People thought he would do a lousy job because he's so stupid, but in fact, he did it because he's so evil.

Here's a great idea:

Why don't we invade Brazil?

They have nuclear capacity, or are rapidly developing it, and they have functional tested intercontinental ballistic missiles.

A threat in our own backyard.

Much easier to reach, easier to establish supply and communication for troops, and a more apparent threat than this Middle Eastern country.

Hmm, does Brazil have any oil?

-snip- 1st post
Augh, Iran does indeed have WMDs, or at least an active program (unlike Iraq) - and I wouldn't be surpried if *some* (NOT all) but some of the resistance fighters came from Iran.

This is OT but what does "misunderestimate" mean?
mis*un`der*es"ti*mate\, v. t.
a Bushism clearly indicating confusion about English.

Jeez! You have to explain everything to some people!
:D

Well, WMDs and a host of other illegal weaponry were found in Iraq. Certain people just don't like to talk about that because it doesn't fit their agenda.

:headbang:
Why not enlighten us then? You claim knowledge that has been 'hidden' from us. Let's hear it.

bush IS pretty stupid...

I really think you misunderestimate him.

I like to think that a supernational governing body like the UN should take care of that. But of course, for that to work, countries must do what they say - and not go on a solo raid like USA.
So you are suggesting that the UN become the world government? It is a toothless nagging nanny with no authority to enforce it's resolutions while attempting to monitor a play yard filled with children who are out of control. That was the precise stepping stone Bush used in Iraq, who by the way, also blew the UN off. I doubt that the EU, Russia, the various Islamic states, China, Japan, the USA or any other group is about to accept those terms. The UN can be a potential arbitrator but not an authority.

What was found in Iraq?... let's see... missles that were modified to fly beyond the range sanctioned on Iraq after Desert storm that they "forgot to destroy". Poisions by the gallons that were newly fabricated... scientists that were ordered and received funding for WMD development and production programs (he wasn't suppose to have any WMD development programs.) and during the war... wasn't Kuait hit a couple of times by missles? granted they had no WMD, but the range was beyond that the sanctioned limits.

What was found in Iraq?... let's see... missles that were modified to fly beyond the range sanctioned on Iraq after Desert storm that they "forgot to destroy". Poisions by the gallons that were newly fabricated... scientists that were ordered and received funding for WMD development and production programs (he wasn't suppose to have any WMD development programs.) and during the war... wasn't Kuait hit a couple of times by missles? granted they had no WMD, but the range was beyond that the sanctioned limits.

1) an expensive new guided missile system whose missiles could go 2-5% beyond the maximum allowed range IFF their guidence systems were removed.

2) which poisons... the ones at pesticide plants? Source please?

3) scientists with WMD know-how, who happened to be born Iraqis, and plans to start WMD development programs WHEN and IF sanctions were ever lifted.

4) was Kuwait hit by missiles? Source?

We don't need to make excuses to invade Iran there is already PLENTY of them. Besides America needs to invade the middle east and take the oil and send the Arabs to Europe.

Misunderestimate is a classic Bushism, along the lines of "Is our children learning?" (Think on grammar in that one.)

And also him saying, we get MOST of our IMPORTS from other countries.

We've had the "excuse" since 1978, held in our pockets like an ace in the hole. Iran is next, get used to it.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.

We don't need to make excuses to invade Iran there is already PLENTY of them. Besides America needs to invade the middle east and take the oil and send the Arabs to Europe.


Can we say World War 3 boys & girls

We've had the "excuse" since 1978, held in our pockets like an ace in the hole. Iran is next, get used to it.
Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Well then we better get extremely serious and do the job right instead of half assed like Iraq because Iran has Nuclear Capability and I think it's safe
to say that they will refuse to give it up. Then there's the fact that george
( useless excuse for a president ) bush has made us hated in the third world
so they would just love to have an excuse to use their Nuc's against us.