NationStates Jolt Archive

casue 85% of the threads are pure poltical spin against bush (the 85% was just you know what I notice), I mean we use the same arguments in every thread (yes both sides) and they aren't changing anything why do those threads still exist they're nearly spam.

casue 85% of the threads are pure poltical spin against bush (the 85% was just you know what I notice), I mean we use the same arguments in every thread (yes both sides) and they aren't changing anything why do those threads still exist they're nearly spam.


entertainment

entertainment
I find them dullI mean come on all they are is "are not are so threads"

They are annoying....heh, everything said in each of those kerry/bush threads could all be fit into one big thread....waste of space with all these different ones really....

And yet you continue to read and respond to them, and continue to post up threads like this one.

casue 85% of the threads are pure poltical spin against bush (the 85% was just you know what I notice), I mean we use the same arguments in every thread (yes both sides) and they aren't changing anything why do those threads still exist they're nearly spam.r

All the more fun to be had Nov. 3, friend. ;)

To answer your question in the thread title, of course not. I am, but others are not.

so once again... bump

I'm not tired of bashing Bush. The man deserves a public spanking, stoning, tarring and feathering and execution for war crimes or at least life in prison (I am against capital punishment.. even for this idiot in the white palace).

Just imagine the fun if there's another election controversy.

You might as well give it it's own forum! :p

I'm not tired of bashing Bush. The man deserves a public spanking, stoning, tarring and feathering and execution for war crimes or at least life in prison (I am against capital punishment.. even for this idiot in the white palace).
cry me a river all you do is bash bash bash "bush lied about weapons of mass destruction" "The shrub is a Homophobe who oppress what he fears" "the patriot act prevents civil liberties.

I would say that anyone who starts a war under false pretenses, and therefore is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, deserves all the bashing he gets, and much, much more.

I would say that anyone who starts a war under false pretenses, and therefore is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, deserves all the bashing he gets, and much, much more.

Agreed. Unlike some, I like to ocassionally back up my "is so/is not" arguments with actual documentation.

Cuz moderation is for geeks. See both sides of the issues? Why! It's obvious the candidates don't bother.

So let's just argue... to the extreme! One guy is the second coming, the other deserves a good public flogging! Hoorah!

The reason that we have so many regurgitated 'bushsuxomgwtflol' threads is that the majority of forum users are (I suspect) in their teens, (as am I). Young people tend to be more idiological than older people. They've seen less of the world, and believe that it should be a happy, perfect place with flowers and candy for all, and by extension that anyone who makes it less happy should die.

I second the motion. If Max or any of his mods happen to look in here, I suggest that we have a forum called "Bush-Bashing", and simply let the masses go. Those who don't want to hear, then, can have the General Forum for Paradise Island XXVI.

Anyone tired of Kerry bashing? ;)

Of course I'm tired. I've got the fatigue like you wouldn't believe. But I've also got 3 weeks until the election, so I refuse to stop. It's too important to defeat Bush to stop. So if you're tired of it, I feel for you, but it's going to be a loooooooooooooong 3 weeks. Strap in.

Of course I'm tired. I've got the fatigue like you wouldn't believe. But I've also got 3 weeks until the election, so I refuse to stop. It's too important to defeat Bush to stop. So if you're tired of it, I feel for you, but it's going to be a loooooooooooooong 3 weeks. Strap in.
reapetivtive writing isn't going to convince anyone.

reapetivtive writing isn't going to convince anyone.Not you, perhaps, but then again, I'm not in it so much to bash Bush as I am to make sure that Bush supporters don't lie about either Bush's accomplishments or Kerry's stances on issues. I'm trying to be more of an accuracy cop. It just looks like I'm Bush-bashing because the facts are so often against him.

The reason that we have so many regurgitated 'bushsuxomgwtflol' threads is that the majority of forum users are (I suspect) in their teens, (as am I). Young people tend to be more idiological than older people. They've seen less of the world, and believe that it should be a happy, perfect place with flowers and candy for all, and by extension that anyone who makes it less happy should die.

Actually, my entirely unscientific poll, here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361110), puts the kiddies at just around 1/4 of the population.

:headbang: :sniper: :cool:
Bush is a dickhead and deserves all the bashing he gets.
Wanting something better is not idealogical. He's the idealogical one who thinks he can stop terrorism. He made a lot of the world hate us even more and fucked up the economy pretty badly.

I'm young and a liberal. This doesn't mean I'm naive becasue I haven't seen the "real" world. I live in Costa Rica, a third world country. My life is VERY different from a normal teenager in the states or Europe. I see people suffer, people starve, I see the problems the country has with foreign companies destroying the environment and empolying children for a penny a day. Helping the situation wouldn't be ahrd at all. That is of course if we had a TRUE liberal president who TRULY cared. (i.e Not bush and probably not Kerry.)

Actually, my entirely unscientific poll, here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=361110), puts the kiddies at just around 1/4 of the population.


Wow, I am new at this nation states thing, but after reading through the forums and the attacks on Bush and kerry, I thought that everyone was in junior high. Very few people have any true evidence, and most of the stuff cited is either illogical or untrue.

Most people's "logic" seems to be:

1. Don't vote for Bush, because he can't talk well.
2. Don't Vote for Kerry because he's a flip-flopping liberal who is weak on terrorism.
3. Kerry fought in 'Nam, so we should vote for him, DUMBASS!!!!
4. Well, just because Bush is a poor debater that doesn't mean he's dumb, you retarded ass-hole!!

I mean, grow up people. At least present your position in a logical manner without personal attacks. I have seen VERY FEW facts on the forums, just a lot of Kerry's better, NO Bush is better!!! If that's all you want to do, then fine, but you are not going to persuade anybody who is intelligent.

I find most of those threads to be pretty silly honestly, but then I've only been here for a few weeks. Ask me again in 2 :p

Don't for either of those guys, vote Griffin! Peter Griffin for Pres! :D

Personally, I'm tired of all the hard-headed posters who refuse to listen to reason or to accept the facts which fly in the face of their fallacy riddled notions.
Bashing Bush just for the sake of bashing is ridiculous, but correcting a contrary assertion, or arguing a point, is not. In those cases I am exercising the right to free speech and fullfilling my responsibility as a free citizen to dispell misconceptions and resist tyranny. The two go hand in hand.

Answer- yes.

Wow, I am new at this nation states thing, but after reading through the forums and the attacks on Bush and kerry, I thought that everyone was in junior high. Very few people have any true evidence, and most of the stuff cited is either illogical or untrue.

Most people's "logic" seems to be:

1. Don't vote for Bush, because he can't talk well.
2. Don't Vote for Kerry because he's a flip-flopping liberal who is weak on terrorism.
3. Kerry fought in 'Nam, so we should vote for him, DUMBASS!!!!
4. Well, just because Bush is a poor debater that doesn't mean he's dumb, you retarded ass-hole!!

I mean, grow up people. At least present your position in a logical manner without personal attacks. I have seen VERY FEW facts on the forums, just a lot of Kerry's better, NO Bush is better!!! If that's all you want to do, then fine, but you are not going to persuade anybody who is intelligent.

That's an easy, yet highly dismissive conclusion to come to. It's part of what drove me to poll the education level of the posters, as every once in a while a new person comes on the board and derides everybody for being in junior high. Bad arguments are easy to write and don't have to be considered, so they might show up more often in some cases. The good arguments are there, you just have to have patience...

Any word on the feelings about Kerry-bashing? ;)

Any word on the feelings about Kerry-bashing? ;)
its starting to get old but you guys have bashed bush far longer.

Any word on the feelings about Kerry-bashing? ;)

If it can be defended it's easier to take, so while it might happen now and then you're not as likely to see Kerry supporters saying "Stop picking on me," and rather just defending the candidate.

Oh yeah, gonna get picked on for that....

Well yeah, he's been public more hasn't he? Kerry really just became famous since he became a nominee...so naturally Bush would have been bashed on longer....

EDIT: Well, this was in reply to that other guys post until he edited it...oh well....

Yay..this call to stop political threads turned into one!

Not you, perhaps, but then again, I'm not in it so much to bash Bush as I am to make sure that Bush supporters don't lie about either Bush's accomplishments or Kerry's stances on issues. I'm trying to be more of an accuracy cop. It just looks like I'm Bush-bashing because the facts are so often against him.

Look, it's not Bush bashing to point out where he's wrong or where his supporters are wrong, or to point out where your candidate is right. Nor is it Bush-bashing to correct his misstatements and lies, or those of his running mate and proxies. And it really isn't "Bush bashing" to question his judgment or publicly disagree with his policies and decisions. That's patriotism, and it's one of the reasons why we had a Revolution.

I agree that there's a whole lot of "Bush is a dick" etc. etc. etc. bashing that is wholly unnecessary. The facts are more than enough.

Though I often have a hard time with it, I believe in respecting the office. Granted, Bush makes that more difficult than ever before. But really, calling someone a dick or an a--hole doesn't help or solve anything, and it only turns off people who might otherwise listen to the facts.

He lied even your canidate thought he was right at the time, he's a moron prove it, he opresses gay well I won't get into that right now, kerrys better cry me a river

its starting to get old but you guys have bashed bush far longer.

That's because Bush has been president longer than Kerry has been a candidate for president. Who were the right supposed to bash before the primaries?

He lied even your canidate thought he was right at the time, he's a moron prove it, he opresses gay well I won't get into that right now, kerrys better cry me a river

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Seriously, learn what the "English language" is.

its starting to get old but you guys have bashed bush far longer.
He's been screwing up in the public eye longer.

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Seriously, learn what the "English language" is.

He's summing up what a lot of the political bickering threads turn into....

Kerry: "The Iraq War was misguided, a diversion, from the real war against AlQueda, etc..."

Bush: "Well, you supported me! HAHA! Aren't you guys pissed you didn't pick Dean? At least that guy was consistent! If I was debating Dean right now, I might have to try to justify my actions rather than just say my opponent supported me!"

I will never tire of Bush bashing. Ever.

Bush should be bashed up one side and down the other as often as humanly possible, without relent, without remorse, and in the most unspeakably vile language as possible.

It should continue long after his "Presidency" has come to an end and he is a tired old man sitting on his porch trying to convince his grandchildren that he was a good President.

His epitath should be nothing but bashing. His tombstone should read: "I was here, but only toothless bumpkins with 3 drunken brain cells actually appreciated that fact".

After his death, all 9/11 rememberance rituals should include every American who has had to endure his nightmarish agenda being able to dance on his grave.

The date of his departure from office should become a national holiday where part of the celebration is to go to his house and bitch slap him.

No, good sir, I will never tire of Bush bashing.

casue 85% of the threads are pure poltical spin against bush (the 85% was just you know what I notice), I mean we use the same arguments in every thread (yes both sides) and they aren't changing anything why do those threads still exist they're nearly spam.
Bush sucks

Bush never seems to tire of making himself look like a fool so I see no reason to tire of pointing it out.

He bashes himself. Every time he opens his mouth to speak. And that's with a hidden prompter. Don't blame those who laugh at his follies. We're just being entertained. Constantly.

GO BUSH!!!!!!!!! (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=344)

He lied even your canidate thought he was right at the time, he's a moron prove it, he opresses gay well I won't get into that right now, kerrys better cry me a river

Bush did lie, he lied over WMDs, links to Al Qaeda (either through omission - not correcting erroneous newspaper and media reports - or through implicit or explicit references to the "links"). The War on Iraq had no legal framework by which to proceed. Bush et al. are therefore guilty of war crimes and should be tried at the Hague. Whether they recognise it or not.

Kerry supported him. The idiot. Although it's arguable that the "patriotic / revenge" atmosphere flying around would have made it hard not to vote in favour. Especially with an election coming up - Kerry would be hard pressed to defend not supporting the war at all. Kerry also, afaik, supported the Patriot Act. The idiot.

Kerry voted against the reconstruction cash. The idiot. Another weapon Republicans can use against him. Although the classic defense is that most of the money earmarked for reconstruction hasnt been spent yet - thus why earmark more? Find ways to spend it, and attack Bush over the Cheney / Halliburton link and Halliburton's excessive charging.

Bush may not be a 'moron', but he's a dammed idiot. Personally I think Kofi Annan should have agreed to allow the War if Bush could find Iraq on a map. (Come on Bush, stand at the front and show the class just where you want to drop bombs... No Mr. President, that's Boston... Try again...)

End of the day, Kerry is an idiot riding a wave of apathy. Bush is an idiot riding a wave of knee-jerk patriotism. Neither should be in charge of a kindergarten, let alone the US presidency. Both feel that the US has a right to act in whatever way it feels like, and that "never asking for a permission slip" is an acceptable way to operate in the international community.

Bash both of them, and vote Bush.

At least that will give us a target for the custard pies. And next time the Democrats might remember to field a candidate, not a talking, saluting coatstand.

GO BUSH!!!!!!!!! (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=344)
yeah-- to hell :)

He can keep going past Hell for all I care. Maybe to some other level of being where he can really shine in his natural envronment - a one-dimensional universe...

He can keep going past Hell for all I care. Maybe to some other level of being where he can really shine in his natural envronment - a one-dimensional universe...
to match his one deminsional brain--"WE GOTTA STAY THE COURSE"

He can keep going past Hell for all I care. Maybe to some other level of being where he can really shine in his natural envronment - a one-dimensional universe...

As a line??????? Sorry, i agree, i'm not American but with my floppy ass-kisser of :headbang: a prime minister back in again bush will own my whole damm country if he wins in november.

As a line??????? Sorry, i agree, i'm not American but with my floppy ass-kisser o :headbang: f a prime minister back in again bush will own my whole damm country if he wins in november.

And mine. Mr. Bush likes our current beancounter of a Prime Minister - Martin - mostly 'cause he's just spineless enough to sign onto some insane new 'missile defence shield' program The Prez' cronies want to see America spend still more money on. And they want us to spend money on it, too.

GO BUSH!!!!!!!!! (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=344)

For a fruitcake (http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2003/12/fruitcake.jpg) you are quite the humorist! :rolleyes:

I would say that anyone who starts a war under false pretenses, and therefore is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocents, deserves all the bashing he gets, and much, much more.
And of course I would say the false pretenses are wrong. But yes, these threads(both sides) are getting old.

to match his one deminsional brain--"WE GOTTA STAY THE COURSE"


:) Nice try Quiz Kid!! BTW what is "deminsional"? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.

And mine. Mr. Bush likes our current beancounter of a Prime Minister - Martin - mostly 'cause he's just spineless enough to sign onto some insane new 'missile defence shield' program The Prez' cronies want to see America spend still more money on. And they want us to spend money on it, too.


Maybe you Canucks shouldn't have spent all of your "pesos'" on those crappy subs.

For a fruitcake (http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2003/12/fruitcake.jpg) you are quite the humorist! :rolleyes:

Although many of my associates are in fact fruity as a fruitcake, I happen to be straight. I would prefer the term: sniveling pinko commie long-haired pot-smoking hippie war-protesting Bush-bashing Michael-Moore-worshipping hopeless liberal. :D

The reason that we have so many regurgitated 'bushsuxomgwtflol' threads is that the majority of forum users are (I suspect) in their teens, (as am I). Young people tend to be more idiological than older people. They've seen less of the world, and believe that it should be a happy, perfect place with flowers and candy for all, and by extension that anyone who makes it less happy should die.

I second the motion. If Max or any of his mods happen to look in here, I suggest that we have a forum called "Bush-Bashing", and simply let the masses go. Those who don't want to hear, then, can have the General Forum for Paradise Island XXVI.

This is true, and a hell of a good reason why teens don't vote :) The more of the world you see for the most part the more realistic you become.

And of course I would say the false pretenses are wrong. But yes, these threads(both sides) are getting old.


I agree.

The false pretenses were wrong.

About as morally wrong as can be...but thats not what you meant, is it?

I agree.

The false pretenses were wrong.

About as morally wrong as can be...but thats not what you meant, is it?

No, its not. Seeing graves full of innocent civilians, thousands, killed by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime, made my mind up that we were right to remove him. Hearing Kurdish citizens tell of families gassed by this man in a WMD attack which killed thousands of his own people, convinced me that if he could, he would help someone do this to us.

No, its not. Seeing graves full of innocent civilians, thousands, killed by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime, made my mind up that we were right to remove him. Hearing Kurdish citizens tell of families gassed by this man in a WMD attack which killed thousands of his own people, convinced me that if he could, he would help someone do this to us.

Wether he would have or not, is irrelavant.

Becuase he couldnt.
Didnt have the goods.

From the very start, bush told us that he had them, and even claimed to know where they were at.

Yes, he killed some people with mustard gas, and thats not right.
It makes him a monster, becuase he killed 5000 of his own people.

Bush has killed 10,000 iraqis to date.

Apparently, for no reason.

No, its not. Seeing graves full of innocent civilians, thousands, killed by Saddam Hussein's criminal regime, made my mind up that we were right to remove him. Hearing Kurdish citizens tell of families gassed by this man in a WMD attack which killed thousands of his own people, convinced me that if he could, he would help someone do this to us.

Let's not forget that the US SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein's criminal regime for many years. Just as the US has supported many criminal regimes throughout the 20th century.

Don't like the bodies? Don't export weapons. Don't like criminal regimes that exploit human suffering and promote worldwide terror? Then start by cleaning your own house first.

Rid yourselves of your current, criminal administration.

Wether he would have or not, is irrelavant.

Becuase he couldnt.
Didnt have the goods.

From the very start, bush told us that he had them, and even claimed to know where they were at.

Yes, he killed some people with mustard gas, and thats not right.
It makes him a monster, becuase he killed 5000 of his own people.

Bush has killed 10,000 iraqis to date.

Apparently, for no reason.

Saddam killed closer to 90,000 of his own people. Nearly 7,000 in just the one WMD attack on the Kurds. Countless thousands lay in unmarked graves being excavated by US forces currently. The reason was to give these people freedom. Iraqis being killed now, are being killed by the terrorists posing as freedom fighters, far more than the occasional one or two killed by an airstrike. Whether freedom from terror and a brutal dictatorship was the stated reason or not for the war(and IMHO it should have been) it WAS an excellent reason. Too many times in the last century the world stood by while dictators crushed their own people. It is fitting if we may begin the new century with far less patience for these men. Perhaps next time we may be able to remove one BEFORE he can kill thousands, but at least acting finally in Iraq, we saved the lives of the thousands he would have killed in 2005 and beyond.

Let's not forget that the US SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein's criminal regime for many years. Just as the US has supported many criminal regimes throughout the 20th century.

Don't like the bodies? Don't export weapons. Don't like criminal regimes that exploit human suffering and promote worldwide terror? Then start by cleaning your own house first.

Rid yourselves of your current, criminal administration.

You talk as if you knew what you speak of, but in fact the weapons used by Iraq were not US made. They were Soviet, French, German(mostly) with spatterings of others.
For the rest, I agree, past administrations made the mistake of coddling him far too long. I am quite glad this administration ended that policy.

Saddam killed closer to 90,000 of his own people. Nearly 7,000 in just the one WMD attack on the Kurds. Countless thousands lay in unmarked graves being excavated by US forces currently. The reason was to give these people freedom. Iraqis being killed now, are being killed by the terrorists posing as freedom fighters, far more than the occasional one or two killed by an airstrike. Whether freedom from terror and a brutal dictatorship was the stated reason or not for the war(and IMHO it should have been) it WAS an excellent reason. Too many times in the last century the world stood by while dictators crushed their own people. It is fitting if we may begin the new century with far less patience for these men. Perhaps next time we may be able to remove one BEFORE he can kill thousands, but at least acting finally in Iraq, we saved the lives of the thousands he would have killed in 2005 and beyond.

Well, if only the fire department could amputate the limbs of people's kittycats, they could save thousands of kitties lives before they die falling out of tall trees.

Well, if only the fire department could amputate the limbs of people's kittycats, they could save thousands of kitties lives before they die falling out of tall trees.

For someone who I presumed was a "kind hearted liberal" you show a great deal of contempt for human lives, except when it runs with your political leaning of "the war is wrong" Your "can care less" type of response to the thousands upon thousands killed by the Saddam regime, makes your "care" for those who died in the war to free this nation, appear in a more correct light.

Saddam killed closer to 90,000 of his own people. Nearly 7,000 in just the one WMD attack on the Kurds. Countless thousands lay in unmarked graves being excavated by US forces currently. The reason was to give these people freedom. Iraqis being killed now, are being killed by the terrorists posing as freedom fighters, far more than the occasional one or two killed by an airstrike. Whether freedom from terror and a brutal dictatorship was the stated reason or not for the war(and IMHO it should have been) it WAS an excellent reason. Too many times in the last century the world stood by while dictators crushed their own people. It is fitting if we may begin the new century with far less patience for these men. Perhaps next time we may be able to remove one BEFORE he can kill thousands, but at least acting finally in Iraq, we saved the lives of the thousands he would have killed in 2005 and beyond.


So..let me get this straight....

Your telling me that we saved lives in Iraq, by invading them, and killing ten thousand of them in the process.

Your saying that we did them a FAVOR by attacking Iraq, when they didnt have any weapons (wmd's) at all?

Why then are they not welcoming us with open arms?
Why are they continuing to resist?

You think we gave them freedom??

The FIRST thing the new leader in Iraq did, was to declare martial law.

How in the hell are they any freer than they were before?

For someone who I presumed was a "kind hearted liberal" you show a great deal of contempt for human lives, except when it runs with your political leaning of "the war is wrong" Your "can care less" type of response to the thousands upon thousands killed by the Saddam regime, makes your "care" for those who died in the war to free this nation, appear in a more correct light.


and for someone who was touting the number of people killed by a ruthless, evil Saddam, you dont seem to care about the ten thousand that are dead as a result of his ousting.

So..let me get this straight....

Your telling me that we saved lives in Iraq, by invading them, and killing ten thousand of them in the process.

Your saying that we did them a FAVOR by attacking Iraq, when they didnt have any weapons (wmd's) at all?

Why then are they not welcoming us with open arms?
Why are they continuing to resist?

You think we gave them freedom??

The FIRST thing the new leader in Iraq did, was to declare martial law.

How in the hell are they any freer than they were before?
The overwhelming majority of those fighting are outside terrorists. It was against these, and against those who would have a new, religion based dictatorship, that the new president is trying to fight with his martial law declaration.
Also, MOST Iraqi civilians do greet US troops with open arms, but are growing impatient with the INABILITY to put down the terrorists.

and for someone who was touting the number of people killed by a ruthless, evil Saddam, you dont seem to care about the ten thousand that are dead as a result of his ousting.

Actually having been there and seen and heard with my own eyes, I do care. But every impression I got was that it is worth it for freedom.

I should say that I think it will only not be worth it if we bail out now. We must actually GIVE them what we promised, a free country, even if at the beginning we do not like their choice. Freedom will still be an inspiration to peace regionwide. People are less likely to become terrorists when they control their own destiny, so I think the US and allies should regardless of whether we like the results in the Jan election or not, abide by them.

Actually having been there and seen and heard with my own eyes, I do care. But every impression I got was that it is worth it for freedom.


Are they really any more free than they were?

They still live in fear.

Of Us...of terrorists..mostly of us.

They will still be told what to do by a dictator, put into power by the United States.

MAYBE..just maybe....in time....they wont have to worry about being shelled in thier own homes anymore.

I say , "Meet the New Boss..same as the Old Boss"

I wonder if, when the elections are over, there will still be this much discussing Bush and Kerry?

Are they really any more free than they were?

They still live in fear.

Of Us...of terrorists..mostly of us.

They will still be told what to do by a dictator, put into power by the United States.

MAYBE..just maybe....in time....they wont have to worry about being shelled in thier own homes anymore.

I say , "Meet the New Boss..same as the Old Boss"
They will elect their new leader..their leaders already elected their current president, more of a voice than they have had in their entire history.
They do not live in fear of US forces, except those who are caught in the middle between terrorists and the US, and I would hope that soon they will cease their fear of the terrorists, and turn them over, so these terrorists will stop seeking shelter in civilian areas.

I should say that I think it will only not be worth it if we bail out now. We must actually GIVE them what we promised, a free country, even if at the beginning we do not like their choice. Freedom will still be an inspiration to peace regionwide. People are less likely to become terrorists when they control their own destiny, so I think the US and allies should regardless of whether we like the results in the Jan election or not, abide by them.


Surely, you must realize that the U.S is going to be involved in Iraq, for at least a decade.
How then, are they going to "control thier own destiny"?

Are we offering them elections?

Are we taking a poll, asking if they want us to stay?

Are we really giving them any choice at all?

I wonder if, when the elections are over, there will still be this much discussing Bush and Kerry?

I CERTAINLY hope not...geez, supposedly the Dems stopped advertising in my state, but I still saw way too many special interest groups picking up the slack before I left.

They will elect their new leader..their leaders already elected their current president, more of a voice than they have had in their entire history.
They do not live in fear of US forces, except those who are caught in the middle between terrorists and the US, and I would hope that soon they will cease their fear of the terrorists, and turn them over, so these terrorists will stop seeking shelter in civilian areas.


So, your telling me that when innocent peoples homes are bombed in Fallujah, that they arent afraid ?

Surely, you must realize that the U.S is going to be involved in Iraq, for at least a decade.
How then, are they going to "control thier own destiny"?

Are we offering them elections?

Are we taking a poll, asking if they want us to stay?

Are we really giving them any choice at all?

Actually, you have not heard that we ARE offering them elections? In January?
US forces will stay if asked by the government, just as with any other government.

So, your telling me that when innocent peoples homes are bombed in Fallujah, that they arent afraid ?

Actually that falls into the one category I statedcaught between US forces and terrorists). Yet most of these people still blame the terrorists. Most blame that is leveled at the US is NOT for homes, etc, it is worry over religious points of interest. Yet people who profess to honor that religion, desecrate it by hiding in these points of interest.

Actually, you have not heard that we ARE offering them elections? In January?
US forces will stay if asked by the government, just as with any other government.


No.

The US will stay in Iraq for the next decade at least.
Gen. Clarke and all the other top military analysts Ive heard speak all agree.
Iraq will be a staging point in case the Middle east further destabilizes.
It is also conveintly on top of a lot of oil.

Theres no way that we will just give up prime real estate like that.

Actually that falls into the one category I statedcaught between US forces and terrorists). Yet most of these people still blame the terrorists. Most blame that is leveled at the US is NOT for homes, etc, it is worry over religious points of interest. Yet people who profess to honor that religion, desecrate it by hiding in these points of interest.


So, out of the approximately ten thousand people killed by the US in Iraq, how many do you think were actually enemy combatants?

No.

The US will stay in Iraq for the next decade at least.
Gen. Clarke and all the other top military analysts Ive heard speak all agree.
Iraq will be a staging point in case the Middle east further destabilizes.
It is also conveintly on top of a lot of oil.

Theres no way that we will just give up prime real estate like that.

I would refer you to my own post #68. If this happens, then and only then will this war be a mistake. Regardless of outcome the US must accept the election results in Iraq in January.
Also, all due respect, General Clark was fired from his post as NATO SACEUR
and has his own reasons for bias in his statement. Most other military analysts I have heard are out of the business for one reason or another, and rather out of touch in most instances.
Iraq COULD be a staging point. It might even have been part of the original goal, no idea there, but that is by no means anywhere near to being accomplished. US forces have been in many areas of lesser importance for longer than 10 years, so it is possible that , if the Iraqi govt agrees, we will be there also. It would make sense to me as well.
On a final note, if we wanted oil, there were far easier targets..Saudi Arabia for one, and we could have made a better case, most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi after all.

Let's guarantee our freedom by locking ourselves in a box. Then we'll be safe, secure, and free to live in a box. But we'll make everyone else live in boxes, too, so no-one'll feel jealous or emigrate to Europe.

I would refer you to my own post #68. If this happens, then and only then will this war be a mistake. Regardless of outcome the US must accept the election results in Iraq in January.
Also, all due respect, General Clark was fired from his post as NATO SACEUR
and has his own reasons for bias in his statement. Most other military analysts I have heard are out of the business for one reason or another, and rather out of touch in most instances.
Iraq COULD be a staging point. It might even have been part of the original goal, no idea there, but that is by no means anywhere near to being accomplished. US forces have been in many areas of lesser importance for longer than 10 years, so it is possible that , if the Iraqi govt agrees, we will be there also. It would make sense to me as well.
On a final note, if we wanted oil, there were far easier targets..Saudi Arabia for one, and we could have made a better case, most of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi after all.

Saudi Arabia?

Are you kidding?

Saudi Arabia are our "allies".
Have you seen the size of the Saudi Embassy in D.C?

Do you realize how well into each others pockets the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family are?

Theres no way.

So, out of the approximately ten thousand people killed by the US in Iraq, how many do you think were actually enemy combatants?

Actually the 10,000 figure is inaccurate, at least in the way you pose it. These were killed in the war, NOT"by the US" only.
Enemy combatants number approx. 75-85% of those KILLED BY THE US however.
It is also interesting to note that the terrorists themselves have killed nearly 850 Iraqi troops in their guerilla campaign, along with 3,000+ Iraqi civilians, these are included in the 10,000 figure(which is actually incorrect also, more like 12,000 killed in various forms of combat.)

Actually the 10,000 figure is inaccurate, at least in the way you pose it. These were killed in the war, NOT"by the US" only.
Enemy combatants number approx. 75-85% of those KILLED BY THE US however.
It is also interesting to note that the terrorists themselves have killed nearly 850 Iraqi troops in their guerilla campaign, along with 3,000+ Iraqi civilians, these are included in the 10,000 figure(which is actually incorrect also, more like 12,000 killed in various forms of combat.)


Either way, your still talking about 25% of the total number of casualties being innocent non-combatants.

That sounds acceptable to you?

If this war had been started for truly altruistic reasons, and truly was meant for the betterment of the Iraqi people, I migt even say thats ok.

But we both know it wasnt.

It was started on poor intelligence, and for the wrong reasons.

There were other options, and Bush didnt want to hear them.

Saudi Arabia?

Are you kidding?

Saudi Arabia are our "allies".
Have you seen the size of the Saudi Embassy in D.C?

Do you realize how well into each others pockets the Bush family and the Saudi Royal Family are?

Theres no way.

The Saudi embassy, of course, is paid for by them, they can have as large as they wish.
The rest is points of which I am unsure, except one ...US forces in Saudi Arabia have ALREADY drawn down, contrary to the wish of the Saudi govt. For me, the mere expense of keeping forces deployed to defend Saudi from a threat from Iraq, it was worth removing the threat simply so we could leave that hot, desert hell hole of a country.(Sorry if any Saudis here, nothing personal)

Either way, your still talking about 25% of the total number of casualties being innocent non-combatants.

That sounds acceptable to you?

If this war had been started for truly altruistic reasons, and truly was meant for the betterment of the Iraqi people, I migt even say thats ok.

But we both know it wasnt.

It was started on poor intelligence, and for the wrong reasons.

There were other options, and Bush didnt want to hear them.

I do not pretend to know what was behind the political decision for war. We who fought it knew our reasons. As for bad intelligence..well, in the military, ALL intelligence is usually looked at skeptically :) My point between Bush and Kerry however is that Kerry had the exact same intel briefings, and saw a reason for the war as well. Also, the head of the CIA(titularly in charge of intelligence) was a Clinton appointee, so there also I see no relevance to some dark plot by Bush.

Either way, your still talking about 25% of the total number of casualties being innocent non-combatants.

That sounds acceptable to you?

If this war had been started for truly altruistic reasons, and truly was meant for the betterment of the Iraqi people, I migt even say thats ok.

But we both know it wasnt.

It was started on poor intelligence, and for the wrong reasons.

There were other options, and Bush didnt want to hear them.
In war there are casualties. While it is extremely unpleasant, it is a fact. As an officer, I look to make the best tradeoff, basically. I am certain the president does as well...3,000 civilians killed by the US, say, vs the 5-8,000 that likely would have been killed by Saddam between his removal and now..that is an unfortunate way to look at it, but it is also factually accurate.

I do not pretend to know what was behind the political decision for war. We who fought it knew our reasons. As for bad intelligence..well, in the military, ALL intelligence is usually looked at skeptically :) My point between Bush and Kerry however is that Kerry had the exact same intel briefings, and saw a reason for the war as well. Also, the head of the CIA(titularly in charge of intelligence) was a Clinton appointee, so there also I see no relevance to some dark plot by Bush.


Right.

We all know that the intelligence was selective.
Its been proven that Bush gave orders to invade Iarq, and then requested the intelligence tp prove his claim.
This is common knowledge, so lets not debate that.

Kerry, supported the war, when his information was based on that same poor intelligence.

As for A dark plot.....Im not so sure.

I dont think it was a conspiracy to rule the world or something....But I do believe that oil played a large part of it.

Its also conceivable taht Bush actually thinks hes doing the right thing.
I cant honestly think how that could be, but its a possibility.

How Bush went against the advice of his own father, and all of the top military advisors, and half of his own nation, and most of the world....is also beyond me.

In war there are casualties. While it is extremely unpleasant, it is a fact. As an officer, I look to make the best tradeoff, basically. I am certain the president does as well...3,000 civilians killed by the US, say, vs the 5-8,000 that likely would have been killed by Saddam between his removal and now..that is an unfortunate way to look at it, but it is also factually accurate.


But how can you say that 5-800 civillians would ahve been killed by Hussein?
Thats a hypothetical statement.

Right.

We all know that the intelligence was selective.
Its been proven that Bush gave orders to invade Iarq, and then requested the intelligence tp prove his claim.
This is common knowledge, so lets not debate that.

.

Actually, it has not been proven. I have heard the allegation, but for whatever I think of the CIA, I do not see them "coloring" the intel. Not only because as I said the head was a Clinton appointee with little reason to help Bush. Also because the WMD was factual. Prior to the invasion, the entire security council found Iraq to be not in compliance. They passed this resolution unanimously. The fact that Saddam DID, indeed, have WMD(documented and proven) that he simply claimed(against the backdrop of many denials) he had "destroyed" with no witnesses or evidence, would have made the threat credible. The fact he continually kicked out inspectors trying to verify whether or not he HAD destroyed these, also made it appear as if he had something to hide. In the post 9-11 world, the possibility, even faint, that a WMD could be purchased from a cash hungry Saddam by someone like bin laden, with cash to burn, was worthy of plenty of thought.

But how can you say that 5-800 civillians would ahve been killed by Hussein?
Thats a hypothetical statement.
Yes, the numbers are hypothetical. The reason they are hypothetical however is we removed him, so we will never see. From reports of his citizens however, over the last 3 years 4,000 of his citizens were arrested and executed each year. In more than a year since his removal, it is though hypothetical, a safe guess that 5-8,000 lives were saved for the cost of 25-3500 civilians killed by the US(likely that whoever planned this however did not count on terrorists killing several thousands more Iraqis as well)

Right.


How Bush went against the advice of his own father, and all of the top military advisors, and half of his own nation, and most of the world....is also beyond me.

Just a couple of final points before I have to go begin my day officially :)
It is also common knowledge that most of the world governments who opposed the war, did so because they were benefitting from the oil for food scandal at the UN.
And finally, allow me to say your posts are well thought out. Pleasure talking with you.

Let us not forget the current spin, kids.

Neocons don't lie ... they're just misinformed by bad intelligence.

bush-> :headbang: <- my fist

bashy bashy bash bash

bush-> :headbang: <- my fist

bashy bashy bash bash

Doesn't he have one of those faces that you could enjoy punching for hours?

I mean, even if I didn't know he was a braindead monkey, that face would take a hammering.

EDIT: ...said the pacifist. :D

Doesn't he have one of those faces that you could enjoy punching for hours?

I mean, even if I didn't know he was a braindead monkey, that face would take a hammering.

EDIT: ...said the pacifist. :D
:eek: He's a braindead monkey?

:eek: He's a braindead monkey?

You m...you...didn't know?!

You m...you...didn't know?!
No I just know he's ugly. I don't listen to ugly people

1. Had Afghanistan offered Bin Laden in return for proof that he was responsible for attacks, extraditing him freely for trial by the US. Would you still be for the war in Afghanistan?

2. Had Saddam Hussein offered complete withdraw from Kuwait in return for the UN to review the Arab-Israeli conflict, would you have been for the first Gulf War?

*If you answered "yes" to either of these, you are lying. There was no movement for war in Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, there was no movement for war in Iraq prior to Kuwait invasion nor after until the United States declared it wrong. There was no push for an Iraqi war the second time until Bush said they were a threat. People bought the government propaganda in both cases and hopped on the bandwagon preaching songs of war. So why do you follow them now?
Both alternatives offered above seem like plausible and possible alternatives that should be considered right? Yah, but they never happened.
OR DID THEY?:

http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/022091.html

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing004.htm

They were both alternatives to the war that the government and the media failed to report. Would the Taliban or Saddam have kept their word? We don't know because the United States refused to listen or try to deal, and instead rushed to war.


We allowed the Northern Alliance to regain control of Afghanistan. Here is a group of opium warlords who devastated that country through public rapings, assassinations, and civil war; violating every civil right known to man. They devastated that country for 20 years. And now the US allows them to regain control?

We now know Saddam had no WMD's nor was wanting any. What's that you say? He had intentions? I'm sorry to point this out, but he also had 3 billion dollars in American cash lying around his palaces. Anybody in the world could get an arsenal of WMD's for 50 million dollars. He didn't have them because he didn't need them, the UN was going to prevent any country from Iraqi invasion. Well, except for the US.



So he wasn't a threat. But he abused his people right? Another government assertion that you eat up. Unfortunately, there are civil rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Tujikistan, Rwanda, and our own allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, Afghanistan (now), and ourselves. Are you for invading all of them too, and re-invading Afghanistan?

So what justification was there then, Mr. Knowitall Voyuerism?
Let me spell it out for you: O-I-L and the ease of getting it. Iraq was an easy target that appeared to possess little resistance (at the time) of the bunch of countries that I mentioned. The US thought they could get away with such an invasion. However, the world saw through that. Now the world hates us, we have no allies but Britain and Australia (we will lose Britain in May, just watch). Poland has already said they will remove their troops next year, who is the only other country that supports our movement AND has troops deployed.

So where does this leave us?
Up shit creek if we don't get rid of Bush.....
I'm not endorsing Kerry, I hate him too. But at this point, we need to demonstrate to the world that we don't agree with what we did either, so Bush HAS to go. If he stays, it will be a statement to the world that the US supports this crap.
So please, just don't vote for Bush.

1. Had Afghanistan offered Bin Laden in return for proof that he was responsible for attacks, extraditing him freely for trial by the US. Would you still be for the war in Afghanistan?

2. Had Saddam Hussein offered complete withdraw from Kuwait in return for the UN to review the Arab-Israeli conflict, would you have been for the first Gulf War?

*If you answered "yes" to either of these, you are lying. There was no movement for war in Afghanistan prior to Sept. 11, there was no movement for war in Iraq prior to Kuwait invasion nor after until the United States declared it wrong. There was no push for an Iraqi war the second time until Bush said they were a threat. People bought the government propaganda in both cases and hopped on the bandwagon preaching songs of war. So why do you follow them now?
Both alternatives offered above seem like plausible and possible alternatives that should be considered right? Yah, but they never happened.
OR DID THEY?:

http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/022091.html

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/ARROW_briefing004.htm

They were both alternatives to the war that the government and the media failed to report. Would the Taliban or Saddam have kept their word? We don't know because the United States refused to listen or try to deal, and instead rushed to war.


We allowed the Northern Alliance to regain control of Afghanistan. Here is a group of opium warlords who devastated that country through public rapings, assassinations, and civil war; violating every civil right known to man. They devastated that country for 20 years. And now the US allows them to regain control?

We now know Saddam had no WMD's nor was wanting any. What's that you say? He had intentions? I'm sorry to point this out, but he also had 3 billion dollars in American cash lying around his palaces. Anybody in the world could get an arsenal of WMD's for 50 million dollars. He didn't have them because he didn't need them, the UN was going to prevent any country from Iraqi invasion. Well, except for the US.



So he wasn't a threat. But he abused his people right? Another government assertion that you eat up. Unfortunately, there are civil rights abuses in Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Somalia, Tujikistan, Rwanda, and our own allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Indonesia, Afghanistan (now), and ourselves. Are you for invading all of them too, and re-invading Afghanistan?

So what justification was there then, Mr. Knowitall Voyuerism?
Let me spell it out for you: O-I-L and the ease of getting it. Iraq was an easy target that appeared to possess little resistance (at the time) of the bunch of countries that I mentioned. The US thought they could get away with such an invasion. However, the world saw through that. Now the world hates us, we have no allies but Britain and Australia (we will lose Britain in May, just watch). Poland has already said they will remove their troops next year, who is the only other country that supports our movement AND has troops deployed.

So where does this leave us?
Up shit creek if we don't get rid of Bush.....
I'm not endorsing Kerry, I hate him too. But at this point, we need to demonstrate to the world that we don't agree with what we did either, so Bush HAS to go. If he stays, it will be a statement to the world that the US supports this crap.
So please, just don't vote for Bush.

Just because something is on the internet does not make it so. There was no deal offered by Afghanistan. Al Qaeda ran a government ministry under the taliban, who were hardly going to turn over their primary source of funding even if that were not the case. Also as has been stated many times, there were much easier targets if we were after oil, the US does not import any large portion of oil from this area. And once you bring up oil, you must bring up the UN food for oil scandal, that is a clear motive for those countries which profited by it being so opposed to the war. While not necessarily being THE reason, I guarantee I could make a case of it.

Just because something is on the internet does not make it so. There was no deal offered by Afghanistan. Al Qaeda ran a government ministry under the taliban, who were hardly going to turn over their primary source of funding even if that were not the case. Also as has been stated many times, there were much easier targets if we were after oil, the US does not import any large portion of oil from this area. And once you bring up oil, you must bring up the UN food for oil scandal, that is a clear motive for those countries which profited by it being so opposed to the war. While not necessarily being THE reason, I guarantee I could make a case of it.
not a very strong one tho--Bush knew Iraq was totally unarmed and attacked them because they were weak (and for their oil) so he could also use Iraq as a launchpad to attack other arab nations next. Bush wants fullscale regional war in the mideast and Iraq is just the start--and no one cares about the food for oil scandal thats just excuse #500 for why Bush supposedly invaded and no one buys it...hes run out of credability points with his lies

so am I the only one whos getting tired of bush bashing
Yes, you are.