NationStates Jolt Archive

Today Kerry unveiled his 7 part strategy for fighting global terror. He went far above and beyond anything Bush has ever said. He outlined exactly how international support is vital to the effort. He, unlike his adversary, showed an appreciation of the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements of "the evil-doers want to get us because they hate us for our freedoms."

Kerry vowed to not give ANY country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror, specifically calling out the Saudi regime.

Kerry avowed to use the creativity and ingenuity of the American people to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

Kerry proposed to convene a worldwide summit, including Moderate Muslim religious leaders, to pinpoint the best ways to not just kill terrorists, but to forestall the processes that lead to ingrained hatred.

Kerry showed a much more profound understanding of the world than Bush ever has.

Oh, and for all you anti-Kerry partisans out there, he never once mentioned Vietnam.

Kerry rightly pointed out that Iraq has been a distraction from the more important fight against worldwide terror. Some may ask why Kerry's view on Iraq may have changed.

The more profound question is why Bush's view has not, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Being resolutely wrong is no virtue.

In rebuttal, all Bush's campaign chief could do was trot out the tired accusations of vacillation by Kerry. Never once did he address anything substantive in Kerry's speech. He again trotted out the outright lie about Kerry voting against body armor for the troops. Since the bill passed despite Kerry's vote, it could only be the ineptitude of the Republican-written bill, and the ill-judgement of the Republican-run Pentagon that denied our troops the necessary armor.

Sweet! Where can I see this speech?

I just saw it in it's entirety on CNN. I'm sure a video and a transcript are forthcoming.

I saw it on MSN news but I've never been great at computers to find stuff.

Yeah, his speech reminded me of the great speaches of Einsenhower, Reagon, Clinton, Washington, Jefferson...etc so if historic speaches are a indication Kerry has a great shot at Presidency.

"If we stay true to ourselves, the terrorist can never defeat our ideals!" Something like that.

Face it people, John Kerry is at his very best right now. All he has really promised to do is talk. This last effort is no exception. Summits, UN etc. Once he runs into the realities of these situations he will bog down in his own micro-managing style and get eaten alive by our own party as they fight for control.

Fortunately the Republicans haven't figured this out as they didn't for Al Gore either. Unfortunately, if John Kerry gets in our party will hit the skids for several more terms before we recover.

Better to give Bush enough rope to hang his whole party for the next election than let John Kerry do the harm he will almost certainly inflict.

So, Kerry thinks it's important to understand terrorists and he appreciates the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements.

That's the biggest reason yet to not vote for him.

Isn't it funny that Bush's only memorable lines are lingual blunders and character attacks?

there's no doubt that kerry has a better grasp of foreign affairs, the world outside of the US (when I questioned him whether he knew that the world was not flat, extended past our borders, and that Iraq was over something they call an "ocean", Bush looked at me with that dull laquer of stupidity coating his eyes and said "uh-wha?")
too bad it appears kerry's behind nearly 100 points in the electoral college.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
cross your fingers, pray, meditate, do whatever you have to to hope kerry wins.

So, Kerry thinks it's important to understand terrorists and he appreciates the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements.

That's the biggest reason yet to not vote for him.

Wow, TheOneRule, I respect you because you usually seem level headed and willing to look at more than one side, but this is simply one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

The point is, and Rumsfeld has wondered this allowed himself, are we creating terrorists faster than we can kill or capture them?

The only true way to fight terror is make them realize that there is more to live for than to die for (Kerry's turn of phrase.)

OK thanks I will look for a transcript or video soon.

Kerry is showing more promise than I ever expected of him. Maybe he was saving the best for last so that the Reps would misunderestimate him.

Kerry proposed to convene a worldwide summit, including Moderate Muslim religious leaders, to pinpoint the best ways to not just kill terrorists, but to forestall the processes that lead to ingrained hatred.

You cannot stop ingrained hatred because its against human nature. If the human mind has no enemies, it can't rationalize why things are going bad for it.

Oh sounds like Bush's plan, except with less guts.

1) vowed to give no country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror
1) whats he gonna do? complain to the UN? "This guys picking on me", he's a anti-war canidate therefore a anti-war president, what is he pro-war again? He pointed Saudi Arabia? Is this a clue that he's just gonna take us to another war? This coming supposedly from a anti-war canidate?

2) Use the creativity and ingenuity of the american people to get oil elsewhere
2) Whats he gonna do, draw pictures of oil barrels for us? Oil is only produced in certain places of the world, our options are limited, we cant wave a magic wand and say wa la oil.

3) Kerry wants to lead a worldwide summit
3) Politicians talk all the time, their job is to kiss other ambassadors asses, having a worldwide summit wont even make a dent against terrorism. Politicians are trained to lie, thats their job because their government doesnt want the outside world to know their agenda, what makes you think a summit with islamic groups gonna make any difference?

4) i cant believe you can even say iraq wasnt a threat. Let me list Hussein's past history to you

A) His common practice for testing biological and chemical weapons during the 90's would be launching them on his own poeple and watching the effects. A million iraq's were confirmed killed by Husseins WMD testing.

2) His soldiers commonly raped millions of women in iraq, Hussein son had a personal raping chamber, a chamber made specifically for raping women.

3) He openly supported terrorism, he had his people march around burning american flags and carrying around dolls dressed up and american soldiers on a noose and burning it.

4) he praised Bin Laden's attacks on us, most specifically 9/11

5) He had the material to produce biological and chemical weapons, the weapons inspectors said so.

6) Hussein killed a million of his own people with WMD's, he would have no qualms killing american soldiers with them, so why should we have waited for him to the opportunity to do so, its called a preemptive strike.

7) He invaded Israel and Kurwait, he recently was launching skud missiles into Israel, a ally of the United States. We defend our allies, thats our duty.

8) During the Gulf War, he personally executed 21 american POW's by literally cutting them apart, piece by piece, making sure they were alive during the process

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.

Today Kerry unveiled his 7 part strategy for fighting global terror. He went far above and beyond anything Bush has ever said. He outlined exactly how international support is vital to the effort. He, unlike his adversary, showed an appreciation of the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements of "the evil-doers want to get us because they hate us for our freedoms."

Kerry vowed to not give ANY country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror, specifically calling out the Saudi regime.

Kerry avowed to use the creativity and ingenuity of the American people to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

Kerry proposed to convene a worldwide summit, including Moderate Muslim religious leaders, to pinpoint the best ways to not just kill terrorists, but to forestall the processes that lead to ingrained hatred.

Kerry showed a much more profound understanding of the world than Bush ever has.

Oh, and for all you anti-Kerry partisans out there, he never once mentioned Vietnam.

Kerry rightly pointed out that Iraq has been a distraction from the more important fight against worldwide terror. Some may ask why Kerry's view on Iraq may have changed.

The more profound question is why Bush's view has not, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Being resolutely wrong is no virtue.

In rebuttal, all Bush's campaign chief could do was trot out the tired accusations of vacillation by Kerry. Never once did he address anything substantive in Kerry's speech. He again trotted out the outright lie about Kerry voting against body armor for the troops. Since the bill passed despite Kerry's vote, it could only be the ineptitude of the Republican-written bill, and the ill-judgement of the Republican-run Pentagon that denied our troops the necessary armor.

What did he actually unveil??? This is just headline rhetoric, just like Bush. Stuff like this really upsets me because both candidates believe I am stupid enough to accept their unexplained, generic, non-specific rhetoric as an actual strategy.

What he unveiled is nothing more than what his staff identified necessary in order to further separate himself from Bush. To me, these "strategies" are worthless piles of poll-resulting crap. Bush is just as guilty as Kerry, so please don't take this as a partisan rant. Bush also never states specifically what he will do. He just says "Trust me".

And as for the armor debate. I am actually IN the military. More precisely, in the Army. The armor issue is not the Pentagon. It's not what you think. Why does anyone think that the Pentagon would say "Hey, I know, let's send soldiers into combat with no protection. Wouldn't that be a hoot?".

Kerry avowed to use the creativity and ingenuity of the American people to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

What does this mean, exactly??? It lacks all substance, but it sure sounds good.


Kerry proposed to convene a worldwide summit, including Moderate Muslim religious leaders, to pinpoint the best ways to not just kill terrorists, but to forestall the processes that lead to ingrained hatred.

I though this was what the UN was for...

Kerry showed a much more profound understanding of the world than Bush ever has.

How, specifically?

Kerry rightly(?) pointed out that Iraq has been a distraction from the more important fight against worldwide terror. Some may ask why Kerry's view on Iraq may have changed.

This is an opinion...and a highly debated one, at that. All this does is distract from Kerry's position, and focuses it on the President. It's a universal, time-honored principal: "Admit nothing, deny everything, and always have counter-accusations".

Let me also say this, in conclusion:

I am not a republican or a democrat. I have just as many problems with Bush as I do with Kerry. Please, PLEASE don't write this off as partisan rhetoric. I only addressed Kerry in this post because this post is about Kerry. I would do the same were it about Bush.

So, Kerry thinks it's important to understand terrorists and he appreciates the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements.

That's the biggest reason yet to not vote for him.

To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

Don't even try to pull off the tired line "they hate us because we exist." Bin Laden was Pro-US untill the first Gulf War. Hussein was pro-US until we decided to fight him.

The only way to stamp out terrorism is to actually find the motivations of why these people are so angry. Is it because of our imperialism? Is it because they don't have adequate food, medicine, or water supplies? Is it because the bush administration outlawed trade with Burma (a country known for forced sweatshop conditions) only after their campaign t-shirts were produced?

Gone are the days when our Imperial might could simply demolish a country then propose peace and go on with our lives. These people have no country, they operate on their own sense of vigilante justice. The game has changed, to win, we must change with it.

Oh sounds like Bush's plan, except with less guts.

1) vowed to give no country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror
1) whats he gonna do? complain to the UN? "This guys picking on me", he's a anti-war canidate therefore a anti-war president, what is he pro-war again? He pointed Saudi Arabia? Is this a clue that he's just gonna take us to another war? This coming supposedly from a anti-war canidate?

2) Use the creativity and ingenuity of the american people to get oil elsewhere
2) Whats he gonna do, draw pictures of oil barrels for us? Oil is only produced in certain places of the world, our options are limited, we cant wave a magic wand and say wa la oil.

3) Kerry wants to lead a worldwide summit
3) Politicians talk all the time, their job is to kiss other ambassadors asses, having a worldwide summit wont even make a dent against terrorism. Politicians are trained to lie, thats their job because their government doesnt want the outside world to know their agenda, what makes you think a summit with islamic groups gonna make any difference?

4) i cant believe you can even say iraq wasnt a threat. Let me list Hussein's past history to you

A) His common practice for testing biological and chemical weapons during the 90's would be launching them on his own poeple and watching the effects. A million iraq's were confirmed killed by Husseins WMD testing.

2) His soldiers commonly raped millions of women in iraq, Hussein son had a personal raping chamber, a chamber made specifically for raping women.

3) He openly supported terrorism, he had his people march around burning american flags and carrying around dolls dressed up and american soldiers on a noose and burning it.

4) he praised Bin Laden's attacks on us, most specifically 9/11

5) He had the material to produce biological and chemical weapons, the weapons inspectors said so.

6) Hussein killed a million of his own people with WMD's, he would have no qualms killing american soldiers with them, so why should we have waited for him to the opportunity to do so, its called a preemptive strike.

7) He invaded Israel and Kurwait, he recently was launching skud missiles into Israel, a ally of the United States. We defend our allies, thats our duty.

8) During the Gulf War, he personally executed 21 american POW's by literally cutting them apart, piece by piece, making sure they were alive during the process

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.
Propaganda. *Yawn*
Actually John Kerry does show promise - something I could never say about George Dubya Bush.

Oh sounds like Bush's plan, except with less guts.

1) vowed to give no country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror
1) whats he gonna do? complain to the UN? "This guys picking on me", he's a anti-war canidate therefore a anti-war president, what is he pro-war again? He pointed Saudi Arabia? Is this a clue that he's just gonna take us to another war? This coming supposedly from a anti-war canidate?

2) Use the creativity and ingenuity of the american people to get oil elsewhere
2) Whats he gonna do, draw pictures of oil barrels for us? Oil is only produced in certain places of the world, our options are limited, we cant wave a magic wand and say wa la oil.

3) Kerry wants to lead a worldwide summit
3) Politicians talk all the time, their job is to kiss other ambassadors asses, having a worldwide summit wont even make a dent against terrorism. Politicians are trained to lie, thats their job because their government doesnt want the outside world to know their agenda, what makes you think a summit with islamic groups gonna make any difference?

4) i cant believe you can even say iraq wasnt a threat. Let me list Hussein's past history to you

A) His common practice for testing biological and chemical weapons during the 90's would be launching them on his own poeple and watching the effects. A million iraq's were confirmed killed by Husseins WMD testing.

2) His soldiers commonly raped millions of women in iraq, Hussein son had a personal raping chamber, a chamber made specifically for raping women.

3) He openly supported terrorism, he had his people march around burning american flags and carrying around dolls dressed up and american soldiers on a noose and burning it.

4) he praised Bin Laden's attacks on us, most specifically 9/11

5) He had the material to produce biological and chemical weapons, the weapons inspectors said so.

6) Hussein killed a million of his own people with WMD's, he would have no qualms killing american soldiers with them, so why should we have waited for him to the opportunity to do so, its called a preemptive strike.

7) He invaded Israel and Kurwait, he recently was launching skud missiles into Israel, a ally of the United States. We defend our allies, thats our duty.

8) During the Gulf War, he personally executed 21 american POW's by literally cutting them apart, piece by piece, making sure they were alive during the process

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.


Looks like you picked a perfect name for yourself.

Bush is the one letting Saudi off the hook and blocking access to investigations into where their money goes.

Using ingenuity to lessen dependence on oil means to find alternatives to oil.

ah forget it you sound like someone who doesnt think enough to be even worth debating with your short-sighted post here.

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.

Why not let Colin powell tell you, since Colin Powell said in 2001 that Saddam had been thoroughly neutralized as a threat, and that Saddam didn't even have the capability of attacking his neighbors? Sure, the faulty intelligence post 9/11 may have indicated that Saddam might have been a threat, but to continue to insist he was a threat, knowing what we know now, is ridiculous. We know now, what the Secretary of State said in 2001, that Saddam didn't even have the capabilities to attack his neighbors, much less the US.

Did you see or read Kerry's speech? No? Why don't you do your homework then and see how an intelligent man talks?

My personal favorite was "Just because Bush can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done" truer words were never spoke :)

Thats all you can say "propaganda"? I dont see you proving me wrong. Kerry has promise, he wouldnt be a senator if he didnt, but thats not the point, the point is he is trying to get a message across, but he's contradicting himself, so he's either lying or he's stupid. He's also a senator so i know he's not stupid.

Propaganda. *Yawn*
Actually John Kerry does show promise - something I could never say about George Dubya Bush.

You actually yawn over the proven fact that millions were killed by Hussein? That's disgusting. How is that propaganda? Which statement is false?

Oh sounds like Bush's plan, except with less guts.

1) vowed to give no country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror
1) whats he gonna do? complain to the UN? "This guys picking on me", he's a anti-war canidate therefore a anti-war president, what is he pro-war again? He pointed Saudi Arabia? Is this a clue that he's just gonna take us to another war? This coming supposedly from a anti-war canidate?

2) Use the creativity and ingenuity of the american people to get oil elsewhere
2) Whats he gonna do, draw pictures of oil barrels for us? Oil is only produced in certain places of the world, our options are limited, we cant wave a magic wand and say wa la oil.

3) Kerry wants to lead a worldwide summit
3) Politicians talk all the time, their job is to kiss other ambassadors asses, having a worldwide summit wont even make a dent against terrorism. Politicians are trained to lie, thats their job because their government doesnt want the outside world to know their agenda, what makes you think a summit with islamic groups gonna make any difference?

4) i cant believe you can even say iraq wasnt a threat. Let me list Hussein's past history to you

A) His common practice for testing biological and chemical weapons during the 90's would be launching them on his own poeple and watching the effects. A million iraq's were confirmed killed by Husseins WMD testing.

2) His soldiers commonly raped millions of women in iraq, Hussein son had a personal raping chamber, a chamber made specifically for raping women.

3) He openly supported terrorism, he had his people march around burning american flags and carrying around dolls dressed up and american soldiers on a noose and burning it.

4) he praised Bin Laden's attacks on us, most specifically 9/11

5) He had the material to produce biological and chemical weapons, the weapons inspectors said so.

6) Hussein killed a million of his own people with WMD's, he would have no qualms killing american soldiers with them, so why should we have waited for him to the opportunity to do so, its called a preemptive strike.

7) He invaded Israel and Kurwait, he recently was launching skud missiles into Israel, a ally of the United States. We defend our allies, thats our duty.

8) During the Gulf War, he personally executed 21 american POW's by literally cutting them apart, piece by piece, making sure they were alive during the process

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.

Sigh, you people really aren't smart enough to look past the end of your own nose, are you?
In a speech to the UN, Powell told them that Saddam didn't have the capacity to produce or deliver WMDs...a year later, total flip-flop!

Just because a person is vocal in not liking a country doesn't mean that they're a danger to it. I can celebrate somebody kicking the living dog-shit out of you...that doesn't mean that I'm a threat to you, that just means I like what happened to you.

Saddam never invaded Israel, he launched missiles at it...now, those can be used as a precursor to invasion, but it was mainly to prove a point and try to draw other nations to his side to fight against the US...it didn't work, did it?

lastly, in an Ad Hominem attack against you (so what if it's a fallacy, it's got to be stated) how is anybody supposed to believe somebody that can't even comprehend the number system?

Why not let Colin powell tell you, since Colin Powell said in 2001 that Saddam had been thoroughly neutralized as a threat, and that Saddam didn't even have the capability of attacking his neighbors? Sure, the faulty intelligence post 9/11 may have indicated that Saddam might have been a threat, but to continue to insist he was a threat, knowing what we know now, is ridiculous. We know now, what the Secretary of State said in 2001, that Saddam didn't even have the capabilities to attack his neighbors, much less the US.

Did you see or read Kerry's speech? No? Why don't you do your homework then and see how an intelligent man talks?

What Saddam didn't have, my poorly informed friend, was the DELIVERY SYSTEMS (read, rockets and missiles of sufficient range) to deliver the WMD's that both the UN and Colin Powel said he possessed. He didn't have the ability to attack his neighbors (no missiles, remember?). He DID have the capability to sell the weapons themselves, as well as the technology, to people who COULD deliver them. There is an enormous difference.

And as for the armor debate. I am actually IN the military. More precisely, in the Army. The armor issue is not the Pentagon. It's not what you think. Why does anyone think that the Pentagon would say "Hey, I know, let's send soldiers into combat with no protection. Wouldn't that be a hoot?".


I want to home in on this then. Who, exactly, determines whether you get the armor or not? I'm not trying to be critical of you or anything, I just want to know how such things are decided.

If it was an error in the appropriations bill, then I'm afraid the finger still points at the Republicans, since they were the ones who drafted and voted for the version that passed.

Thank you for your time in clearing this up. Any info would be appreciated.

You actually yawn over the proven fact that millions were killed by Hussein? That's disgusting. How is that propaganda? Which statement is false?

This is a tired old argument. The sad reality is Iraq was better off with Saddam then they are now. No one wants to hear that, because yes, that's horrible and Saddam was a horrible man. However the statement is true. The people of Iraq were better off with Saddam then they are now. Saddam hadn't done any thing on any grand scale since the first Gulf war, that's a fact! That was also in 1991. That is one hell of a delayed reaction!

Face it people, John Kerry is at his very best right now. All he has really promised to do is talk. This last effort is no exception. Summits, UN etc. Once he runs into the realities of these situations he will bog down in his own micro-managing style and get eaten alive by our own party as they fight for control.

Fortunately the Republicans haven't figured this out as they didn't for Al Gore either. Unfortunately, if John Kerry gets in our party will hit the skids for several more terms before we recover.

Better to give Bush enough rope to hang his whole party for the next election than let John Kerry do the harm he will almost certainly inflict.

I'd rather have Kerry in so Hillary won't have a leg to stand on in 2008...

Saudia Arabia is not the primary problem right now, we have iraq and Afghanistan to deal with, we stick to these problems until they are out of the way, then we can deal with Saudi Arabia.

Colin Powell said that in 2001, three years ago. Militarily Hussein was not a threat, not to us anyway, we're the United States, thats what Powell was referring to. Hussein was supporting terrorism OPENLY, i know you've seen the iraqi's burning american flags and burning dolls representing american soldiers on the news. He praised Bin Ladens attacks, especially 9/11. This is what makes Hussein a threat, with such open support for attacks on the US he is provoking more attacks on us, furthermore terrorists dont make their own weapons, with Hussein supporting terrorism against us so openly it wouldnt be suprising if he was supplying terrorists. Cant confirm that he was doing it, but their are a lot of things we dont know about him.

Kerry avowed to use the creativity and ingenuity of the American people to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

This is just a stupid smoke and wind comment. Bush has dumped a ton of money into alternative fuel sources.

Kerry proposed to convene a worldwide summit, including Moderate Muslim religious leaders, to pinpoint the best ways to not just kill terrorists, but to forestall the processes that lead to ingrained hatred.

You like by installing a western style democracy in Iraq? Unless you can reshape to economic and political shape of the middle east, there is no fix.

Kerry showed a much more profound understanding of the world than Bush ever has.

This is just oppinion. I'd say quite the opposite if he thinks having a summit is going to fix global terrorism problems.

Oh, and for all you anti-Kerry partisans out there, he never once mentioned Vietnam.

Of course not, his handlers would kill him if he did at this point. The Vietnam nonsense has probably cost him this election.

Kerry rightly pointed out that Iraq has been a distraction from the more important fight against worldwide terror. Some may ask why Kerry's view on Iraq may have changed.

Kerry had a different oppinion last month, when he said knowing what I know today I still would have went into Iraq. His view on Iraq changes on a monthly basis trying to get some kind of political edge.

I want to home in on this then. Who, exactly, determines whether you get the armor or not? I'm not trying to be critical of you or anything, I just want to know how such things are decided.

If it was an error in the appropriations bill, then I'm afraid the finger still points at the Republicans, since they were the ones who drafted and voted for the version that passed.

Thank you for your time in clearing this up. Any info would be appreciated.

I would be happy to. The purchase of armor, and other equipment, is made at the Division / Corps level. That's based on a unit's METL (Mission Essential Task List). A unit's mission is determined, then equipment is procured to accomplish that mission. By mission, I mean the overall reason that unit exists...not a specific operation. Combat units, logically, have a lot of combat equipment (weapons, ammunition, protective measures, vehicles, etc.). Armor is an integral part of that unit. I am an MI soldier (Military Intelligence) and even I had body armor and a sidearm when I was in Bosnia and Serbia. The problem, probably (I can't prove this - it's an opinion) is that the logistical
supply chain and accountability of the units in question was fouled up...a fact that was likely realized after deployment to Iraq. They then raised the "oh shit" flag, and that's where the problems with getting the equipment came into play. The Army does not have simply have a central warehouse for all its gear.

The policy of our military is that our troops have the best equipment possible. We spend millions a year on R & D to that end...even to the point of inventing radar and detection scattering BDU's (Battle Dress Uniform). The problem with the armor was a supply problem...not a problem of doctrine, which is in the purvue of the Pentagon.

Does that answer your question?

You actually yawn over the proven fact that millions were killed by Hussein? That's disgusting. How is that propaganda? Which statement is false?
Saddam did not kill millions afaik. And yes, I yawn at all the propaganda coming out of the US kettle.

Bah, Kerry has found his voice and the first debate is next Thursday.. the Republicans are getting worried. ;)

This is a tired old argument. The sad reality is Iraq was better off with Saddam then they are now. No one wants to hear that, because yes, that's horrible and Saddam was a horrible man. However the statement is true. The people of Iraq were better off with Saddam then they are now. Saddam hadn't done any thing on any grand scale since the first Gulf war, that's a fact! That was also in 1991. That is one hell of a delayed reaction!

I assume you've been there, then? Where do you base this "reality"? Or is that just your superior opinion?

Thats all you can say "propaganda"? I dont see you proving me wrong. Kerry has promise, he wouldnt be a senator if he didnt, but thats not the point, the point is he is trying to get a message across, but he's contradicting himself, so he's either lying or he's stupid. He's also a senator so i know he's not stupid.
I yawn at your entire statement because it is so full of propaganda, that I do not even bother acknowledging that it is part of the discussion. Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. That is all I see from the Bush camp. Defend Bush's blunders if you can, instead of trying to sling mud at the opposition.

I want to home in on this then. Who, exactly, determines whether you get the armor or not? I'm not trying to be critical of you or anything, I just want to know how such things are decided.

If it was an error in the appropriations bill, then I'm afraid the finger still points at the Republicans, since they were the ones who drafted and voted for the version that passed.

The armor problem is all about the nature of the war we are fighting. Nobody expected the Iraqi military to disolve with practically no fighting and the war to spread into this kind of drawn out insurgency battle. In a normal war, people like those who work supply trains behind friendly lines wouldn't really have the need for full body armor. The insurgency has basically made it so that EVERYBODY needs the armor. Now it's just a matter of time as the US didn't have nearly enough "in stock" and the factories have been working like crazy producing more.

I assume you've been there, then? Where do you base this "reality"? Or is that just your superior opinion?
It is the reality CIA tells Bush, the world sees in the daily news and that Bush with continuing insistance refuses to acknowledge. He's stubborn and dumb - the perfect president for a stubborn and dumb nation.

What Saddam didn't have, my poorly informed friend, was the DELIVERY SYSTEMS (read, rockets and missiles of sufficient range) to deliver the WMD's that both the UN and Colin Powel said he possessed. He didn't have the ability to attack his neighbors (no missiles, remember?). He DID have the capability to sell the weapons themselves, as well as the technology, to people who COULD deliver them. There is an enormous difference.

And who, exactly, would a paranoid megalomaniac give powerful weapons to? Al Qaeda? Not bloody likely, since they were adversaries.

Now we know Iraq didn't even have the WMD's to give to a hypothetical terrorist organization that Saddam, completely against nature, would be willing to share power with.

Not recognizing this is the same faulty reasoning that has brought Iraq (in some people's estimates) to the brink of civil war. It has brought us to this place where the are undeniably more terrorists in Iraq than at any time pre 9/11. It has brought us to a time when Bush's self-fulfilling prophesy that we can't get help from some of our staunchest allies is being fueled by the single highest concentration of anti-American sentiment the world has ever seen.

For God's sake, open your eyes to reality!

Bullshit he hasnt done anything to his people since the Gulf War. He hasnt used WMD's on them, but the Iraqi's say themselve, members of their families go missing, their wives and daughters are found brutally raped and murdered. Put yourselves in their shoes, just imagine the throught of finding your daughter, your wife, your sister, brutally raped and her corpse found in some alleyway.

Udae Hussein would attend wedding, kidnap the bride, bring her to his rape chamber and brutally rape her with trinkets and other form of bondage while his guards restrain the husband while he gets to watch, if he protested they cut out his tongue. Iraqi's claim things like this happening, there are Iraqi's husbands WITH NO TONGUES.

Imagine waiting for your mother or your father to come home, but they never show up, never, last month hundreds of Iraqi families found the remains of family members that have gone missing. Better under Husseins rule? i think not.

Things are rough in Iraq, but the Iraqi's are starting to get the picture, if they dont fight for their freedom, "like us" they will die. They are starting to get that picture, the Iraqi's are starting to hate the terrorists and starting to rally against them, the terrorists are desperately trying to stop this. The Iraqi's are finding their courage, its gonna take time to harness it.

Bah, Kerry has found his voice and the first debate is next Thursday.. the Republicans are getting worried.

Bah, the only camp in America running in panic mode right now is Kerry's. Even the democrats I work with who hate Bush as much as alot of you think Kerry has lost it.

Bah, Kerry has found his voice and the first debate is next Thursday.. the Republicans are getting worried. ;)

As well they should be. Kerry is a formidable adversary. I think he and Bush, though, are equally scary in different ways.

I assume you've been there, then? Where do you base this "reality"? Or is that just your superior opinion?

Well first, thank you for thinking I have a superior opinion, I however don't think I do, but thanks, really!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist dear to pick up a news paper or watch any news station. Or watch the footage and death count coming out of that country.

The armor problem is all about the nature of the war we are fighting. Nobody expected the Iraqi military to disolve with practically no fighting and the war to spread into this kind of drawn out insurgency battle. In a normal war, people like those who work supply trains behind friendly lines wouldn't really have the need for full body armor. The insurgency has basically made it so that EVERYBODY needs the armor. Now it's just a matter of time as the US didn't have nearly enough "in stock" and the factories have been working like crazy producing more.

Okay, so we can put to rest FOREVER the ridiculous "Kerry deprived the men of their body armor" debate.

too bad it appears kerry's behind nearly 100 points in the electoral college.
http://www.electoral-vote.com
cross your fingers, pray, meditate, do whatever you have to to hope kerry wins.

those things are adding shit up wrong. for example - they list wisconsin as solidly bush. but if you look at it, in every poll except the three taken by uw, it is a statistical tie. and the three taken by uw have turned up similar numbers at widely different times, while others taken at similar times have had a much closer race. sounds to me like a sampling error.

and then there is this whole thing with giving states to somebody who is ahead by less that 5%. on all of these polls that is well within the margin of error. in other words, a tie. and giving colorado to anybody, when there is some chance that it will divide its votes in half afer the referendum.

i think the more accurate reading is at 180ish to 210ish

And who, exactly, would a paranoid megalomaniac give powerful weapons to? Al Qaeda? Not bloody likely, since they were adversaries.

Now we know Iraq didn't even have the WMD's to give to a hypothetical terrorist organization that Saddam, completely against nature, would be willing to share power with.

Not recognizing this is the same faulty reasoning that has brought Iraq (in some people's estimates) to the brink of civil war. It has brought us to this place where the are undeniably more terrorists in Iraq than at any time pre 9/11. It has brought us to a time when Bush's self-fulfilling prophesy that we can't get help from some of our staunchest allies is being fueled by the single highest concentration of anti-American sentiment the world has ever seen.


For God's sake, open your eyes to reality!
Gymoor, why do you think we spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to help Russia secure it's WMD's? It's not that a megalomaniac might give them away...but one of his lackeys might sell them to the highest bidder. It's the entire premise behind the policies of nonproliferation.

I...(wait for it...)...AGREE with you that war with Iraq was misguided, and that the intelligence sucked. I think the timing was wrong, and the reasons unjustified. That is a separate issue from the WMD's. If Hussein did not have them, why did he continuously thwart the weapons inspectors, hide documents, lock away scientists to avoid interview, and kick inspectors out? Why would someone do that...because he has nothing to hide???? I think not. The reality, as you so eloquently put it, is that we will never know for sure. And that is because Saddam would never let the world find out. The world couldn't take the chance. The UN should have acted faster, sooner, and stronger...

Don't worry, the only poll that will/does matter is the one come Nov. 3rd!

Back to work.. later ;)

Well first, thank you for thinking I have a superior opinion, I however don't think I do, but thanks, really!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist dear to pick up a news paper or watch any news station. Or watch the footage and death count coming out of that country.

The death count has always been there, and in much higher numbers than currently. We only know about them now because it's our people dying...it's not worse...just more publicized.

I respect all opinions, BTW.

I cant believe how many americans are that heartless. Freedom "for anybody" is worth dying for, we believed this during WWII or we wouldnt have participated. Before Pearl Harbor, millions of americans joined the RAF and other military groups in Europe to fight for freedom and in this age, we cant even fight for iraqi freedom. Heartless, Iraqi's have as much right to freedom as we do, during WWII cities were demolished, completely destroyed in the chaos of war, Iraq, you get a couple car bombs a day, from the looks of it, it just seems we've grown soft and weak, we cant take a few hits, our soldiers have more courage and heart then that. I have a friend who returned from Iraq who got the purple heart after a mortar shell landed near him and when he comes back he's wondering when he can go back. Then you got liberals and people here in the United States talking about how bad the war is over there and destroying the morale of our troops. You dont know how bad it is over there, most of our troops seem to believe that the cause is worth dying for.

Today Kerry unveiled his 7 part strategy for fighting global terror. He went far above and beyond anything Bush has ever said. He outlined exactly how international support is vital to the effort. He, unlike his adversary, showed an appreciation of the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements of "the evil-doers want to get us because they hate us for our freedoms."

Kerry vowed to not give ANY country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror, specifically calling out the Saudi regime.

Kerry avowed to use the creativity and ingenuity of the American people to free us from dependence on Middle Eastern Oil.

Kerry proposed to convene a worldwide summit, including Moderate Muslim religious leaders, to pinpoint the best ways to not just kill terrorists, but to forestall the processes that lead to ingrained hatred.

Kerry showed a much more profound understanding of the world than Bush ever has.

Oh, and for all you anti-Kerry partisans out there, he never once mentioned Vietnam.

Kerry rightly pointed out that Iraq has been a distraction from the more important fight against worldwide terror. Some may ask why Kerry's view on Iraq may have changed.

The more profound question is why Bush's view has not, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Being resolutely wrong is no virtue.

In rebuttal, all Bush's campaign chief could do was trot out the tired accusations of vacillation by Kerry. Never once did he address anything substantive in Kerry's speech. He again trotted out the outright lie about Kerry voting against body armor for the troops. Since the bill passed despite Kerry's vote, it could only be the ineptitude of the Republican-written bill, and the ill-judgement of the Republican-run Pentagon that denied our troops the necessary armor.

Just wait, tomorrow he will tell you how were not going to get involved.

Actions speak louder then words my friends, and this man has proven that he does not know how to act. Keep speaking all you like, or cry if you like, as for me I will keep protecting this country, not talking about it.

those things are adding shit up wrong. for example - they list wisconsin as solidly bush. but if you look at it, in every poll except the three taken by uw, it is a statistical tie. and the three taken by uw have turned up similar numbers at widely different times, while others taken at similar times have had a much closer race. sounds to me like a sampling error.

and then there is this whole thing with giving states to somebody who is ahead by less that 5%. on all of these polls that is well within the margin of error. in other words, a tie. and giving colorado to anybody, when there is some chance that it will divide its votes in half afer the referendum.

i think the more accurate reading is at 180ish to 210ish


Shhh we want the world to think that Bush is way ahead to get all the anti-Bushies out there voting this November out of fear that Bush might actually win.

You cannot stop ingrained hatred because its against human nature. If the human mind has no enemies, it can't rationalize why things are going bad for it.If that was true, surely the whole world would hate America and would be launchnig constant attacks against you.

Just wait, tomorrow he will tell you how were not going to get involved.

Actions speak louder then words my friends, and this man has proven that he does not know how to act. Keep speaking all you like, or cry if you like, as for me I will keep protecting this country, not talking about it.

When will you propagandists stop spouting the flip-floppery bs.

IF anyone is a flip-flopper it's Bush. I have three links in my sig to prove it. Read up then (to quote Bill O'Lielly) SHUT UP!

Gymoor, why do you think we spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year to help Russia secure it's WMD's? It's not that a megalomaniac might give them away...but one of his lackeys might sell them to the highest bidder. It's the entire premise behind the policies of nonproliferation.

I...(wait for it...)...AGREE with you that war with Iraq was misguided, and that the intelligence sucked. I think the timing was wrong, and the reasons unjustified. That is a separate issue from the WMD's. If Hussein did not have them, why did he continuously thwart the weapons inspectors, hide documents, lock away scientists to avoid interview, and kick inspectors out? Why would someone do that...because he has nothing to hide???? I think not. The reality, as you so eloquently put it, is that we will never know for sure. And that is because Saddam would never let the world find out. The world couldn't take the chance. The UN should have acted faster, sooner, and stronger...

Then perhaps you'll be happy to know that Bush cut funding for the securing of loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Granted, this is according to Kerry, but you're welcome to refute it with any numbers at your disposal, under Bush it will take 13 years to secure those loose nukes. Kerry's plan calls for a timeframe of 4 years.

Have you even once heard Bush talk about loose nukes? Have you heard Bush talk about the chemical plants in the US that are to this day unsecure?

i havent seen you spouting any facts, so until you got something somewhat useful to say other criticizing other people to quote Bill O'reilly "SHUT UP"

That is a separate issue from the WMD's. If Hussein did not have them, why did he continuously thwart the weapons inspectors, hide documents, lock away scientists to avoid interview, and kick inspectors out? Why would someone do that...because he has nothing to hide???? I think not.

He was hiding that he had nothing. He was playing cat and mouse because it was helping him keep the population scared. Would you rise against a madman if it meant he was going to gas you and your village. If you know he doesn't have gas, then it's another ball game.

It's the same reason why Israel doesn't confirm they have a nuclear bomb. Information is a weapon.

"and now Young Jedi, at the very last do you finally understand."
Emperor Palatine

An obvious reaction to poll numbers. Realpolitik incarnate. Now that he's found that he's slipping fast in polls of women, a previous democratic stronghold, and that their primary concern is <gasp> terrorism (thanks in part to the Beslan massacre) he outlines strong measures. Simply laughable. And no word on Vietnam since that's been the dry hole he's based his "gravitas" on thus far. LOL!

Thank God for democratic "strategists". Not as good as Gore's clown makeup in the 2000 debate, but give them time to become that desperate again. At this point, I have faith enough in the American people to see it for what it is, empty last minute chicanery.
What a Chump!

4) i cant believe you can even say iraq wasnt a threat. Let me list Hussein's past history to you

A) His common practice for testing biological and chemical weapons during the 90's would be launching them on his own poeple and watching the effects. A million iraq's were confirmed killed by Husseins WMD testing.

2) His soldiers commonly raped millions of women in iraq, Hussein son had a personal raping chamber, a chamber made specifically for raping women.

3) He openly supported terrorism, he had his people march around burning american flags and carrying around dolls dressed up and american soldiers on a noose and burning it.

4) he praised Bin Laden's attacks on us, most specifically 9/11

5) He had the material to produce biological and chemical weapons, the weapons inspectors said so.

6) Hussein killed a million of his own people with WMD's, he would have no qualms killing american soldiers with them, so why should we have waited for him to the opportunity to do so, its called a preemptive strike.

7) He invaded Israel and Kurwait, he recently was launching skud missiles into Israel, a ally of the United States. We defend our allies, thats our duty.

8) During the Gulf War, he personally executed 21 american POW's by literally cutting them apart, piece by piece, making sure they were alive during the process

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.
All of this which is true certainly makes Hussein evil, but it doesn't make him a threat.

A) True. Evil, but not a threat to America.
B) True. Evil, but not a threat to America.
C) True, except that he didn't support anti-American terrorists. He certainly hated America, but he had no power to be a threat to America.
D) True. Evil, but not a threat to America.
E) True. Evil, but not a threat to America. He didn't actually have these weapons. Maybe the inspectors should have been allowed to find out more?
F) True, you shouldn't have given him the opportunity, which he got when you put soldiers into Iraq.
G) Not True. Well, yes, he invaded Kuwait, but he never invaded Israel. He launched Scuds at them in the Gulf War 1.
H) True. Evil, but not a threat to America.

Saddam was an evil bastard, but he didn't have the power to actually be a threat to America, no matter how much he wanted to.

Just wait, tomorrow he will tell you how were not going to get involved.

Actions speak louder then words my friends, and this man has proven that he does not know how to act. Keep speaking all you like, or cry if you like, as for me I will keep protecting this country, not talking about it.

Or, like Bush, you can be doing everything you can to make the protection of this country as difficult a task as possible. Actions do speak louder than words, and the flop that is Bush has been deafening.

Big Mr Bush likes to put America's fighting men in harms way for a war that we now know was misguided at best, and wants to blame those who rightly criticize his handling of the war for eroding the morale of the men.

What kills morale more? Words critical of the President, or being in a country that generally hates you as your friends die one by one? Are you suggesting that our highly trained fighting men would be demoralized by the words of a political campaign? Aren't they a little busy with things that are a little more important to their immediate well-being?

Face it people, John Kerry is at his very best right now. All he has really promised to do is talk.At least it's not making a promise he knows he can't deliver.

You cant confront matters on all things, loose nukes are a problem, but there are other problems that must be confronted that have a more solidified solution, a solution that revolves around our control, there are to many loose ends involving loose nukes, i mean we'd be depending on Russia's cooperation and we all know how good Russia is at cooperating with anybody.

Kerry wants to bring allies to the US, i like that thought, its a good idea, i like Kerry on that part. But he wants to bring in France and Germany, these same heartless and corrupt governments that accepted blood money from Hussein to make themselves richer and then interfering with our affairs to cover up their scandal. Have an ally depends on your ability to trust them, France and Germany arent worth our time.

We need to focus on the middle east, solidify Iraq and Afghanistan, then deal with other threats. Saudi Arabia, the loose nukes in Russia, the world of full of problems but we cant deal with all of them at once. Kerry wants to pursue the loose nukes threat, admirable move, but with what resources? We had other things we are in the process of dealing with then to go scavenger hunting in Russia, thats even if we get Russia's full fledged cooperation to begin with.

Just wait, tomorrow he will tell you how were not going to get involved.

Actions speak louder then words my friends, and this man has proven that he does not know how to act. Keep speaking all you like, or cry if you like, as for me I will keep protecting this country, not talking about it.
find a spork, poke your eye out, go away.

You cant confront matters on all things, loose nukes are a problem, but there are other problems that must be confronted that have a more solidified solution, a solution that revolves around our control, there are to many loose ends involving loose nukes, i mean we'd be depending on Russia's cooperation and we all know how good Russia is at cooperating with anybody.

Kerry wants to bring allies to the US, i like that thought, its a good idea, i like Kerry on that part. But he wants to bring in France and Germany, these same heartless and corrupt governments that accepted blood money from Hussein to make themselves richer and then interfering with our affairs to cover up their scandal. Have an ally depends on your ability to trust them, France and Germany arent worth our time.

We need to focus on the middle east, solidify Iraq and Afghanistan, then deal with other threats. Saudi Arabia, the loose nukes in Russia, the world of full of problems but we cant deal with all of them at once. Kerry wants to pursue the loose nukes threat, admirable move, but with what resources? We had other things we are in the process of dealing with then to go scavenger hunting in Russia, thats even if we get Russia's full fledged cooperation to begin with.

The school hostage situation shows that Russia is not immune to the terrorist threat. The loose nukes falling into the hands of terrorists is a much greater threat than Saddam ever was.

"and now Young Jedi, at the very last do you finally understand."
Emperor Palatine

An obvious reaction to poll numbers. Realpolitik incarnate. Now that he's found that he's slipping fast in polls of women, a previous democratic stronghold, and that their primary concern is <gasp> terrorism (thanks in part to the Beslan massacre) he outlines strong measures. Simply laughable. And no word on Vietnam since that's been the dry hole he's based his "gravitas" on thus far. LOL!

Thank God for democratic "strategists". Not as good as Gore's clown makeup in the 2000 debate, but give them time to become that desperate again. At this point, I have faith enough in the American people to see it for what it is, empty last minute chicanery.
What a Chump!
lets see
vote for some one who talks about "axis of eivl" and "we can beat the terrorists" and thinks terrorism is a specific people and can be beat by whiping it out

OR

vote for the guy who recognizes terrorism is not a country or a people that can be beat by killing everyone


wow hard choice :rolleyes:

Well thanks for confirming my facts Siljhoutte, but im gonna have to disagree with you, so would Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton since they both went to war with Iraq along with George Bush.

When you openly support terrorism as you confirmed is a fact, you are inciting more attacks. When a government praises terrorist attacks on another government, you are inciting more attacks on that government because you have the political power to do so. Hussein wasnt liked around the world, but he sure as hell was liked by terrorists and other dictators. He had the influence to incite more attacks upon us. Al Qaeda has as much political influence to bring terrorists groups to attack us as well, therefore that makes Hussein a threat.

Bush and Kerry agree to wage war on terrorism and ALL WHO SUPPORT IT, Hussein openly supported terrorism, he fits the criteria as a terrorist supporter.

Oh sounds like Bush's plan, except with less guts.

1) vowed to give no country a free pass when it comes to aiding terror
1) whats he gonna do? complain to the UN? "This guys picking on me", he's a anti-war canidate therefore a anti-war president, what is he pro-war again? He pointed Saudi Arabia? Is this a clue that he's just gonna take us to another war? This coming supposedly from a anti-war canidate?

2) Use the creativity and ingenuity of the american people to get oil elsewhere
2) Whats he gonna do, draw pictures of oil barrels for us? Oil is only produced in certain places of the world, our options are limited, we cant wave a magic wand and say wa la oil.

3) Kerry wants to lead a worldwide summit
3) Politicians talk all the time, their job is to kiss other ambassadors asses, having a worldwide summit wont even make a dent against terrorism. Politicians are trained to lie, thats their job because their government doesnt want the outside world to know their agenda, what makes you think a summit with islamic groups gonna make any difference?

4) i cant believe you can even say iraq wasnt a threat. Let me list Hussein's past history to you

A) His common practice for testing biological and chemical weapons during the 90's would be launching them on his own poeple and watching the effects. A million iraq's were confirmed killed by Husseins WMD testing.

2) His soldiers commonly raped millions of women in iraq, Hussein son had a personal raping chamber, a chamber made specifically for raping women.

3) He openly supported terrorism, he had his people march around burning american flags and carrying around dolls dressed up and american soldiers on a noose and burning it.

4) he praised Bin Laden's attacks on us, most specifically 9/11

5) He had the material to produce biological and chemical weapons, the weapons inspectors said so.

6) Hussein killed a million of his own people with WMD's, he would have no qualms killing american soldiers with them, so why should we have waited for him to the opportunity to do so, its called a preemptive strike.

7) He invaded Israel and Kurwait, he recently was launching skud missiles into Israel, a ally of the United States. We defend our allies, thats our duty.

8) During the Gulf War, he personally executed 21 american POW's by literally cutting them apart, piece by piece, making sure they were alive during the process

I want you to tell me right now with all this that Hussein was not a threat.

Surely the US is a greater threat to world peace and safety than Iraq ever was. The US are regularly killing innocent Iraqi civilians and creating new terrorists on a daily basis. There is no question that today thanks to the United States we are all less safe and the world is a much more dangerous place. Oh lets not forget that it was the US that armed Iraq in the first place. Oh, and they also were responsible for aiding Bin Laden and his followers. They should get their own house in order before they try to sort out anybody else.

Wow that was the biggest load of crap ive ever seen. Come back when you got facts that the United States is a threat to the world, if that were the case Europe would be under HITLERS RULE.

Well thanks for confirming my facts Siljhoutte, but im gonna have to disagree with you, so would Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton since they both went to war with Iraq along with George Bush.

When you openly support terrorism as you confirmed is a fact, you are inciting more attacks. When a government praises terrorist attacks on another government, you are inciting more attacks on that government because you have the political power to do so. Hussein wasnt liked around the world, but he sure as hell was liked by terrorists and other dictators. He had the influence to incite more attacks upon us. Al Qaeda has as much political influence to bring terrorists groups to attack us as well, therefore that makes Hussein a threat.

Bush and Kerry agree to wage war on terrorism and ALL WHO SUPPORT IT, Hussein openly supported terrorism, he fits the criteria as a terrorist supporter.
THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND HUSSEIN THAT MADE EITHER OF THEM A THREAT BECAUSE OF THE OTHER

Both parties are now just trying to pour heaps of slander on one another. It's rare to find a speech where they don't insult each other. I think that speech was pretty good, actually. Less Bush-bashing than normal. Insulting the other candidates seems to be overused, Republican or Democrat.

(but I'd rather take Kerry anyday)

No official link to Al Qaeda and Hussein, they cant find a link that Hussein funded them, or Hussein supplied them, but he sure as hell supported them, he cheered them all, asked for more attacks, he wanted to kill us as much as possible, he praised and called for more attacks on the US. Lets not forget that it took us YEARS to uncover the oil for food program scandal, so im still not ruling out that there is a link between Hussein and Bin Laden.

Wow that was the biggest load of crap ive ever seen. Come back when you got facts that the United States is a threat to the world, if that were the case Europe would be under HITLERS RULE.
lets see

under reagan: we sold illegal weapons to iran to give money to a "terrorist" group in nicaragua to overthrow the government

we gave weapons to and trained the "terrorist" group OSAMA BIN LADEN was with to fight the USSR.

under bush we have taken over 1 country reaonably and have invaded and taken over another on general hatred and no other reason, we are threatening half a dozen other countries just of because where they are and what religion they are.

the US is a PARALLEL threat to the world. every big nation is a threat, they continuously fought (the only one now is the US) to overthrow the other ones so they can make sure they have unilateral control of the world. THAT is why we went in and kicked hitlers ass, we wanted our share of control of europe. we kicked the USSR's ass because they were threatening our control of everywhere

No official link to Al Qaeda and Hussein, they cant find a link that Hussein funded them, or Hussein supplied them, but he sure as hell supported them, he cheered them all, asked for more attacks, he wanted to kill us as much as possible, he praised and called for more attacks on the US. Lets not forget that it took us YEARS to uncover the oil for food program scandal, so im still not ruling out that there is a link between Hussein and Bin Laden.
i take it this all came from your republican psychic ability? because i havnt seen that tripe anywhere else

The group in nicaragua was a group of revolutionaries, not terrorists, they were revolted against a corrupt dictatorship, there is no evidence to prove your Al Qaeda crap and if there is, show me. As for the country itself, we could threaten the world, but we arent, we are threatening the countries that threaten us, i want you to name these half dozen countries we are threatening.

Back to the OP.

I'm really impressed by the fact he mentioned the saudis.

Thats gutsy.

Man its been all over the news for freakin years, since i was like 11 i remember seeing Iraqi's doing marches, and you know Hussein orchestrated those marches and protests because Hussein didnt really support "free speech". You spoke out against him, you werent gonna see the light of day needless to say the next day. I said i didnt rule out the link, it could still be there, its a theory, nothing psychic about it.

The group in nicaragua was a group of revolutionaries, not terrorists, they were revolted against a corrupt dictatorship, there is no evidence to prove your Al Qaeda crap and if there is, show me. As for the country itself, we could threaten the world, but we arent, we are threatening the countries that threaten us, i want you to name these half dozen countries we are threatening.
everything is a terrorist now. the people in chechnya are revolutionaries, but now they are "terrorists" same with the insurgents in iraq. dont feed me your cock and bull rational, i know the score.

we are threatening whomever we DONT LIKE

The group in nicaragua was a group of revolutionaries, not terrorists, they were revolted against a corrupt dictatorship, there is no evidence to prove your Al Qaeda crap and if there is, show me. As for the country itself, we could threaten the world, but we arent, we are threatening the countries that threaten us, i want you to name these half dozen countries we are threatening.

No, the Nicaraguans were terrorists revolting against a Democratically elected government.

Surely the US is a greater threat to world peace and safety than Iraq ever was. The US are regularly killing innocent Iraqi civilians and creating new terrorists on a daily basis. There is no question that today thanks to the United States we are all less safe and the world is a much more dangerous place. Oh lets not forget that it was the US that armed Iraq in the first place. Oh, and they also were responsible for aiding Bin Laden and his followers. They should get their own house in order before they try to sort out anybody else.
No, the US is not regularly killing innocent Iraqi civilians. That is just propoganda, or an emotional outburst that has no basis in fact. The US is being extremely diligent to avoid civilian casualties. It is the terrorists who are coming in from other nations that are killing civilians.

Wow that was the biggest load of crap ive ever seen. Come back when you got facts that the United States is a threat to the world, if that were the case Europe would be under HITLERS RULE.
The US and Israel are according to world opinion, the greatest threats to world peace.

To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

Don't even try to pull off the tired line "they hate us because we exist." Bin Laden was Pro-US untill the first Gulf War. Hussein was pro-US until we decided to fight him.

The only way to stamp out terrorism is to actually find the motivations of why these people are so angry. Is it because of our imperialism? Is it because they don't have adequate food, medicine, or water supplies? Is it because the bush administration outlawed trade with Burma (a country known for forced sweatshop conditions) only after their campaign t-shirts were produced?

Gone are the days when our Imperial might could simply demolish a country then propose peace and go on with our lives. These people have no country, they operate on their own sense of vigilante justice. The game has changed, to win, we must change with it.


You hit the nail right on the head.

Isn't it funny that Bush's only memorable lines are lingual blunders and character attacks?

Yep. Isn't it funny that the entire Republikkkon campaign seems to be to find out the faults of the party and accuse the Democratic party of the same faults.

'Yep. Isn't it funny that the entire Republikkkon campaign seems to be to find out the faults of the party and accuse the Democratic party of the same faults'

You do know that Republicans supported Civil Rights much more aggressively than the Dem's right? you sound smart, so i am sure you know this. Over 90% of rep's supported civil rights and less than 60% of Dem's. And the list of Dems who held segregationist policies is a long one. Dem's were and still are the racists.

'Yep. Isn't it funny that the entire Republikkkon campaign seems to be to find out the faults of the party and accuse the Democratic party of the same faults'

You do know that Republicans supported Civil Rights much more aggressively than the Dem's right? you sound smart, so i am sure you know this. Over 90% of rep's supported civil rights and less than 60% of Dem's. And the list of Dems who held segregationist policies is a long one. Dem's were and still are the racists.
You talking about New publicans or Jefferson type republicans? Because they are two different parties.

The US and Israel are according to world opinion, the greatest threats to world peace.

The United States is not a threat to world peace.
Israel is not a threat to world peace.

There is no such thing as world peace in the first place. And if there was, neither the US nor Israel would be in any position to threaten it.

There are plenty of major threats to peace in Africa that have nothing to do whatsoever with either the US or Israel, and the world (as well as the UN) does nothing about it. Likewise not every threat to peace in South America is directly the fault of either the US or Israel. In the same manner, neither the US or Israel is involved in the dispute between Russia and the Chechen rebels.

The only thing Kerry has nailed is that ugly Nazi he calls his wife. And perhaps Jane Fonda ack when they were screwing over American POWs. He only says what he believes will get him more support from the voters, it's a symptom of all politicians. Only thing is, he likes to mislead the public more than he accuses Dubya of doing so. When he says the president decided to "Go It Alone" in Iraq, he's flat out lying. There are more allied countries supporting the Iraq War than there were Allies in World War II. The simple fact is that the U.N. wasn't backing up their threats, so the U.S. and 43 other countries decided to take the step that needed to be taken.

You do know that Republicans supported Civil Rights much more aggressively than the Dem's right? you sound smart, so i am sure you know this. Over 90% of rep's supported civil rights and less than 60% of Dem's. And the list of Dems who held segregationist policies is a long one. Dem's were and still are the racists.

You should really do your history. The president who championed the civil rights movement was JFK, a democrat. Furthermore, the most racist elements in the democratic party, the dixiecrats, broke away following this and joined into the Republican party. The list of republicans who held segregationist policies is also a long one, so that point is also moot. Neither party now is racist, overtly or not. Open a book and stop believing everything you are told.

Propaganda. *Yawn*

Isn't it all propaganda? how many layers of bs would an average citizen have peel off to get to the truth? does the average citizen have time to find the truth while at the same time pursueing happiness? Come on man... do not act like you have cornered the truth. all we have is propaganda... which means that government is thearter more than anything else...

The only thing Kerry has nailed is that ugly Nazi he calls his wife. And perhaps Jane Fonda ack when they were screwing over American POWs. He only says what he believes will get him more support from the voters, it's a symptom of all politicians. Only thing is, he likes to mislead the public more than he accuses Dubya of doing so. When he says the president decided to "Go It Alone" in Iraq, he's flat out lying. There are more allied countries supporting the Iraq War than there were Allies in World War II. The simple fact is that the U.N. wasn't backing up their threats, so the U.S. and 43 other countries decided to take the step that needed to be taken.
While your post has some valid points... did you really have to put in your first 2 sentance? Did that really add anything constructive to the thread?

You should really do your history. The president who championed the civil rights movement was JFK, a democrat. Furthermore, the most racist elements in the democratic party, the dixiecrats, broke away following this and joined into the Republican party. The list of republicans who held segregationist policies is also a long one, so that point is also moot. Neither party now is racist, overtly or not. Open a book and stop believing everything you are told.
His point is valid tho... more Republicans voted for the civil rights act percentage wise than did the Democrats.
His point about democrats being racist isn't valid on it's face however. There is something to be said that the Democrats use the race card/race issue more than the Republicans.

While your post has some valid points... did you really have to put in your first 2 sentance? Did that really add anything constructive to the thread?
I'm sorry, I was feeling a bit vindictive because people are virtually canonizing the man.

I'm sorry, I was feeling a bit vindictive because people are virtually cannonizing the man.
Fair enough.. I just like to see civil discussions and arguments in the classical sense.

The only thing Kerry has nailed is that ugly Nazi he calls his wife. And perhaps Jane Fonda ack when they were screwing over American POWs. He only says what he believes will get him more support from the voters, it's a symptom of all politicians. Only thing is, he likes to mislead the public more than he accuses Dubya of doing so. When he says the president decided to "Go It Alone" in Iraq, he's flat out lying. There are more allied countries supporting the Iraq War than there were Allies in World War II. The simple fact is that the U.N. wasn't backing up their threats, so the U.S. and 43 other countries decided to take the step that needed to be taken.

How many of those countries have now backed out? How much money and how many boots have those countries put on the ground? I don't see how you can call paying 90% of the bill and incurring 90% of the casualties as anything but "going it alone."

Bush is all talk and wrong action. Kerry tells the truth that you simply do not want to hear, despite overwhelming factual support.

His point is valid tho... more Republicans voted for the civil rights act percentage wise than did the Democrats.
His point about democrats being racist isn't valid on it's face however. There is something to be said that the Democrats use the race card/race issue more than the Republicans.
It's the fact that they make race an issue that shows their true intents. The republicans, while I admit that they're not all this way, don't make an issue of it because it shouldn't be an issue. If you believe in human equality you won't try to point out the differences between people.

His point is valid tho... more Republicans voted for the civil rights act percentage wise than did the Democrats.
His point about democrats being racist isn't valid on it's face however. There is something to be said that the Democrats use the race card/race issue more than the Republicans.

No, it's not valid, because those Democrats that voted against civil rights shifted over to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmon, a bastion of Republican thought, was once a Democrat until his racism (which forced him to leave a mixed race daughter unacknowledged,) made him scurry over to the Republican Party.

The only thing Kerry will ever "nail" is the coffins on the rest of us if this amoral opportunist is elected President. It just recently came to light that his staff is now using computers to keep track of all his different positions on everything. Good move, actually. If I had lied as much, waffled as much, and had as many different positions on a wide variety of subjects as Kerry has had, I'd want to use a computer to keep track of them too!

How many of those countries have now backed out? How much money and how many boots have those countries put on the ground? I don't see how you can call paying 90% of the bill and incurring 90% of the casualties as anything but "going it alone."

Bush is all talk and wrong action. Kerry tells the truth that you simply do not want to hear, despite overwhelming factual support.
Only Spain and Honduras have backed out, and the reason for our larger pressence and loss is simply because we have a larger population and military than the other allies, so naturally we're going to have more troops and lose more in Iraq.

No, it's not valid, because those Democrats that voted against civil rights shifted over to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmon, a bastion of Republican thought, was once a Democrat until his racism (which forced him to leave a mixed race daughter unacknowledged,) made him scurry over to the Republican Party.
I don't know of anyone besides Trent Lott who believe that Strom Thurmon was the bastion of Republican thought.

No, it's not valid, because those Democrats that voted against civil rights shifted over to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmon, a bastion of Republican thought, was once a Democrat until his racism (which forced him to leave a mixed race daughter unacknowledged,) made him scurry over to the Republican Party.

It would be nice if you had some, you know ... actual facts to back up this wild statement. I've been around for awhile now, and have watched politics assiduously, and I can only remember five or so Democrats who have "shifted over to the Republican Party."

It's the fact that they make race an issue that shows their true intents. The republicans, while I admit that they're not all this way, don't make an issue of it because it shouldn't be an issue. If you believe in human equality you won't try to point out the differences between people.

The Repblicans don't make an issue of it because they beleive everyone should be exactly like them. It is the Democrats that realize that different traditions and cultures need to be recognized. To say there are no differences is being blind to reality. To allow those differences to affect how you treat someone is racism.

The Democrats see that we can not have equality until the playing field is leveled. The Republicans, as per their normal modus operandi, beleive that if they ignore the situation long enough, it will disappear all by itself. The Republicans don't make it an issue for that very reason. You can't very well make an issue of something you are trying hard to ignore.

No, it's not valid, because those Democrats that voted against civil rights shifted over to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmon, a bastion of Republican thought, was once a Democrat until his racism (which forced him to leave a mixed race daughter unacknowledged,) made him scurry over to the Republican Party.
His point was valid in the fact that he was accurate.
How would todays parties vote given the same opportunity?.. Im pretty sure that a high majority would vote for civil rights. I believe that the ban on gay marriage is an example of just that.
Not completely sure of how people would vote on that tho....

The only thing Kerry will ever "nail" is the coffins on the rest of us if this amoral opportunist is elected President. It just recently came to light that his staff is now using computers to keep track of all his different positions on everything. Good move, actually. If I had lied as much, waffled as much, and had as many different positions on a wide variety of subjects as Kerry has had, I'd want to use a computer to keep track of them too!

Whoops, you might need a better computer yourself. I see you inserted the name "Kerry" in there twice when the facts would suggest that Bush's name should be in those spots.

Isn't it all propaganda? how many layers of bs would an average citizen have peel off to get to the truth? does the average citizen have time to find the truth while at the same time pursueing happiness? Come on man... do not act like you have cornered the truth. all we have is propaganda... which means that government is thearter more than anything else...
Now that's classic.. Propaganda to justify the propaganda.

lets see
vote for some one who talks about "axis of eivl" and "we can beat the terrorists" and thinks terrorism is a specific people and can be beat by whiping it out

OR

vote for the guy who recognizes terrorism is not a country or a people that can be beat by killing everyone


wow hard choice :rolleyes:

The point being, for the non-mentally challenged, is that I don't believe a word of it. It's reactionary, last-minute straw grasping to avoid a negative political result. Leaders don't react.
So, my point was, that this is an example of why Kerry shouldn't be in the world's ultimate leadership position. He can't even get leadership right in his own campaign.
Sure, there's been back-alley dirty trickery involved in this campaign from both sides. There always has been and always will be.
If GW is so damn stupid, and the Republicans are clueless assholes, how is it that Kerry (a true intellectual?) is getting his ass handed to him, has been forced to be reactive to the Bush Campaign, even at this late date? What chance does he have in the field of international deception and back stabbery?
Shall we surrender the field to the ineptitude of the UN? The military might of terrorists and their backers must be confronted with military muscle, or there will be no meaningful dialogue with those who feel that they can overpower us or that we don't have the balls to back up our diplomatic words with martial action. Only in the minds of collectivist social idealogues does everyone come to the bargaining table and play nice for the good of humanity in general. There is no precedent for it in the history of man, and in a hundred years we will still be able to say that. Human nature continues to rule humans, as it always has and it always will. The ideal that everyone should come together in a world-wide group hug and do the right thing is just that, an ideal that will never materialize. Peace through strength is the only method that has ever worked.

Aside from that, your first point is moot, since Bush has continuously stated that terror is NOT one place or one people, but a world-wide organization that must be confronted on many levels over many years. Nice try though, even if completely asinine.

The only thing Kerry will ever "nail" is the coffins on the rest of us if this amoral opportunist is elected President. It just recently came to light that his staff is now using computers to keep track of all his different positions on everything. Good move, actually. If I had lied as much, waffled as much, and had as many different positions on a wide variety of subjects as Kerry has had, I'd want to use a computer to keep track of them too!
Spell it with me: P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A.

The Repblicans don't make an issue of it because they beleive everyone should be exactly like them. It is the Democrats that realize that different traditions and cultures need to be recognized. To say there are no differences is being blind to reality. To allow those differences to affect how you treat someone is racism.

The Democrats see that we can not have equality until the playing field is leveled. The Republicans, as per their normal modus operandi, beleive that if they ignore the situation long enough, it will disappear all by itself. The Republicans don't make it an issue for that very reason. You can't very well make an issue of something you are trying hard to ignore.
Excuse me, but how exactly do they level that field? By saying "You're not good enough to do it on your own, so we'll do it for you"? It is no help to anyone if they cannot work for equality on their own! The Dems are showing their racism by portraying minorities as inferior to the white majority, which is in no way true. That's why people from low-income minority areas tend to stay there, because they have no insentive to work for something better because they don't have to work as hard as a white person to achieve things like admitance to top universities!

First, for the going it alone bit... 43 countries... but what percent of the world population? If we got the Knights of Malta to support us, thats one country, but its a /street address/. Certain numbers are more important then others.

As for flip-flopping, Kerry doesn't do as much of it as you'd think. And of course, the Conservatives are throwing out 'flip-flops' that could be deemed as rational mind changes. In a world of fast paced information... he can either take a position, and be called a flip-flopper, or hold off and people say he doesn't have a position on anything. He's screwed either way by an over-critical media.

People put too much emphasis on the war and terrorism in this election. There important yes. But jobs, overtime pay, and the economy are too. And between the two responses (Bush: Destroy the syptom's. Kerry: Destroy the Disease) I'll take Kerry's because it promises something /better/.

Bush has set back international relations by years, and through his rhetoric and actions, has also spawned very undesirable ideas about religous-freedom (seems he has trouble acknowledging certain belief systems as 'religons') and intellectual thought. We question him, were 'undermining the morale' of our troops, or being 'anti-american' or 'unpatrotic'. Is it possible to support the troops and be against the war. Hell yes. To think differently is to say the military asked for volunteer's to go to Iraq. And even if the troops there believe they should be there, It doesn't mean I want them dead.

So, Vote Kerry.

P.S. On anyone posting here saying things like "America is a bigger threat to world peace" or "A dumb-stubborn president for a dumb-stubborn country", remember, not all of us think like that, and it /does/ hurt the liberal cause. Gives the other side fuel to say, "Look! See! More reason to f*** the treaties!"

The point being, for the non-mentally challenged, is that I don't believe a word of it. It's reactionary, last-minute straw grasping to avoid a negative political result. Leaders don't react.
So, my point was, that this is an example of why Kerry shouldn't be in the world's ultimate leadership position. He can't even get leadership right in his own campaign.
Sure, there's been back-alley dirty trickery involved in this campaign from both sides. There always has been and always will be.
If GW is so damn stupid, and the Republicans are clueless assholes, how is it that Kerry (a true intellectual?) is getting his ass handed to him, has been forced to be reactive to the Bush Campaign, even at this late date? What chance does he have in the field of international deception and back stabbery?
Shall we surrender the field to the ineptitude of the UN? The military might of terrorists and their backers must be confronted with military muscle, or there will be no meaningful dialogue with those who feel that they can overpower us or that we don't have the balls to back up our diplomatic words with martial action. Only in the minds of collectivist social idealogues does everyone come to the bargaining table and play nice for the good of humanity in general. There is no precedent for it in the history of man, and in a hundred years we will still be able to say that. Human nature continues to rule humans, as it always has and it always will. The ideal that everyone should come together in a world-wide group hug and do the right thing is just that, an ideal that will never materialize. Peace through strength is the only method that has ever worked.
PrOpAgAnDa... seems we got a recent influx of propaganda puppets all with posts in the low 20s. Is there a nest somewhere?

The Repblicans don't make an issue of it because they beleive everyone should be exactly like them. It is the Democrats that realize that different traditions and cultures need to be recognized. To say there are no differences is being blind to reality. To allow those differences to affect how you treat someone is racism.

The Democrats see that we can not have equality until the playing field is leveled. The Republicans, as per their normal modus operandi, beleive that if they ignore the situation long enough, it will disappear all by itself. The Republicans don't make it an issue for that very reason. You can't very well make an issue of something you are trying hard to ignore.
You know.. I try not to paint with a broad brush... I do not believe all Democrats or even all liberals are bad or misguided people. I do not believe that all Republicans or conservatives are right or even have their head out of their collective arses.
I do not believe that if I ignore the situation, anything will happen at all except that the situation will continue.
I do not make an issue about race because I believe that there are opportunities out there for everyone to take advantage of.
Im reminded of content of a James Earl Jones "speech" from the movie Soul Man. In effect... "I dont care if you have to work harder to 'measure up'. I dont care if you feel that you have things stacked agaisnt you. That hard work will serve you throughout the rest of your life. It will make you better than your fellow students"
To use your own statement.... certain liberals, through various mechanisms (affirmative action etc.) allow differences to affect how they treat everyone. With your logic, they are racists.

PrOpAgAnDa... seems we got a recent influx of propaganda puppets all with posts in the low 20s. Is there a nest somewhere?
Gigatron, if you dont have anything constructive to say, perhaps you shouln't say it.

A person's post count has no bearing on the validity of their opinion.

Gigatron, if you dont have anything constructive to say, perhaps you shouln't say it.

A person's post count has no bearing on the validity of their opinion.I learned that especially on the NS forums, it very much does.

I learned that especially on the NS forums, it very much does.
Aren't you also the guy that's afriaid of Turks emigrating to Germany and destroying your national identity?

Aren't you also the guy that's afriaid of Turks emigrating to Germany and destroying your national identity?
Yup.

PrOpAgAnDa... seems we got a recent influx of propaganda puppets all with posts in the low 20s. Is there a nest somewhere?

Oooh, only twenty posts. Through your much speaking, your opinion counts more? I'm new to this forum, so what? Yes, there's a nest alright. It showed up as the red patch across the entire middle of the country in the last election.
Nevertheless, I still have the ability (and desire) to cancel out your vote.

Next!

Posted by TheOneRule:

You know.. I try not to paint with a broad brush... I do not believe all Democrats or even all liberals are bad or misguided people. I do not believe that all Republicans or conservatives are right or even have their head out of their collective arses.
I do not believe that if I ignore the situation, anything will happen at all except that the situation will continue.
I do not make an issue about race because I believe that there are opportunities out there for everyone to take advantage of.
Im reminded of content of a James Earl Jones "speech" from the movie Soul Man. In effect... "I dont care if you have to work harder to 'measure up'. I dont care if you feel that you have things stacked agaisnt you. That hard work will serve you throughout the rest of your life. It will make you better than your fellow students"
To use your own statement.... certain liberals, through various mechanisms (affirmative action etc.) allow differences to affect how they treat everyone. With your logic, they are racists.

(I can't seem to figure out that damn quote code)
Anywho, on the work harder bit, thats a very American ideal. Hard-work will get you to a good place in life. However, due to certain people's greed or intolerance, thats not true nowadays, in a lot of cases.

Racism, by definition, is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
OR
Its discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Soooo, in some ways it is. Buuuut, is it horribly wrong to give some people a chance, to jumpstart there generation's success and foster success in future generations?

Flawed Logic? Mabye. Which is why I'm not an advocate for or against Affirmative Action (dispite what I say).

Honestly i should not have said that Dem's are racist. i am just sick of ignorant people slandering the repub's (which is ironic because that is what i had done to dem's..sorry) but really most dem's. did not support civil rights. This is not 1960, things change and i guess the point is moot.

But it was interesting that someone mentioned JFK as a Dem civil rights leader. Just 2 days ago some retired union reps told me they were JFK Dem's. i asked what they ment and they said they are dem's who vote repub. since the last good dem was JFK. i dunno i wasn't alive then and i dont think they took their meds.

Yup.
And Europeans portray Americans as closed minded? Something's not right here.

You should really do your history. The president who championed the civil rights movement was JFK, a democrat. Furthermore, the most racist elements in the democratic party, the dixiecrats, broke away following this and joined into the Republican party. The list of republicans who held segregationist policies is also a long one, so that point is also moot. Neither party now is racist, overtly or not. Open a book and stop believing everything you are told.

I for one have "done my history"(?).
JFK championed it, democrats defeated it.
LBJ took up the torch and specifically thanked the Republicans for making it happen. Those are the historical facts, TYVM.

Isn't it all propaganda? how many layers of bs would an average citizen have peel off to get to the truth? does the average citizen have time to find the truth while at the same time pursueing happiness? Come on man... do not act like you have cornered the truth. all we have is propaganda... which means that government is thearter more than anything else...

Do not try to discern the truth, that would be impossible. Only try to see the fact that there is no "one truth" in the world of human opinion.

On which party's more racsist:

Tired point. Lay off it, huh. :)

You could look at which party has more minorites, or you could look at which party trots out all its minority leaders for the convention.

The first is probably more accurate.

Lets not all forget the 60's was a really messed up time, and the Dixiecrats kinda screwed that over.

Anywho, racism doesn't seem to be the issue nowadays. Religous tolerance is more the flavor of the election, I think. Not that there focusing on it, but I think its a bigger problem.

Then again, I'm white, so my view is naturally flawed. (Not joking, but honestly, I'm the least likley to see it if its happeneing)

Now that's classic.. Propaganda to justify the propaganda.

Ok, ok, we get it. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a propogandist.
Next rant please.

I for one have "done my history"(?).
JFK championed it, democrats defeated it.
LBJ took up the torch and specifically thanked the Republicans for making it happen. Those are the historical facts, TYVM.

Aye, and it backs my point that Democrats were involved in the civil rights movement as well. Yes, the democrats were opposed to it them, or a good nubmer of them. The dixiecrats also left the party later and joined the republicans.

The whole point of the post was to emphasize that neither party is racist or the champion of civil rights. Republicans pushed it forward with the help of two democrat presidents, democrats now push forward with the help of a majority of republicans. Savvy?

On which party's more racsist:

Tired point. Lay off it, huh. :)

You could look at which party has more minorites, or you could look at which party trots out all its minority leaders for the convention.

The first is probably more accurate.

Lets not all forget the 60's was a really messed up time, and the Dixiecrats kinda screwed that over.

Anywho, racism doesn't seem to be the issue nowadays. Religous tolerance is more the flavor of the election, I think. Not that there focusing on it, but I think its a bigger problem.

Then again, I'm white, so my view is naturally flawed. (Not joking, but honestly, I'm the least likley to see it if its happeneing)

So... because you are white... your view is naturally flawed? Not only is that self-deprication, that's lashing out at every other white person on the planet. Gutsy, but wrong. Your skin color or ethnicity has nothing to do with the accuracy of your logic.

And Europeans portray Americans as closed minded? Something's not right here.
And how does the orange called "Americans being arrogant and thinking they own the world" compare to the apple called "Germans are afraid of Turkey joining the EU due to glaring issues at home which need to be solved first"?

I for one have "done my history"(?).
JFK championed it, democrats defeated it.
LBJ took up the torch and specifically thanked the Republicans for making it happen. Those are the historical facts, TYVM.

You are correct, Jumbania. The Democrats have been guilty of talking a good fight when it comes to civil rights and ending racism, but when the chips are down it's the Republicans who have actually voted for improvements in those areas, although they never seem to get credit for it. Democrats, and particularly the far left Democrats ( of whom Kerry is most definitely one ) have traditionally known better what is best for all of us better than we know what is best for ourselves. This has led to "learned dependency," and huge amounts of tax-payer dollars being spent on what are called "social programs," but which are in fact massive boondoggles where the only "winners" are cronies of the Democrat party.

Oh sounds like Bush's plan, except with less guts.
2) Use the creativity and ingenuity of the american people to get oil elsewhere
2) Whats he gonna do, draw pictures of oil barrels for us? Oil is only produced in certain places of the world, our options are limited, we cant wave a magic wand and say wa la oil.


YES (http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/newoil.htm) WE (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm) CAN! (http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/anythingtooil.htm)

Things like this are why he is saying we have the creativity and ingenuity to find a way other than handing more money to terrorists. It is only the laziness of people like you that holds us back as a nation.

Missed the point chummer. Because I'm white, (the majority race in the country) I'm less likley to see racism, or see that it exists, then if I was say, a minority.

I apologize for any offense. I should've been clearer.

Ok, ok, we get it. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a propogandist.
Next rant please.
If I see unfounded claims that are basically parroting the republican/neocon partyline, then yes, it is propaganda.

YES (http://www.spiritofmaat.com/announce/newoil.htm) WE (http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm) CAN! (http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/anythingtooil.htm)

Things like this are why he is saying we have the creativity and ingenuity to find a way other than handing more money to terrorists. It is only the laziness of people like you that holds us back as a nation.
You completely misread him. He means finding ways to get away from oil as the main resource that causes the worldwide economy to be held by the balls by regimes in the middle east because they control the majority of the oil production!

Whoops, you might need a better computer yourself. I see you inserted the name "Kerry" in there twice when the facts would suggest that Bush's name should be in those spots.

( smile )

Missed the point chummer. Because I'm white, (the majority race in the country) I'm less likley to see racism, or see that it exists, then if I was say, a minority.

I apologize for any offense. I should've been clearer.
Ok. I was looking at myself with that statement. I'm white, but I live a few miles away from one of the largest ethnic barriers in the country, made famous by the movie by Eminem, 8 Mile Rd. I am VERY aware of racial tension.

Excuse me, but how exactly do they level that field? By saying "You're not good enough to do it on your own, so we'll do it for you"? It is no help to anyone if they cannot work for equality on their own! The Dems are showing their racism by portraying minorities as inferior to the white majority, which is in no way true. That's why people from low-income minority areas tend to stay there, because they have no insentive to work for something better because they don't have to work as hard as a white person to achieve things like admitance to top universities!

How contradictory. The Iraqis need to be liberated, because America is supposed to spread freedom and Democracy, but we can't give the same help to our own people in our own country because it somehow demeans them? Another Republican flip-flop?

Many of our inner cities are similar to 3rd world countries, what with the poverty, the gangs and the lawlessness. Why is this? Because the schools there are always underfunded. The police can't go into some neighborhoods. There are no jobs for people who have grown up in poor school systems and have dodged bullets and drugs their entire life. Will this problem go away by itself? No, it won't

Giving a helping hand to someone who has been handed a brutally raw deal in life is NOT the same as calling them inferior or less able to help themselves. It's called being a caring human being.

You completely misread him. He means finding ways to get away from oil as the main resource that causes the worldwide economy to be held by the balls by regimes in the middle east because they control the majority of the oil production!
A point on which we agree! As a conservative American, I may be in a minority within the bracket who believe that we need to get rid of oil and find more econimcal and less environmentally detrimental fuels.

If I see unfounded claims that are basically parroting the republican/neocon partyline, then yes, it is propaganda.

Which points are in question for you?
That humans are ruled by human nature and have never been inclined to band together and do the right thing?
That political opposites never agree and are only truly capable of compromise?
That one person will attempt to use a stronger diplomatic or military position to gain an advantage over another?
What?

Does it ever even occur to you that the "Republican party line" exists because of living, breathing people who disagree with you? Is dismissing a dissenting opinion as unimportant all you have?

Given your last several posts here, I can see how you got that much-vaunted high post count. Empty BS with finger pointing and name calling.
It's very nice to have been such a disappointment to you, thanks for sharing.

EDIT: By the way, I at least attempt to give the reasons why I hold an opinion, rather than simply stating the opinion as fact and dismissing other opinions. If I dissent of another's opinion, I likewise attempt to show the cause of my disagreement and answer their point. This is something that we could use a lot more of around here. In my opinion!

How contradictory. The Iraqis need to be liberated, because America is supposed to spread freedom and Democracy, but we can't give the same help to our own people in our own country because it somehow demeans them? Another Republican flip-flop?

Many of our inner cities are similar to 3rd world countries, what with the poverty, the gangs and the lawlessness. Why is this? Because the schools there are always underfunded. The police can't go into some neighborhoods. There are no jobs for people who have grown up in poor school systems and have dodged bullets and drugs their entire life. Will this problem go away by itself? No, it won't

Giving a helping hand to someone who has been handed a brutally raw deal in life is NOT the same as calling them inferior or less able to help themselves. It's called being a caring human being.
Not True. Nobody's holding the people of inner city America there by force. They can work their way out without facing mass slaughter from an oppressive regime that has starved them and made them too weak to rise against it. Two vastly different scenarios.

Just wanted to point some thing out, post count doesn't negate any ones' opinion. Post count usually only matters in the RP sections of Nationstates. Or more so in population and past RP's. As far as political opinion goes, post count is quite irrelevant.

Stephanie
Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator

Which points are in question for you?
That humans are ruled by human nature and have never been inclined to band together and do the right thing?
That political opposites never agree and are only truly capable of compromise?
That one person will attempt to use a stronger diplomatic or military position to gain an advantage over another?
What?

Does it ever even occur to you that the "Republican party line" exists because of living, breathing people who disagree with you? Is dismissing a dissenting opinion as unimportant all you have?

Given your last several posts here, I can see how you got that much-vaunted high post count. Empty BS with finger pointing and name calling.
It's very nice to have been such a disappointment to you, thanks for sharing.
You have not been a disappointment. Alas the propaganda you spewed forth was bare of any basis as is typical of propaganda. It is designed to spread fear and to make people agree with you because you make yourself appear as being the only salvation. Unfortunately it is a lie - like most things Bush says and which are being repeated here by people like you.

Also here's the part of your post which (imo) is pure propaganda:

So, my point was, that this is an example of why Kerry shouldn't be in the world's ultimate leadership position. He can't even get leadership right in his own campaign.
Sure, there's been back-alley dirty trickery involved in this campaign from both sides. There always has been and always will be.
If GW is so damn stupid, and the Republicans are clueless assholes, how is it that Kerry (a true intellectual?) is getting his ass handed to him, has been forced to be reactive to the Bush Campaign, even at this late date? What chance does he have in the field of international deception and back stabbery?
Shall we surrender the field to the ineptitude of the UN? The military might of terrorists and their backers must be confronted with military muscle, or there will be no meaningful dialogue with those who feel that they can overpower us or that we don't have the balls to back up our diplomatic words with martial action. Only in the minds of collectivist social idealogues does everyone come to the bargaining table and play nice for the good of humanity in general. There is no precedent for it in the history of man, and in a hundred years we will still be able to say that. Human nature continues to rule humans, as it always has and it always will. The ideal that everyone should come together in a world-wide group hug and do the right thing is just that, an ideal that will never materialize. Peace through strength is the only method that has ever worked.

Just wanted to point some thing out, post count doesn't negate any ones' opinion. Post count usually only matters in the RP sections of Nationstates. Or more so in population and past RP's. As far as political opinion goes, post count is quite irrelevant.

Stephanie
Your Friendly Neighborhood Moderator
It just appeared odd to me that suddenly so many Bush supporters with low post counts showed up, repeating the same already debunked lies over and over.

You have not been a disappointment. Alas the propaganda you spewed forth was bare of any basis as is typical of propaganda. It is designed to spread fear and to make people agree with you because you make yourself appear as being the only salvation. Unfortunately it is a lie - like most things Bush says and which are being repeated here by people like you.


Yah, OK. I give up.
Intelligent, logical discussion is not an option. I get it.

Spell it with me: P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A.

LOL! Ok, ok. You win. Vote Kerry in. If he doesn't get us all killed by caving in to everything the terrorists want, he will wind up totally discrediting liberalism ( which is well on its way already ), left-wing P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A., most of the liberal mass-media, and perhaps even the Democrat Party as well.

Actually, the only thing which gives me any hope for the future of the US is the character, courage and committment of the young men and women in American military forces. Apparently, many of you are college students, and should be able to ( or at least learning to ) think for yourselves.

Think about this: Several "spokesmen" for various terrorist groups have publicly stated that they want to bring down the entire United States, and indeed, all non-Islamic governments everywhere.

These people are implacable, patient, and enraged that Islam isn't in charge everywhere. Do you think bringing home all of our troops from Iraq, as Kerry has publicly advocated, is a more effective strategy than continuing on the long course of introducing democracy in places like Iraq and tracking down every terrorist wherever they may hide?

Think very hard about this.

Remember the school full of women and children held hostage in Russia, most of whom were killed by their captors. Indiscrimate murder, suicide bombings, and other horrific acts are the meat and potatoes of these people. They will only stop when they either achieve their goals, or when they have been tracked down and captured or killed.

I realize that it's very difficult to believe there really are people like this in the world, but history is rife with them.

It just appeared odd to me that suddenly so many Bush supporters with low post counts showed up, repeating the same already debunked lies over and over.
What debunked lies? And what do our politics matter to you? Worry about Germany's politics and keep your nose out of ours.

LOL! Ok, ok. You win. Vote Kerry in. If he doesn't get us all killed by caving in to everything the terrorists want, he will wind up totally discrediting liberalism ( which is well on its way already ), left-wing P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A., most of the liberal mass-media, and perhaps even the Democrat Party as well.

Actually, the only thing which gives me any hope for the future of the US is the character, courage and committment of the young men and women in American military forces. Apparently, many of you are college students, and should be able to ( or at least learning to ) think for yourselves.

Think about this: Several "spokesmen" for various terrorist groups have publicly stated that they want to bring down the entire United States, and indeed, all non-Islamic governments everywhere.

These people are implacable, patient, and enraged that Islam isn't in charge everywhere. Do you think bringing home all of our troops from Iraq, as Kerry has publicly advocated, is a more effective strategy than continuing on the long course of introducing democracy in places like Iraq and tracking down every terrorist wherever they may hide?

Think very hard about this.

Remember the school full of women and children held hostage in Russia, most of whom were killed by their captors. Indiscrimate murder, suicide bombings, and other horrific acts are the meat and potatoes of these people. They will only stop when they either achieve their goals, or when they have been tracked down and captured or killed.

I realize that it's very difficult to believe there really are people like this in the world, but history is rife with them.
I can't vote for Kerry. I am not an American. Thus why I spot the propaganda right away when I see it. I am not subject to it on a daily basis from American TV stations :)

What debunked lies? And what do our politics matter to you? Worry about Germany's politics and keep your nose out of ours.
well that could be done if american politics didnt affect germany or any other country.

and i'd be willing to bet he knows a shitload more about american politics than you do


and debunked lies? try any bullshit bush has said

What debunked lies? And what do our politics matter to you? Worry about Germany's politics and keep your nose out of ours.
If the Americans would do the same in the world, I would gladly do it aswell. Alas, seeing how unilateral action is the recent trend in US foreign policy, I will not keep my nose out of American politics. It is also MY world YOUR president is happily screwing up!

Not True. Nobody's holding the people of inner city America there by force. They can work their way out without facing mass slaughter from an oppressive regime that has starved them and made them too weak to rise against it. Two vastly different scenarios.

You try growing up in South Central LA and see how much homework (from a drastically less funded school I might add) you get done. Especially when your mother is working two jobs and a good number of your friends aren't even going to school because it's a whole lot easier to sell drugs and make a living in that environment. Sure, it's not impossible for them to work themselves out of the area, with about twice as much hard work, dedication, and stubborness than the average American has to show on a daily basis. They have a constant barrage of obstacles thrown at them that the middle-class American does not. Do you live in fear of drive-by shootings? Do you live down the street from a meth lab? Do you walk by hookers and pushers on the way home from school? Violence begets violence, and poverty begets poverty except for the exceptional few who successfully fight the uphill battle.

So basically, it takes an extraordinary effort for them to lift themselves up out of their situation to simply keep pace with those who happened to be born into better circumstances who are only showing normal effort. It's like having a race where one person gets to run straight through, whereas the other person has to jump over hurdles. Of course the hurdler is going to fall behind through no fault or weakness of his/her own.

Do you honestly believe a whole class of people are destitute and live in an environment of violence simply because they are lazy? Or maybe the crumbling inner city folk just hate us for our freedoms? That's probably what Bush would say.

Bah, sometimes I hate what this country has become. It's because of people much like ones post here that refuse to see any good from either side. Yes, Bush has done some good things and stood up well after 9/11, but he has made neglegent mistakes and done some increadibly hurtful things towards this nation. Does anyone believe in morals anymore, or just political parties that can't keep their ideology straight? Neither main political party is 100% correct, anyone who can't see that is lying to themselves. The both contradict themselves in many areas, but the people here seem(both in this forum and in general America) to be stubborn enough to defend them regardless of their validity. Truth? It's just a word, blind faith is a much more upstanding trait to have, right? Right?

By the way, Kerry's speech is available now on CNN.com. I suggest you look at it before you judge his word. Especially see it before the various media outlets dissect it and tell you what they want you to hear.

He makes a lot of sense people. You're free to disagree, but certainly no one can claim anymore that the man does not have a specific plan.

Surely the US is a greater threat to world peace and safety than Iraq ever was. The US are regularly killing innocent Iraqi civilians and creating new terrorists on a daily basis. There is no question that today thanks to the United States we are all less safe and the world is a much more dangerous place. Oh lets not forget that it was the US that armed Iraq in the first place. Oh, and they also were responsible for aiding Bin Laden and his followers. They should get their own house in order before they try to sort out anybody else.

Actually I believe German companies have the title for most weapon systems provided to Iraq during Saddam's reign.

Here:

http://www.ainfos.ca/98/feb/ainfos00151.html

26 COUNTRIES HELPED SADDAM TO BUILD WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION



LONDON (1 December): IBC has learned that companies from at least 26
different countries have supplied Saddam Hussein with equipment for his
chemical, nuclear, and advanced weapons programmes. Following is a list
of the
countries followed by the number of contractors from that country
implicated in
the arming of Saddam's regime.

Argentina 3
Austria 17
Brazil 8
Egypt 1
USA 18
France 21
Greece 1
India 1
Romania 1
Italy 12
Japan 1
UK 19
Netherlands 3
Poland 1
Germany (FRG) 86
Sweden 1
Switzerland 11
Spain 4


Companies from China, Yugoslavia, South Korea, North Korea, Cuba,
Denmark, Finland and Norway are also known to have been involved in
arming
Saddam, but due to the top secret nature of their trade, the exact
number of
companies from these countries is not known. Companies from China are
known to have aided the Iraqi nuclear programme and to have supplied
plutonium to Iraq. Iraq's debt to Chinese state-owned firms is over $5
billion.

Face it people, John Kerry is at his very best right now. All he has really promised to do is talk. This last effort is no exception. Summits, UN etc. Once he runs into the realities of these situations he will bog down in his own micro-managing style and get eaten alive by our own party as they fight for control.

Fortunately the Republicans haven't figured this out as they didn't for Al Gore either. Unfortunately, if John Kerry gets in our party will hit the skids for several more terms before we recover.

Better to give Bush enough rope to hang his whole party for the next election than let John Kerry do the harm he will almost certainly inflict.

Dude, what the hell are you talking about. Bush is ALL talk!

Regardless whether or not that is true (I have no clue) it's ok, the U.S. is still the leader in international arms sales. We still produce more than half of the weapons used in the world. :D

[Daniel Britts #14]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOneRule
So, Kerry thinks it's important to understand terrorists and he appreciates the ideological struggle that goes far beyond simple statements.

That's the biggest reason yet to not vote for him.


To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

Don't even try to pull off the tired line "they hate us because we exist." Bin Laden was Pro-US untill the first Gulf War. Hussein was pro-US until we decided to fight him.

The only way to stamp out terrorism is to actually find the motivations of why these people are so angry. Is it because of our imperialism? Is it because they don't have adequate food, medicine, or water supplies? Is it because the bush administration outlawed trade with Burma (a country known for forced sweatshop conditions) only after their campaign t-shirts were produced?

Gone are the days when our Imperial might could simply demolish a country then propose peace and go on with our lives. These people have no country, they operate on their own sense of vigilante justice. The game has changed, to win, we must change with it.





To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

We understand them now. There is nothing we could do whatsoever to "remove their motivation". That is utter fantasy.

.."Don't even try to pull off the tired line "they hate us because we exist." Bin Laden was Pro-US untill the first Gulf War. Hussein was pro-US until we decided to fight him."..

Bin Laden's goal hasn't always been to drive the US off the Arabian penisula, and to institute a global islamist republic..?

The only way to stamp out terrorism is to actually find the motivations of why these people are so angry. Is it because of our imperialism? Is it because they don't have adequate food, medicine, or water supplies?

The "motivations of why" the terrorists are angry is due to the countries they develop in, inhabit, and sneak into.

The countries they develop in are cesspools.

The countries they inhabit allow them to exist.

The countries they smeak into do not root them out well enough.

Until the countries I've just described change their ways, there will always be terrorists, no matter how much we "understand" them,.. no matter how much we "appreciate" them.

Until this state of affairs changes, we will protect ourselves. And attempt to protect you (non-America) as well.

It just appeared odd to me that suddenly so many Bush supporters with low post counts showed up, repeating the same already debunked lies over and over.

Debunked lies as determined by the same standard of measure you use to discern propaganda, no doubt.

You disagree, since you're a German Socialist (NSDAP ring any bells?) and so therefore all dissent is propaganda. Understandable sensitivity I suppose given Germany's vast experience in the area.

Likewise, if you don't believe something and are personally satisfied with your own logic in that regard, it's naturally considered a debunked lie which requires no further discussion.

In America, it's called free speech and political dissent. But you wouldn't care about that, would you?

I see some things (and places) never change. Which, by the way was my original friggin' point!

Debunked lies as determined by the same standard of measure you use to discern propaganda, no doubt.

You disagree, since you're a German Socialist (NSDAP ring any bells?) and so therefore all dissent is propaganda. Understandable sensitivity I suppose given Germany's vast experience in the area.

Likewise, if you don't believe something and are personally satisfied with your own logic in that regard, it's naturally considered a debunked lie which requires no further discussion.

In America, it's called free speech and political dissent. But you wouldn't care about that, would you?

I see some things (and places) never change. Which, by the way was my original friggin' point!
wow, we get hypocrisy, biggotry, and egotistical imperialism all in one

Based on his speech today (honestly one of the best political speeches I've ever seen,) Kerry will absolutely flatten Bush in the debates. Gore was arrogant and his apparent bullying of Bush turned off many,

Things will be different this time.

First of all, Bush cannot afford to be bullied this time. As President, he can't hide behind the cloak of an underdog. He cannot cannot play the sypathy card, since he is supposed to be the implacable, resolute leader.

Second, the facts support Kerry. In a face to face confrontation, Kerry will be able to dissect Bush's actual activities and failings, instead of fighting against the airy and well-crafted rhetoric of a challenger (as Bush was in 2000.)

Third, Bush's accusations of flip-floppery will be able to be logically refuted in real time and thrown back at him.

Finally, Kerry is a better debater than Gore ever was. Even way back in the 1970's he was able to make John O'Neill look like a fool on the Dick Cavett debate. 30 years of seasoning later and Bush is BBQ.

Bush is done. Finished. No doubt in my mind.

What? No purple prose from Bush-supporters?

No vicious denials?

No disparaging remarks about my mental stability or my ancestry?

No floating of anti-Kerry cliches?

What? No purple prose from Bush-supporters?

No vicious denials?

No disparaging remarks about my mental stability or my ancestry?

No floating of anti-Kerry cliches?
No.. we're not liberals after all [/tongue in cheek]

No.. we're not liberals after all [/tongue in cheek]

touche'!

[INDENT][Daniel Britts #14]
To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

We understand them now. There is nothing we could do whatsoever to "remove their motivation". That is utter fantasy.

.."Don't even try to pull off the tired line "they hate us because we exist." Bin Laden was Pro-US untill the first Gulf War. Hussein was pro-US until we decided to fight him."..

Bin Laden's goal hasn't always been to drive the US off the Arabian penisula, and to institute a global islamist republic..?

The only way to stamp out terrorism is to actually find the motivations of why these people are so angry. Is it because of our imperialism? Is it because they don't have adequate food, medicine, or water supplies?

The "motivations of why" the terrorists are angry is due to the countries they develop in, inhabit, and sneak into.

The countries they develop in are cesspools.

The countries they inhabit allow them to exist.

The countries they smeak into do not root them out well enough.

Until the countries I've just described change their ways, there will always be terrorists, no matter how much we "understand" them,.. no matter how much we "appreciate" them.

Until this state of affairs changes, we will protect ourselves. And attempt to protect you (non-America) as well.
I'll field this.

A) Osama Bin Laden did not have any major complaints with either Saudi Arabia or the US until the First Gulf War. After the end of the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, Bin Laden returned a hero to Saudi Arabia. However, he quickly wore out his welcome, and by the time the Gulf War was becoming to look possible (Saddam invating Kuwait that is), Bin Laden quickly began warning the Saudi Government it was likely. However he was ignored. Later he queried the government as to whether his Afghan Arabs (military organization) could be allowed to enter Saudi Arabia to help protect it, just in case. He was greeted by silence, until the announcement that the US would be allowed to encamp in Saudi soil for the war. This is where Bin Laden lost it. Not only where "infidels" going to be on Muslim holy ground, a group of Mujahideen had been denied to the possibility of defending Arabia. It all went downhill from here.

B) Its more complicated then that. It involves what they are taught, culture shock, what they see on televison and hear on the radio, etc, etc. Its not even worth getting into if you see it that black and white.

Debunked lies as determined by the same standard of measure you use to discern propaganda, no doubt.

You disagree, since you're a German Socialist (NSDAP ring any bells?) and so therefore all dissent is propaganda. Understandable sensitivity I suppose given Germany's vast experience in the area.

Likewise, if you don't believe something and are personally satisfied with your own logic in that regard, it's naturally considered a debunked lie which requires no further discussion.

In America, it's called free speech and political dissent. But you wouldn't care about that, would you?

I see some things (and places) never change. Which, by the way was my original friggin' point!


When in doubt, call the germans nazis.

[Tremalkier #153]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
[INDENT][Daniel Britts #14]
.."To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation."..

We understand them now. There is nothing we could do whatsoever to "remove their motivation". That is utter fantasy.

.."Don't even try to pull off the tired line "they hate us because we exist." Bin Laden was Pro-US untill the first Gulf War. Hussein was pro-US until we decided to fight him."..

Bin Laden's goal hasn't always been to drive the US off the Arabian penisula, and to institute a global islamist republic..?

.."The only way to stamp out terrorism is to actually find the motivations of why these people are so angry. Is it because of our imperialism? Is it because they don't have adequate food, medicine, or water supplies?"..

The "motivations of why" the terrorists are angry is due to the countries they develop in, inhabit, and sneak into.

The countries they develop in are cesspools.

The countries they inhabit allow them to exist.

The countries they smeak into do not root them out well enough.

Until the countries I've just described change their ways, there will always be terrorists, no matter how much we "understand" them,.. no matter how much we "appreciate" them.

Until this state of affairs changes, we will protect ourselves. And attempt to protect you (non-America) as well.


I'll field this.

A) Osama Bin Laden did not have any major complaints with either Saudi Arabia or the US until the First Gulf War. After the end of the Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan, Bin Laden returned a hero to Saudi Arabia. However, he quickly wore out his welcome, and by the time the Gulf War was becoming to look possible (Saddam invating Kuwait that is), Bin Laden quickly began warning the Saudi Government it was likely. However he was ignored. Later he queried the government as to whether his Afghan Arabs (military organization) could be allowed to enter Saudi Arabia to help protect it, just in case. He was greeted by silence, until the announcement that the US would be allowed to encamp in Saudi soil for the war. This is where Bin Laden lost it. Not only where "infidels" going to be on Muslim holy ground, a group of Mujahideen had been denied to the possibility of defending Arabia. It all went downhill from here.

B) Its more complicated then that. It involves what they are taught, culture shock, what they see on televison and hear on the radio, etc, etc. Its not even worth getting into if you see it that black and white.




.."This is where Bin Laden lost it. Not only where "infidels" going to be on Muslim holy ground, a group of Mujahideen had been denied to the possibility of defending Arabia."..

I certainly can't argue with this. Nor would I want to. :)

It's good to know as much as possible about "the enemy", as everyone would agree. The fact that I, personally, don't know everything about everything, does not change the fact that those at the reins (of US power) may know more than is necessary to know how to deal with an enemy.

Then again, they might not,.. in which case they will be held accountable by "those who put them in power". :)

.."It (the terrorists motivations) involves what they are taught, culture shock, what they see on televison and hear on the radio, etc, etc. Its not even worth getting into if you see it that black and white."..

Agreed. It is a monsterously complex mix of influences. But it boils down to "because they live in miserable conditions, and have heavy influences from outright sociopathic leaders, they do and will hate us for our very existence and are not amenable to having that opinion changed".

And that is the existential dilemma that we all face at the moment.

Mwah mwah mwah mwah, mwah mwah mwah Mwah!


Ahh! Better living through more inane sociology and psychobabblizing!
Now why didn't I think of that?

<Mr. Sulu, set phasers to "nauseate">

If I see unfounded claims that are basically parroting the republican/neocon partyline, then yes, it is propaganda.

Can you say that with a straight face and can you say that when it comes to a democrat that is basically parroting the democrat/liberal partyline?

Go Kerry!

[Gymoor #149]
Based on his speech today (honestly one of the best political speeches I've ever seen,) Kerry will absolutely flatten Bush in the debates. Gore was arrogant and his apparent bullying of Bush turned off many,

Things will be different this time.

First of all, Bush cannot afford to be bullied this time. As President, he can't hide behind the cloak of an underdog. He cannot cannot play the sypathy card, since he is supposed to be the implacable, resolute leader.

Second, the facts support Kerry. In a face to face confrontation, Kerry will be able to dissect Bush's actual activities and failings, instead of fighting against the airy and well-crafted rhetoric of a challenger (as Bush was in 2000.)

Third, Bush's accusations of flip-floppery will be able to be logically refuted in real time and thrown back at him.

Finally, Kerry is a better debater than Gore ever was. Even way back in the 1970's he was able to make John O'Neill look like a fool on the Dick Cavett debate. 30 years of seasoning later and Bush is BBQ.

Bush is done. Finished. No doubt in my mind.

:)

Anyone who can string together more than five words together will, in your opinion, beat Bush in the debates.

It's decided for you, and your ilk,... but Bush's audience is NOT your ilk.

He only has to look like a genuine person to win because your "reasons for a sure win" are only impressive to your ilk, and not to anyone else.

To simplify it for you,.. the "dumbass ignorant" (as you would call them) will decide the election, and they won't use your criteria to decide the "winner".

Can you say that with a straight face and can you say that when it comes to a democrat that is basically parroting the democrat/liberal partyline?
Yep I can. Democrat/Republican/Whatever. Firstly because I am not part of a 2-party political system and not American and not subject to US propaganda on their TV.

Gigatron: Konservativereklame oder Liberalreklame :)? Ich bin aus Illinois (in USA), und ich bin ein Liberal...

:)

Anyone who can string together more than five words together will, in your opinion, beat Bush in the debates.

It's decided for you, and your ilk,... but Bush's audience is NOT your ilk.

He only has to look like a genuine person to win because your "reasons for a sure win" are only impressive to your ilk, and not to anyone else.

To simplify it for you,.. the "dumbass ignorant" (as you would call them) will decide the election, and they won't use your criteria to decide the "winner".

Straw man. Nice use of the word "ilk." Dismissive, yet utterly devoid of critical thought.

I actually made points that were based on my impressions and my personal sizing up of the situation. You provided no analysis whatsoever, all you did was defensively try to deride my reasoning. What are you, 12?

Yep I can. Democrat/Republican/Whatever. Firstly because I am not part of a 2-party political system and not American and not subject to US propaganda on their TV.

Then why do you back up people that are spewing democrat propaganda but hammering those from the Republican Party?

I've seen so much talking points being used from both sides here and yet you have only bad mouthed those from the republicans and not the democrats! Why?

Think about this: Several "spokesmen" for various terrorist groups have publicly stated that they want to bring down the entire United States, and indeed, all non-Islamic governments everywhere.

Who has stated this? Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim?

Who has stated this? Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claim?

Al Qaeda through video tapes want to take us down and they have been broadcasted on Al Jazeera, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC!

On these tapes was Osama Bin Laden now it is his spokesperson whose name escapes me at the moment but was the chief reason why Secretary Ridge did not come to my university.

Al Qaeda through video tapes want to take us down and they have been broadcasted on Al Jazeera, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC!

On these tapes was Osama Bin Laden now it is his spokesperson whose name escapes me at the moment but was the chief reason why Secretary Ridge did not come to my university.
Since you have answered for Etrusciana, was there any text based messages on those news channels? Etrusciana also stated "spokesmen", meaning more than one and also stated goals were to take down the US and other non-Islamic countries, can you back that up?

Thats all you can say "propaganda"? I dont see you proving me wrong. Kerry has promise, he wouldnt be a senator if he didnt, but thats not the point, the point is he is trying to get a message across, but he's contradicting himself, so he's either lying or he's stupid. He's also a senator so i know he's not stupid.

ROFLMAO!!! Oh BROTHER! Do YOU have a lot of growing up to do!

If you're a rich man from Mass., or if you married a rich heiress and live in Mass., and you have the scion of the House of Kennedy on your side, you can be elected Senator, even if your IQ is somewhere South of a slug's.

Okay, so we can put to rest FOREVER the ridiculous "Kerry deprived the men of their body armor" debate.

Where Kerry is concerned, NOTHING will ever be resolved!

everything is a terrorist now. the people in chechnya are revolutionaries, but now they are "terrorists" same with the insurgents in iraq. dont feed me your cock and bull rational, i know the score. we are threatening whomever we DONT LIKE

Your ignorance is abysmal. We "don't like" Islamist terrorists because ... get a clue, dubmass! ... they KILLED over 3,000 Americans in COLD BLOOD! Jeeze! Get a friggin' LIFE!

Since you have answered for Etrusciana, was there any text based messages on those news channels? Etrusciana also stated "spokesmen", meaning more than one and also stated goals were to take down the US and other non-Islamic countries, can you back that up?

source = Koran?

Since you have answered for Etrusciana, was there any text based messages on those news channels? Etrusciana also stated "spokesmen", meaning more than one and also stated goals were to take down the US and other non-Islamic countries, can you back that up?

Well since it was in arabic, I'm sure there is an arabic transcript somewhere. As for an English version, I'm going to have to look online and see if there is one somewhere. I think there is but I'm not 100% sure.

As for Spokesmen, I think he was refering to more than one Terror Group. I don't know if that is what he ment to be honest since all I know is that Al Qaeda wants us off the face of the planet.

ROFLMAO!!! Oh BROTHER! Do YOU have a lot of growing up to do!

If you're a rich man from Mass., or if you married a rich heiress and live in Mass., and you have the scion of the House of Kennedy on your side, you can be elected Senator, even if your IQ is somewhere South of a slug's.

Speaking of IQ's, I think your "misunderestimating" Kerry

:rolleyes:

You do also know that Bush is from an ever so slightly wealthy background himself

Speaking of IQ's, I think your "misunderestimating" Kerry

:rolleyes:

You do also know that Bush is from an ever so slightly wealthy background himself

You do know that the Kerry/Edwards ticket is far richer than the Bush/Cheney Ticket?

To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

We understand them now. There is nothing we could do whatsoever to "remove their motivation". That is utter fantasy.

Actually, we can do something. Do you think they hate the West for no reason at all? We can address the grievances of moderate Muslims in the Middle East. This way, none of them will go down the dangerous path of terrorist fanatacism.

For every terrorist you kill, two more take his place. The answer is not to stop going after terrorists - that must be done - but to address the root causes of the problem. Last week the British ambassador to Italy has said, "George Bush has been al-Qaeda's best recruiting sargeant for the past three years." I think it's true. Bush makes Muslims angrier and angrier with his policies. Guess what they do when they get angry?

Well since it was in arabic, I'm sure there is an arabic transcript somewhere. As for an English version, I'm going to have to look online and see if there is one somewhere. I think there is but I'm not 100% sure.

As for Spokesmen, I think he was refering to more than one Terror Group. I don't know if that is what he ment to be honest since all I know is that Al Qaeda wants us off the face of the planet.
That would be your speculation, in regards to Bin Laden's "goals"? Can you provide info about other terrorist groups that want to "bring down the entire United States, and indeed, all non-Islamic governments everywhere"? I believe that the rhetoric can run high but facts speak louder than fiction.

From what I understand, Bin Laden turned against the US when George H. W. Bush established bases in Saudi Arabia in order to assist against Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud230.xml/

More than any other cause it was the presence of "crusader" forces in the land of Islam's holiest sites - Mecca and Medina - that turned bin Laden from Afghan jihadi into an international terrorist.

A wealthy Saudi with royal connections, bin Laden fell out with the House of Saud largely because it permitted US bases in the country.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered his own forces to the Saudi regime to help expel the Iraqis from the Gulf.

So much for the love affair between Saddam and Bin Laden that Washington would try to paint?

I could not find any stated "goals" of Bin Laden other than the removal of US bases from Islamic holy lands (prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq).

Bin Laden's second fatwa, published 18 months later (1998?) under the title "Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders", repeated the demand.

It stated: "For over seven years now the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorising its neighbours and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples."

I guess the invasion of Iraq would be a classic example of those words?

Bush would call it the "liberation of Iraq", others in the Muslim world would view it as US imperialism and many non Muslims would agree with that.

You know, if we really respected other countries freedoms, we'd respect their freedom to rebel and form a Democracy or not. I know of no incidences of a Democracy being successfully imposed on a country by an outside force, though if there is one, I'd love to be proven wrong.

That would be your speculation, in regards to Bin Laden's "goals"? Can you provide info about other terrorist groups that want to "bring down the entire United States, and indeed, all non-Islamic governments everywhere"? I believe that the rhetoric can run high but facts speak louder than fiction.

All I know is that Al Qaeda wants us destroyed and converted to Islam. That is all I know. I said I don't know about the other groups. I do know that Hamas has threatened to attack the US but to my knowledge haven't

From what I understand, Bin Laden turned against the US when George H. W. Bush established bases in Saudi Arabia in order to assist against Iraq.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/30/wsaud230.xml/

More than any other cause it was the presence of "crusader" forces in the land of Islam's holiest sites - Mecca and Medina - that turned bin Laden from Afghan jihadi into an international terrorist.

A wealthy Saudi with royal connections, bin Laden fell out with the House of Saud largely because it permitted US bases in the country.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered his own forces to the Saudi regime to help expel the Iraqis from the Gulf.

And that was in 1991 CH! They have had contacts after that. If they truely didn't like eachother then why did the meet?

So much for the love affair between Saddam and Bin Laden that Washington would try to paint?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. No one in washington tried to paint that Bin Laden and Hussein loved eachother. They didn't but they both didn't like the US. They never cooperated on terror attacks together, but we do know that they had contacts with eachother.

I could not find any stated "goals" of Bin Laden other than the removal of US bases from Islamic holy lands (prior to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq).

Bin Laden's second fatwa, published 18 months later (1998?) under the title "Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad against the Jews and the Crusaders", repeated the demand.

It stated: "For over seven years now the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorising its neighbours and turning its bases in the peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighbouring Muslim peoples."

I guess the invasion of Iraq would be a classic example of those words?

Bush would call it the "liberation of Iraq", others in the Muslim world would view it as US imperialism and many non Muslims would agree with that.

And I guess you DO NOT know that Bin Laden was pissed that Saudi Arabia ASKED the US for help and not Bin Laden. Bin Laden was livid when he found out that Western Troops was going to help protect Saudi Arabia and not his precious fighting force. We were not occupying Saudia Arabia and if you believed that CH, then I feel sorry for you.

Now I'm off to breakfast!

Vote for Bush and Kerry 2004. Two parties, one policy. Remember, the terrorists hate freedom. They hate the freedom to avoid jail by giving half your income to the state, not commiting victimless crimes and doing exactly what the govt tells you. Remember, patriotism requires blind obedience. That's what Bush/Kerry stand for.

Wow, TheOneRule, I respect you because you usually seem level headed and willing to look at more than one side, but this is simply one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

The point is, and Rumsfeld has wondered this allowed himself, are we creating terrorists faster than we can kill or capture them?

The only true way to fight terror is make them realize that there is more to live for than to die for (Kerry's turn of phrase.)


look here you californian hippie, Bush has done a great job of what he's gotten, first 9/11 then the threat of WMD in Iraq, he really cares for the country and he atleast keeps his morals unlike kerry who flip flops to get a vote. If you really want a better country vote Bush again on Nov. 2 please do not ruin this wonderful country by voting that loser kerry into office. Anyways how can you trust kerry, he looks very shady and cheaty with those slanted eyes, just think about it when you see his face, don't he look like those watch sellers in alleys, having waches hanging from the inside of his coat?

look here you californian hippie, Bush has done a great job of what he's gotten, first 9/11 then the threat of WMD in Iraq, he really cares for the country and he atleast keeps his morals unlike kerry who flip flops to get a vote. If you really want a better country vote Bush again on Nov. 2 please do not ruin this wonderful country by voting that loser kerry into office. Anyways how can you trust kerry, he looks very shady and cheaty with those slanted eyes, just think about it when you see his face, don't he look like those watch sellers in alleys, having waches hanging from the inside of his coat?
I just love how someone can discredit a candidate just because he has slanted eyes. Of all the reasons to dislike Kerry, you just had to take his looks. What happened to listening to the man and his ideas?

I just love how someone can discredit a candidate just because he has slanted eyes. Of all the reasons to dislike Kerry, you just had to take his looks. What happened to listening to the man and his ideas?
It doesn't matter. He can just vote for Bush. He doesn't have slanted eyes and will do the same things as Kerry.

Boy howdy... so.... much... commentary...

look here you californian hippie, Bush has done a great job of what he's gotten, first 9/11 then the threat of WMD in Iraq, he really cares for the country and he atleast keeps his morals unlike kerry who flip flops to get a vote. If you really want a better country vote Bush again on Nov. 2 please do not ruin this wonderful country by voting that loser kerry into office. Anyways how can you trust kerry, he looks very shady and cheaty with those slanted eyes, just think about it when you see his face, don't he look like those watch sellers in alleys, having waches hanging from the inside of his coat?

Okay, what was that? I've said it before elsewhere, but don't namecall people. It demeans us all (Unless its a public figure. Then namecall away). Moving on down, we get to what a 'great job' Bush is doing. While I'm not gonna comment on 9/11 (Might he be baiting further terrorists with his policies? So I /am/ gonna comment on it it seems). But we get to the threat of the WMD's in Iraq. Point to them? Just... you know... point to them? (I don't know if he lied, or was lied to... but either way, bad bet, apparently.)

Moral man... oh, thats a good one. Hey everybody, lets vote for him because he upholds some arbitrarily decided morals!

Your defacing a candidate for what he looks like... eyeing his ethnicity comes next chummer. Watch yourself, for your own sake.

You do know that the Kerry/Edwards ticket is far richer than the Bush/Cheney Ticket?

No, I didn't know that. But it comes down to who do you think support's big buissness over the common worker more?

It doesn't matter. He can just vote for Bush. He doesn't have slanted eyes and will do the same things as Kerry.

Disillusioned anyone? *patpats Libertovania* Common, change is possible. Just gotta work for it.

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

Annnnnnnd, thats my two cents. Vote Kerry.

Your ignorance is abysmal. We "don't like" Islamist terrorists because ... get a clue, dubmass! ... they KILLED over 3,000 Americans in COLD BLOOD! Jeeze! Get a friggin' LIFE!

1. How many of the alleged terrorists were Iraqi?

A. None

2. Because of Iraq, are there (a) more terrorists or (b) less terrorists?

A. (a) More terrorists

3. How many innocent Iraqis died because of the UN sanctions?

A. (UN estimate) Up to 1.5 million

4. How many innocent Iraqis died during Gulf War II?

A. The US doesn't collect figures, but it is certainly more than 3000

All I know is that Al Qaeda wants us destroyed and converted to Islam. That is all I know.
If you know that then prove it. Good luck.

I said I don't know about the other groups. I do know that Hamas has threatened to attack the US but to my knowledge haven't
When did Hamas threaten to attack the US?
And that was in 1991 CH! They have had contacts after that. If they truely didn't like eachother then why did the meet?
Why did they meet, and please, no rhetoric. Just the facts please.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. No one in washington tried to paint that Bin Laden and Hussein loved eachother. They didn't but they both didn't like the US. They never cooperated on terror attacks together, but we do know that they had contacts with eachother.
Ahhh so they did the lunch thingy. Bush would have us believe that Iraq was responsible in part for 9/11. Why?
And I guess you DO NOT know that Bin Laden was pissed that Saudi Arabia ASKED the US for help and not Bin Laden. Bin Laden was livid when he found out that Western Troops was going to help protect Saudi Arabia and not his precious fighting force. We were not occupying Saudia Arabia and if you believed that CH, then I feel sorry for you.
Don't twist this around. I do know from articles that Bin Laden was pissed at the US for establishing a base in the land of the holy Islamic temples. It was like sacrilege to him.

I never once suggested that the US was occupying Saudi Arabia. The US was invited to protect Bush's buddies over in the House of Saud. However, Saudi Arabia is a far greater hotbed of anti-Americanism than Iraq, hence 15 of 19 terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were from where again? Oh yeah.....Saudi Arabia.

You need to buy a new program, Cornlieu.....the one you have came from the fantasy section.

If you know that then prove it. Good luck.

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."

"And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

When did Hamas threaten to attack the US?

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200403/FOR20040323e.shtml

Why did they meet, and please, no rhetoric. Just the facts please.

I don't know why they met. Your going to have to ask Saddam that but then you will have to go to Iraq to talk to him! Good luck!

Ahhh so they did the lunch thingy. Bush would have us believe that Iraq was responsible in part for 9/11. Why?

Did you read that part in the 9/11 commission report? I did and they met more than once. Unfortunately, I don't have it here in my dorm room so I could copy it. As for Iraq being responsible for 9/11, I don't care about that. All I care about is that Saddam is gone.


Don't twist this around. I do know from articles that Bin Laden was pissed at the US for establishing a base in the land of the holy Islamic temples. It was like sacrilege to him.

Even though we did nothing to the holy sites. We were just there to protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq. Now he can't use that as an excuse anymore since we no longer have a base in Saudi Arabia.

I never once suggested that the US was occupying Saudi Arabia. The US was invited to protect Bush's buddies over in the House of Saud. However, Saudi Arabia is a far greater hotbed of anti-Americanism than Iraq, hence 15 of 19 terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were from where again? Oh yeah.....Saudi Arabia.

Just because 15 out of 19 terrorists were saudis actually doesn't implicate Saudi Arabia in the attacks. Al Qaeda is now after the Royal Family too you know.

You need to buy a new program, Cornlieu.....the one you have came from the fantasy section.

Nope! Mine comes from FIRST HAND INFORMATION from people that have been over there.

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200403/FOR20040323e.shtml


Did you read that part in the 9/11 commission report? I did and they met more than once. Unfortunately, I don't have it here in my dorm room so I could copy it. As for Iraq being responsible for 9/11, I don't care about that. All I care about is that Saddam is gone.



Just because 15 out of 19 terrorists were saudis actually doesn't implicate Saudi Arabia in the attacks. Al Qaeda is now after the Royal Family too you know..

Wait so 15/19 terrorist from Suadi doesn't implement them but a few meetings implement Saddam?
Are you sure you are using your logic...

Wait so 15/19 terrorist from Suadi doesn't implement them but a few meetings implement Saddam?
Are you sure you are using your logic...

Did I say it impicated anyone? No I did not. I never said that it implicated Iraq. All I said was that Al Qaeda and Iraq met. What they discussed, we don't know. Did they cooperate in terror attacks? No I don't think they did.

As for the Saudis, Osama is trying to destablize Saudi Arabia and put in a Fundamentalist Regime.

You actually yawn over the proven fact that millions were killed by Hussein? That's disgusting. How is that propaganda? Which statement is false?

*Yawn* Look at what's going on in Sudan. Pretty much what the U.S. is doing. Saddam wasn't a damn threat at all. What I call a threat is whatever country attacks us. Or looks like they're going to attack us. As far as I'm concerned. Iraq was just sitting there and we were like "Hey, let's attack them and see what happens"

The bottom line is that Bush is winning this election, and Kerry is going to need a major turn around here at some point to give himself a realistic chance of winning. www.electoral-vote.com puts him a fair way back on Bush, especially since Kerry has already given up on certain battleground states.

Seeing as I live in Finland I've watched this election progress with a curious eye, but knowing that it won't really affect me either whoever wins. I'd like to see Kerry win, but at the same time I admit that Bush is a charismatic guy who can win the hearts of a lot of people. However for some of his supporters to claim that Bush has not made any mistakes is just intentionally ignoring the facts.

As to whether or not Iraq is better off now than it was before the war is something I can't comment on because I've never lived in Iraq. While I'm sure Saddam wasn't the greatest guy in the world, he was in control, which is more than can be said for the Americans at the moment. Whether the Americans will truly ever be able to turn this around remains to be seen, and if they do they will need a lot more troops deployed in Iraq to maintain security.

I don't believe Saddam had the first thing to do with 9/11, and I think that claiming Saddam supported terrorism is just neither here nor there. Just about every nation in the history of terrorism has supported terrorists in some way or another, no one is any better than anyone else and no one is any worse. Also that alone isn't a justified reason to go to war, because you'd need to invade a lot of countries were that to be true, and I doubt Iraq would be the first or the second country to invade.

To say Bush didn't have an agenda with Iraq and it just popped up on the political radar is also a bit naive I think. His administration pushed the issue, and they pushed it well enough - although I honestly don't believe they realised it would end like this, somehow I feel this was their "worst-case scenario which probably won't happen" - which has happened and they've been caught totally blind. Even the likes of Rumsfeld have commented that for the moment the terrorists are winning the war in Iraq!

In the light of the evidence which has appeared after the war, I think the pre-war criticisms have held true while the "Well Saddam was a bad man" just hasn't stuck with a lot of people, because that wasn't a good enough reason to send family and friends half way around the world to die in the sand.

This war on terrorism will never end - never. Now it's started there is no end, that's the beauty of terrorism, total surprise. No amount of bombing or investigating or control will ever stop terrorism, it's the "perfect" attack. It could happen any time what so ever, and I think I'll live to see the day when a bigger attack happens, who knows when it'll be though.

I think Bush needed to come out and say it "I made a mistake, we made a mistake" - instead of saying things like "There was a major break down in intelligence" - whose responsible for acting on that information - you are. If a house burns down and you're the guy entitled to put the fire out, you've failed at your job, even if you were told the house isn't on fire, you damn well make sure before you leave it alone. I think they didn't make sure, they got the results they wanted and they acted. If Bush came out and said he made a bad mistake (like Blair has... to some extent) he'd win a lot of support.

I still hope for a Kerry win because I find Bush irritating personally, but I can see why people like him and support him - I just don't, but then again I can't vote so it doesn't make a difference.

...and one last thing, for the love of God it's Hussain not Hussein.

*Yawn* Look at what's going on in Sudan. Pretty much what the U.S. is doing. Saddam wasn't a damn threat at all. What I call a threat is whatever country attacks us. Or looks like they're going to attack us. As far as I'm concerned. Iraq was just sitting there and we were like "Hey, let's attack them and see what happens"

Yep. Poor Iraq wasn't doing anything at all...Hussein was just a victim. How could I have been so blind?

As for Sudan, the world has the responsibility of addressing the problems, there, too. The U.N.'s job is to address, as much as anything else, human rights violations and security threats. Sudan is a good example of human rights violations, as was Iraq. But the UN also recognized Iraq as a threat, otherwise there wouldn't have been the resolutions to disarm the country. The UN threatened, over and over again. Everyone knew the threat was empty because too many Security Council members would get caught with their pants down violating UN laws in Iraq re: weapons.

Hussain Hussain Hussain! Argh.

[Gymoor #162]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo

Anyone who can string together more than five words together will, in your opinion, beat Bush in the debates.

It's decided for you, and your ilk,... but Bush's audience is NOT your ilk.

He only has to look like a genuine person to win because your "reasons for a sure win" are only impressive to your ilk, and not to anyone else.

To simplify it for you,.. the "dumbass ignorant" (as you would call them) will decide the election, and they won't use your criteria to decide the "winner".

Straw man. Nice use of the word "ilk." Dismissive, yet utterly devoid of critical thought.

I actually made points that were based on my impressions and my personal sizing up of the situation. You provided no analysis whatsoever, all you did was defensively try to deride my reasoning. What are you, 12?

OK,... :) I'll, once again, translate my words for you.

The criteria that people like you use to judge whether one WINS a debate are not the same criteria that people "not like you" use.

There are more "people NOT LIKE YOU" than there are "people like you".

You won't agree with my words, but that's just dandy. We each have our own ways of seeing things.

I WOULD comment on your sensitivity to "insult". One of the most prevelent characteristics of the "leftists" in these forums is their sensitivity to so-called "insult".

You all seem to think that "insult" is not a part of conversation. If the inbred society of leftist thought considers it so, of course, then for you it ISN'T a part of conversation. As it's "not polite".

But to me, and I can only speak for myself, "insults" are a light-hearted slap at the facade of one's conversation partner. To me, an insult cannot be "applied" to someone, it can be "allowed" by someone, though.

You cannot insult me if I do not allow your insults to be insulting.

They are merely your reaction, your viewpoint of what my words have told you I'm "about".

Your line, "What are you, 12?" is a perfectly valid statement, and says, to me, that you consider my words juvenile. And to you, what I say IS juvenile.

But instead of trying to understand the thrust of my words, you shut down when you see my "juvenile" behavior.

And I use your "shutdown" to judge your "worthiness" to converse with, as I take someone who can't "deal" with being insulted (one who accepts and over-reacts to insult) as someone who "doesn't GET the concept of conversation".

If you're under the misconception that these forums are DEBATES, when in fact they are nothing more than CONVERSATIONS, then you miss much interesting and illuminating conversation here.

And, of course, I wish you wisdom and everything good in the world otherwise..! :D I don't know enough about you to assume you're anything but a very nice and delightful person.

Now,.. am I or am I not a precocious 12 year old..!? :)

[Siljhouettes #174]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
To properly defeat an enemy, you must first understand him. To defeat a terrorist, you must remove their motivation.

We understand them now. There is nothing we could do whatsoever to "remove their motivation". That is utter fantasy.

Actually, we can do something. Do you think they hate the West for no reason at all? We can address the grievances of moderate Muslims in the Middle East. This way, none of them will go down the dangerous path of terrorist fanatacism.

For every terrorist you kill, two more take his place. The answer is not to stop going after terrorists - that must be done - but to address the root causes of the problem. Last week the British ambassador to Italy has said, "George Bush has been al-Qaeda's best recruiting sargeant for the past three years." I think it's true. Bush makes Muslims angrier and angrier with his policies. Guess what they do when they get angry?

I agree with you entirely. We should most definately help all people who want to be a productive part of any society be more effective and productive.

I'd LOVE to see the squalid conditions of all countries made better. It would give them something positive to work toward, instead of stewing in their own putrid juices and developing into putrid terrorists.

But,... the "root causes" are not ours to address. They are for the people of these "putrid" countries to address. And the way their governments and their populace choose to address them are largely ineffective and counter-productive.

And their ineffectiveness and counter-productiveness creates a condition that impinges on "the west", and "the west" must react to that condition.

If the US decides that it is in our best interest to "do a thing", regardless of the opinion of other nations, and then does it, then we will accept the reaction of others to our action. But if we consider our action appropriate, then what others say means very little.

The "creation and provocation" of terrorists is for those countries who create them and provoke them to deal with.

The killing of terrorists is for those countries that are threatened by them to deal with.

[Ownagia #191]
Hussain Hussain Hussain! Argh.

That's why I just refer to him as "Saddam".

..or "the Sad-man"

..or "Sodom H."

..or "Satan's Fnook-buddy".

:)

Gymoor said:
The only true way to fight terror is make them realize that there is more to live for than to die for (Kerry's turn of phrase.)

no offense man, but just HOW do you expect to deal with these terrorist organizations? They've had "Kill americans,kill infidels" said to them over and over for so long that it practically is all they live for, we can't just wave a magic wand of happiness and suddenly all the terrorists will love us. These people believe that killing us is their only way to get into heaven, now as heaven is the most sacred of places for all, these people are gonna do exactly what they believe will get them there, hence why they kill us so zealously, by "understanding" them we'd be endangering ourselves, we can't just go "Hey mr. terrorist why do you hate me so?" because hes just gonna shoot you. Maybe if we stop all this hatred at the source a.k.a not let them grow up hearing nothing but "kill americans,kill infidels". perhaps we can not stop terrorism after it has grown but if we let them grow up living their own lives instead of what some religious fanatic tells them then maybe, just maybe all this can stop, otherwise we cant just lay down our arms and say "sorry we killed you terrorist guys, can we get to know each other now?"

no offense man, but just HOW do you expect to deal with these terrorist organizations? They've had "Kill americans,kill infidels" said to them over and over for so long that it practically is all they live for, we can't just wave a magic wand of happiness and suddenly all the terrorists will love us. These people believe that killing us is their only way to get into heaven, now as heaven is the most sacred of places for all, these people are gonna do exactly what they believe will get them there, hence why they kill us so zealously, by "understanding" them we'd be endangering ourselves, we can't just go "Hey mr. terrorist why do you hate me so?" because hes just gonna shoot you. Maybe if we stop all this hatred at the source a.k.a not let them grow up hearing nothing but "kill americans,kill infidels". perhaps we can not stop terrorism after it has grown but if we let them grow up living their own lives instead of what some religious fanatic tells them then maybe, just maybe all this can stop, otherwise we cant just lay down our arms and say "sorry we killed you terrorist guys, can we get to know each other now?"

I NEVER said we should lay down our arms. I just want our policy to be tempered with more forethought into the long term fight against terrorism.

We can't wave a magic wand and suddenly change the ones that already hate us enough to die for their cause. I'm fully aware of this. What we do have to do is address the creation of NEW people joining their ranks. It's the difference between winning and losing a war of attrition.

Bush's policy has us losing the war of attrition, because it it clear he is fanning anti-American sentiment.

Kerry may be different, he may not. That's the chance we have to take, as with Bush there is no chance. The Bush team is really bad at this, and it should be clear to anyone. Rumsfeld especially is unqualified for his job, but Bush the Resolute will never change his mind on him.

Bush has actually painted himself into an ideological corner. He can't change his policies now, even if they are disastrous for fear of tainting his "Stay the Course" reputation that more people seem to respect than people who respect actual results.

I NEVER said we should lay down our arms. I just want our policy to be tempered with more forethought into the long term fight against terrorism.

We can't wave a magic wand and suddenly change the ones that already hate us enough to die for their cause. I'm fully aware of this. What we do have to do is address the creation of NEW people joining their ranks. It's the difference between winning and losing a war of attrition.

Bush's policy has us losing the war of attrition, because it it clear he is fanning anti-American sentiment.

Kerry may be different, he may not. That's the chance we have to take, as with Bush there is no chance. The Bush team is really bad at this, and it should be clear to anyone. Rumsfeld especially is unqualified for his job, but Bush the Resolute will never change his mind on him.

Bush has actually painted himself into an ideological corner. He can't change his policies now, even if they are disastrous for fear of tainting his "Stay the Course" reputation that more people seem to respect than people who respect actual results.
It's the flip side of his dads precieved problem. I've heard many times that the reason Bush Sr. lost his second bid was that after saying "Read my lips" the lips apparently said, "New taxes."

That, I think, is reductive, but moving on.

So what is the lesson that his son learned-never, no matter how bad an idea it turns out to be, change. While that isn't true, and Zeppistan has a pretty good list of that, Bush can't change the 'biggies' no matter how bad an idea they are because that's what everyone says sunk his dad.

Hopefully Bush will fail to get his second term and maybe, just maybe, people will say incumbents lose because they did a bad job.

But they'll probably blame it on 527s or hurricanes or something. So much for accountability in the white house, nothings thier fault.....apparently....

The Bush regime has been called on a pitiful fraction of their mis-steps, failings, and outright lies. The fear of the "liberal bias" label has rendered the media completely emasculated, and the Bush camp is skilled at deflecting criticism and charging their opponents with their own failings (i.e. Bush is a much bigger flip-flopper than Kerry, and on bigger issues as well.)

All those who believe Kerry has flip-flopped on Iraq, raise your hand.

Okay, all those who have your hands up, you have been misinformed.

Oh, and here's a transcript of his speech. A lot of good points in it that Bush has failed to address.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

The Bush regime has been called on a pitiful fraction of their mis-steps, failings, and outright lies. The fear of the "liberal bias" label has rendered the media completely emasculated, and the Bush camp is skilled at deflecting criticism and charging their opponents with their own failings (i.e. Bush is a much bigger flip-flopper than Kerry, and on bigger issues as well.)

All those who believe Kerry has flip-flopped on Iraq, raise your hand.

Okay, all those who have your hands up, you have been misinformed.

Oh, and here's a transcript of his speech. A lot of good points in it that Bush has failed to address.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0924.html

I'll give you this much ... you keep trying to blame President Bush for Kerry's shortcomings. The reason "the media [is] completely emasculated" is because their liberal bias has made them so. Every time they're called on it ( eg. "Rathergate" ) their bias shows by their response: "Well, even though the memo was fake, it was still true!" Groan. True by WHOSE standard? I think the following quote of Dan "we-don't-need-no-friggin'-research" Rather pretty much says it all: "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."

I'll give you this much ... you keep trying to blame President Bush for Kerry's shortcomings. The reason "the media [is] completely emasculated" is because their liberal bias has made them so. Every time they're called on it ( eg. "Rathergate" ) their bias shows by their response: "Well, even though the memo was fake, it was still true!" Groan. True by WHOSE standard? I think the following quote of Dan "we-don't-need-no-friggin'-research" Rather pretty much says it all: "I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."

Uh, what did your post here have to do with Kerry's shortcomings? You mentioned it, and then went off on a tangent about CBS.

There is no liberal bias in the CORPORATE MEDIA. You're using one incident to characterize an entire industry. There was a time when there might have been a liberal bias, but those times are long gone my friend. If the media was liberal, wouldn't it have fact-checked Bush's flip-flop characterization of Kerry instead of adopting it? Wouldn't it have emphasized every mis-step of Bush's?

If Kerry makes a minute error of phrasing, he is beat over the head, but Bush is given practically a free pass.

The pedulum has swung, the media is conservative. It makes sense for them to be conservative, since they are corporate entities now, and self-interest eventually over-rides everything else.

Anyhoo, have you ever responded to anything in Kerry's speech? Can you makes substantive disagreements with his points?

Uh, what did your post here have to do with Kerry's shortcomings? You mentioned it, and then went off on a tangent about CBS.
See comment at end of this post.

There is no liberal bias in the CORPORATE MEDIA. You're using one incident to characterize an entire industry. There was a time when there might have been a liberal bias, but those times are long gone my friend. If the media was liberal, wouldn't it have fact-checked Bush's flip-flop characterization of Kerry instead of adopting it? Wouldn't it have emphasized every mis-step of Bush's?
Funny how time and time again, evidence is presented showing liberal slant in the major news media yet it's ignored and leftists just continue the chant "There is no liberal bias, there is no liberal bias, there is no liberal bias."

If Kerry makes a minute error of phrasing, he is beat over the head, but Bush is given practically a free pass.
A free pass? Look at the majority of threads on these forums. They almost without fail turn into a Bush bashing tread, complete with links to Bushisms, his error in phrasing, or his mistaking one terrorist for another.

The pedulum has swung, the media is conservative. It makes sense for them to be conservative, since they are corporate entities now, and self-interest eventually over-rides everything else.
Your gross overgeneralization doesn't help your point. Corporate entities does not equal conservative. Anti-corporate does not equal liberal.

Anyhoo, have you ever responded to anything in Kerry's speech? Can you makes substantive disagreements with his points?
Kerry's speech is filled with his own campaign rhetoric. One example is the "outsourcing the job to Afgan warlords," comment.

He says Bush maked the wrong choice about the "greatest failure of intelligence in our history". Yet Kerry also had a hand in that failure. A major hand.

Kerry has been shown to say anything, do anything, be anything in effort to get elected. You choose to ignore that, because you hate Bush so much.

Gymoor said:
The only true way to fight terror is make them realize that there is more to live for than to die for (Kerry's turn of phrase.)

no offense man, but just HOW do you expect to deal with these terrorist organizations? They've had "Kill americans,kill infidels" said to them over and over for so long that it practically is all they live for, we can't just wave a magic wand of happiness and suddenly all the terrorists will love us. These people believe that killing us is their only way to get into heaven, now as heaven is the most sacred of places for all, these people are gonna do exactly what they believe will get them there, hence why they kill us so zealously, by "understanding" them we'd be endangering ourselves, we can't just go "Hey mr. terrorist why do you hate me so?" because hes just gonna shoot you. Maybe if we stop all this hatred at the source a.k.a not let them grow up hearing nothing but "kill americans,kill infidels". perhaps we can not stop terrorism after it has grown but if we let them grow up living their own lives instead of what some religious fanatic tells them then maybe, just maybe all this can stop, otherwise we cant just lay down our arms and say "sorry we killed you terrorist guys, can we get to know each other now?"

Good post. Why oh why can't leftists understand that blowing sunshine up their collective ass isn't going to dissuade radical Islamists from killing every Westerner they can, and many times killing themselves in the process? It doesn't matter who is in office in the US, it doesn't matter how many times we "try to understand them," NOTHING we can do will matter. They are implacable, unyielding and patient, not to mention that "Allah" has told them that killing infidels, Jews and Christians will earn them a place in heaven ... and don't forget those "seven virgins!"

Good post. Why oh why can't leftists understand that blowing sunshine up their collective ass isn't going to dissuade radical Islamists from killing every Westerner they can, and many times killing themselves in the process? It doesn't matter who is in office in the US, it doesn't matter how many times we "try to understand them," NOTHING we can do will matter. They are implacable, unyielding and patient, not to mention that "Allah" has told them that killing infidels, Jews and Christians will earn them a place in heaven ... and don't forget those "seven virgins!"

Great post AND re-post! Don't forget that by and large patience is their most dangerous virtue. They can and will wait twenty years until we've let down our guard again and national defense isn't a priority issue anymore, and then do it all again, killing thousands more.

It's like hatred in our own country. You don't grow up hating... it's taught to you. Change the teachings, or you'll never change the hatred.

Funny how time and time again, evidence is presented showing liberal slant in the major news media yet it's ignored and leftists just continue the chant "There is no liberal bias, there is no liberal bias, there is no liberal bias."

Funny how the conservative keep screaming "liberal media!" when time and time again evidence is presented of conservative bias in the major news media. Face it, just because some story have a liberal bend does not make the networks biased. I suppose, you think FOX news doesn't have a conservative bias?


A free pass? Look at the majority of threads on these forums. They almost without fail turn into a Bush bashing tread, complete with links to Bushisms, his error in phrasing, or his mistaking one terrorist for another.

Yet how many major network are airing this? How is the liberal bias you keep mentionning?

Good post. Why oh why can't leftists understand that blowing sunshine up their collective ass isn't going to dissuade radical Islamists from killing every Westerner they can, and many times killing themselves in the process? It doesn't matter who is in office in the US, it doesn't matter how many times we "try to understand them," NOTHING we can do will matter. They are implacable, unyielding and patient, not to mention that "Allah" has told them that killing infidels, Jews and Christians will earn them a place in heaven ... and don't forget those "seven virgins!"

What made us stop doing crusade to retake the holy land? Education and a sense of ethics. What makes you think that a better education in these countries will not stop the terrorist from recruiting. Mis-information and a lack of education are the terrorist's greatest tool. It's easy for them to show how evil the US is when the guy has no other notion than what he sees daily.

As soon as the western world got better educated, we stopped listening to the clergy when he told us that "you'll go to hell if you don't vote for this candidate". Why do you think that the radical Imans do not want the women population in school? Because they fear loosing their grip on the power. Women thinking for themseles will mean the end of some outdated practice in the Islam nations.

Education is the key to winning this war. I'm not saying to let them do whatever they want, I'm saying bombing them back to the stone age will only perpetuate the terrorism. An eye for an eye is an outdated notion.

What made us stop doing crusade to retake the holy land? Education and a sense of ethics. What makes you think that a better education in these countries will not stop the terrorist from recruiting. Mis-information and a lack of education are the terrorist's greatest tool. It's easy for them to show how evil the US is when the guy has no othernotion than what he sees daily.

As soon as the western world got better educated, we stopped listening to the clergy when he told us that "you'll go to hell if you don't vote for this candidate". Why do you think that the radical Imans do not want the women population in school? Because they fear loosing their grip on the power. Women thinking for themseles will mean the end of some outdated practice in the Islam nations.

Education is the key to winning this war. I'm not saying to let them do whatever they want, I'm saying bombing them back to the stone age will only perpetuate the terrorism. An eye for an eye is an outdated notion.

Perfectly stated

I asked for a substantive appraisal of Kerry's speech, and this is what I got:

Kerry's speech is filled with his own campaign rhetoric. One example is the "outsourcing the job to Afgan warlords," comment.

He says Bush maked the wrong choice about the "greatest failure of intelligence in our history". Yet Kerry also had a hand in that failure. A major hand.

Kerry has been shown to say anything, do anything, be anything in effort to get elected. You choose to ignore that, because you hate Bush so much.

First, how is the outsourcing phrase incorrect? We pulled most of our troops out and basically turned the countryside over to the Warlords. This, in turn, has allowed the Taliban and Al Qaida to refor to an extent. Also, I might add, we have not gotten Bin Laden.

Second, you say Kerry had a hand in the failure of the intelligence leading up to 9/11. In what way? Are you implying that Kerry had a hand in the move to war? Yes Kerry approved of the authorization to go to war, but he has correctly been a critic of how that authorization has been carried out. Again, you add nothing substantive, you just add the equivalent of "yeah, Kerry sucks too."

You say Kerry has been proven to say anything and do anything to get elected. I say that that charge is more appropriate to George W Bush. How? George W lies about his opponent's position. Kerry did not vote to deprive the men of body armor. That lack of body armor was built in to the defense department's plan. It was their fault that they did not allow for enough body armor to go around even before the $87 billion dollar appropriations bill was introduced. George W has lied that Kerry has flip-flopped about Iraq. Kerry was a proponent of the war, it's true, but has always been a critic of the timing of the war and the planning for the aftermath of major operations. Prove me wrong. George W lies about the conditions in Iraq, as a recent Reuters article clearly pointed out.

Now, how about you actually supply a substantive critique of Kerry's plan without using dismissive rhetoric? What are the weaknesses of his plan. Is there any disinformation included in the plan. If so, back up your comments with concrete fact.

Sorry to be hard on you TheOneRule, but you have to admit that all you did was put forward your dubious view of Kerry without anything solid behind it.

[Gymoor #198]
The Bush regime has been called on a pitiful fraction of their mis-steps, failings, and outright lies. The fear of the "liberal bias" label has rendered the media completely emasculated, and the Bush camp is skilled at deflecting criticism and charging their opponents with their own failings (i.e. Bush is a much bigger flip-flopper than Kerry, and on bigger issues as well.)

All those who believe Kerry has flip-flopped on Iraq, raise your hand.

Okay, all those who have your hands up, you have been misinformed.

Oh, and here's a transcript of his speech. A lot of good points in it that Bush has failed to address.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/..._2004_0924.html

Keep up the leftist nonsense..! It makes your noise more and more annoying, and makes your cause more and more distasteful to the majority.

We grant you your minority. Minority opinion is what makes majority opinion a majority. We love the contrast.

Tit for tat comparisons are not great convincers, because any mis-step, failing and "lie" is easily glossed over by any competant political organization.

Your ravings only impress others in your emotional investment, and those who agree with you like it, while those who don't think you're a loon.

May you be happy in your minority status. Until it becomes a majority one. :)

Heh he he he... which could take some time.

Keep up the leftist nonsense..! It makes your noise more and more annoying, and makes your cause more and more distasteful to the majority.

We grant you your minority. Minority opinion is what makes majority opinion a majority. We love the contrast.

Tit for tat comparisons are not great convincers, because any mis-step, failing and "lie" is easily glossed over by any competant political organization.

Your ravings only impress others in your emotional investment, and those who agree with you like it, while those who don't think you're a loon.

May you be happy in your minority status. Until it becomes a majority one. :)

Heh he he he... which could take some time.

Actually, Democrats outnumber Republicans, but I don't need the comfort of the majority to make me feel worthwhile. I'm perfectly happy being a unique individual. Your ravings are funny, too. Why do you hate the majority of Americans so much? Do you hate us for our freedoms? Do you wish you too could feel empathy for the downtrodden? Do you wish that there was something more important in your life than the holy pursuit of the almighty dollar? Do you wish you had the clarity of thought to clearly see that other viewpoints than your own might matter? Ah. The jealousy of the cold-hearted conservative. It's good that they live in their right-wing fantasy land, otherwise they'd use their much-valued right to bear arms to end their stark, emotionally meaningless lives.

Do you need a hug?

I asked for a substantive appraisal of Kerry's speech, and this is what I got:



First, how is the outsourcing phrase incorrect? We pulled most of our troops out and basically turned the countryside over to the Warlords. This, in turn, has allowed the Taliban and Al Qaida to refor to an extent. Also, I might add, we have not gotten Bin Laden.

Second, you say Kerry had a hand in the failure of the intelligence leading up to 9/11. In what way? Are you implying that Kerry had a hand in the move to war? Yes Kerry approved of the authorization to go to war, but he has correctly been a critic of how that authorization has been carried out. Again, you add nothing substantive, you just add the equivalent of "yeah, Kerry sucks too."

You say Kerry has been proven to say anything and do anything to get elected. I say that that charge is more appropriate to George W Bush. How? George W lies about his opponent's position. Kerry did not vote to deprive the men of body armor. That lack of body armor was built in to the defense department's plan. It was their fault that they did not allow for enough body armor to go around even before the $87 billion dollar appropriations bill was introduced. George W has lied that Kerry has flip-flopped about Iraq. Kerry was a proponent of the war, it's true, but has always been a critic of the timing of the war and the planning for the aftermath of major operations. Prove me wrong. George W lies about the conditions in Iraq, as a recent Reuters article clearly pointed out.

Now, how about you actually supply a substantive critique of Kerry's plan without using dismissive rhetoric? What are the weaknesses of his plan. Is there any disinformation included in the plan. If so, back up your comments with concrete fact.

Sorry to be hard on you TheOneRule, but you have to admit that all you did was put forward your dubious view of Kerry without anything solid behind it.
I didnt say the phrase outsourcing was correct or incorrect. I merely said it was rhetoric. And it was.

Im saying that Kerry was responsible for intelligence votes before the senate, and he failed the US people there.

I said Kerry would say anything to get elected, and your reply was Oh yea! Bush is worse!!.

I didnt say the phrase outsourcing was correct or incorrect. I merely said it was rhetoric. And it was.

Im saying that Kerry was responsible for intelligence votes before the senate, and he failed the US people there.

I said Kerry would say anything to get elected, and your reply was Oh yea! Bush is worse!!.

Wait, since when did Kerry show up for his Intel Committee hearings? Was he ever there? Also, wasn't he the one that tried to cut 6 BILLION dollars from the Intelligent Budget?

Yep, he did fail the People of the USA when he was on the Senate Intel Committee.

Wait, since when did Kerry show up for his Intel Committee hearings? Was he ever there? Also, wasn't he the one that tried to cut 6 BILLION dollars from the Intelligent Budget?

Yep, he did fail the People of the USA when he was on the Senate Intel Committee.

First, that's an inflated statistic that reflects primarily the time since he started campaigning. It's not like he was on vacation for the entire month before our country was hit with the biggest terrorist attack ever on our nation's soil or has been on vacation for a larger percentage of his time in office than any president in history.

2nd, it was the CIA and the Bush administration that primarily collected the intel that lead to our intelligence. The intel committee meetings are primarily concerned with oversight and funding, not intelligence gathering. Oh, and before you start wailing about Kerry cutting intelligence funding, remember that the sum total Kerry ever considered cutting was 1%. The Republican's plan was for slightly less. Furthermore, the voice of a single man does not carry much weight in the Senate, so all of you who think Kerry was "Super Senator, with the power to single-handedly change policy by the use of his golden mega waffle!" are only making yourselves look silly.

First, that's an inflated statistic that reflects primarily the time since he started campaigning. It's not like he was on vacation for the entire month before our country was hit with the biggest terrorist attack ever on our nation's soil or has been on vacation for a larger percentage of his time in office than any president in history.

2nd, it was the CIA and the Bush administration that primarily collected the intel that lead to our intelligence. The intel committee meetings are primarily concerned with oversight and funding, not intelligence gathering. Oh, and before you start wailing about Kerry cutting intelligence funding, remember that the sum total Kerry ever considered cutting was 1%. The Republican's plan was for slightly less. Furthermore, the voice of a single man does not carry much weight in the Senate, so all of you who think Kerry was "Super Senator, with the power to single-handedly change policy by the use of his golden mega waffle!" are only making yourselves look silly.
So, what you are saying is that Kerry was totally ineffectual during his tenure in the US Senate. Boy that sure is a reason to vote for him :rolleyes:

So, what you are saying is that Kerry was totally ineffectual during his tenure in the US Senate. Boy that sure is a reason to vote for him :rolleyes:

No, I was merely saying that he was 1 in 100, just like every other Senator. I am saying that Bush has been completely ineffectual as President though.