NationStates Jolt Archive

I placed this poll to see who here actually supports Kerry's platform. As you can see - even among the people who plan to vote for him less than half consider his platform the reason why.

In other words - Kerry is getting more votes (at least from NS) for who he isn't rather than who he is.

You left out Badnarik!!!

You left out Badnarik!!!

You forgot Poland!

I voted that I liked Kerry and his platform. I also hate Bush vehemently. Positive won out over negative though.

You forgot Poland!

I voted that I liked Kerry and his platform. I also hate Bush vehemently. Positive won out over negative though.

Ditto

You forgot Poland!
I did? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+forgot+poland&r=f)

This is to see whether people support Bush or Kerry because of their platforms and not just dislike of the other person.

I voted that I liked Kerry and his platform. I don't like Bushes policies and think he is curropt but not a creep.

I did? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+forgot+poland&r=f)

And thus, Bush's idiocy will live throughout the years as an object example of a history that should never be repeated.

You left out Badnarik!!!

Badnarik is a bastard. :)


But, you forgot RALPH NADER!

Badnarik is a bastard. :)


But, you forgot RALPH NADER!
What is Ralph runing on this time? Last time he seemed decent but why now?

I'm voting for Kerry because my brother got sent to Iraq and I resent that.

I like Kerry's policies mostly. I am against nearly all of Bush's policies. I think neither one is a creep.

I'm voting for Kerry because my brother got sent to Iraq and I resent that.

Shit, who would have thought that someone who joined the army might actually have to come face-to-face with some conflict!

I'm English, so not that my opinion matters, and if I was to look at it how everyone over here is (to do with the Iraq War) I think I'd vote Bush. Couldn't really give two shits though.

Kerry comes across as a talking paradox.

Shit, who would have thought that someone who joined the army might actually have to come face-to-face with some conflict!

I'm English, so not that my opinion matters, and if I was to look at it how everyone over here is (to do with the Iraq War) I think I'd vote Bush. Couldn't really give two shits though.

Kerry comes across as a talking paradox.

Here's an idea, shut the fuck up.

Shit, who would have thought that someone who joined the army might actually have to come face-to-face with some conflict!

I'm English, so not that my opinion matters, and if I was to look at it how everyone over here is (to do with the Iraq War) I think I'd vote Bush. Couldn't really give two shits though.

Kerry comes across as a talking paradox.

Kerry is only a talking paradox if one lacks the cognitive ability to think in shades of gray. Way to swallow the propaganda.

Here's an idea, shut the fuck up.
Even the english deserve the freedom to speech. I look at the Constitution as natural rights and thus they are granted to all mankind.

But yeah english guy was a condecending jerk

Here's an idea, shut the fuck up.

So when will your brothers head be making an appearance next on my television?

Sorry but it was a point that seemed pretty obvious to me.

Even the english deserve the freedom to speech. I look at the Constitution as natural rights and thus they are granted to all mankind.

I don't live in America so what your constitution consists of doesn't really matter to me at all. . .

Maybe you could invade England?

I'm sorry have I got lost somewhere, people in America who join the army do not fight in wars or expect to if they join the army? Right. . .ok


What propaganda would that be Gymoor? :rolleyes:

What propaganda would that be Gymoor? :rolleyes:

Okay. What has Kerry flip-flopped on? I've studied original transcripts of Kerry's speeches and interviews, and his points have been rather (no one is 100% consistent, especially politicians,) consistent, even before the war started in Iraq. No pundit told me this, I don't trust any news analyst to tell me what someone said. I go and check the original words.

What propaganda would that be Gymoor? :rolleyes:

He's one of those people that think the sloppy Michael Moore is an intelligent person and government officials lie... Also known as jackasses. (The Donkey, the democratic symbol, is also known as a Jackass).

Okay. What has Kerry flip-flopped on?

Voted for the liberation of Iraq and then voting against spending money on body armor and other equipment for soldiers in Iraq. You like him voting against your brother's protection Sdaeriji?

He's one of those people that think the sloppy Michael Moore is an intelligent person and government officials lie... Also known as jackasses. (The Donkey, the democratic symbol, is also known as a Jackass).

YAY! I'm a donkey! w007! :D :D

- Asylum Nova

PS: I voted for Nader. Just thought I'd share. :D

Doesn't being corrupt make you something of a creep?

Voted for the liberation of Iraq and then voting against spending money on body armor and other equipment for soldiers in Iraq. You like him voting against your brother's protection Sdaeriji?

Maybe you should actually research what he voted for and against.

Okay. What has Kerry flip-flopped on? I've studied original transcripts of Kerry's speeches and interviews, and his points have been rather (no one is 100% consistent, especially politicians,) consistent, even before the war started in Iraq. No pundit told me this, I don't trust any news analyst to tell me what someone said. I go and check the original words.

I made a quick judgement today.

Not based on what he said but on where he stands with war. The BBC is an impartial, (allegedly anyways).

Sorry if I couldn't display infinite amounts of sources and evidence but the US election isn't important to me.

Most politicians are sleazy, but I think it's better to know where you stand. Everything may not be so black and white, but if Gray means doing one thing but saying another. . . then I'm not going to lie to myself and pretend it's all part of some genius master plan.

I didn't say I'd vote for Bush (even though I can't) because I'd "seen the light", just narrowed it down. Didn't take very long did it.


He's one of those people that think the sloppy Michael Moore is an intelligent person and government officials lie... Also known as jackasses. (The Donkey, the democratic symbol, is also known as a Jackass).

Was that directed at me?

Voted for the liberation of Iraq and then voting against spending money on body armor and other equipment for soldiers in Iraq.

And claimed voting for the Iraq War was an "error of judgement".

Why vote for someone who finds out he's made a mistake and would have rather done something different after what's done is done? (Suprisingly though without directly admitting that he'd made a mistake - by his viewpoint anyways)

I guess if you just want to get rid of Bush though then Kerry seems the only other option.

Bit like over here, the lesser of two (three) evils.

You like him voting against your brother's protection Sdaeriji?

After voting for him to go out there :rolleyes:!

I wouldn't worry, it seems to be the "British" who are getting their heads hacked off at the moment.

First Mr. Bigley, now some charity worker. . . who claims to be British.

He's one of those people that think the sloppy Michael Moore is an intelligent person and government officials lie... Also known as jackasses. (The Donkey, the democratic symbol, is also known as a Jackass).

Unlike some, I retain the ability to be critical of a source, even if I happen to agree with it. Can you say the same? Nice job insulting me without any logical basis for it. I asked for something concrete, and all you do is make baseless attacks. I'd insult you in return, but that would merely be playing into your little strategy of avoiding intelligent conversation.

The symbol for Republicans is the elephant. Bush is white. A white elephant is a term for a big bloated waste of resources that gives no appreciable return. I think that describes the Bush administration to a T.

Unlike some, I retain the ability to be critical of a source

I heard that there was a lot to be critical of with Moore's most recent doc.

I'm voting for my candidate because I like his platform and he's not Bush or Kerry.

Voted for the liberation of Iraq and then voting against spending money on body armor and other equipment for soldiers in Iraq. You like him voting against your brother's protection Sdaeriji?

The fact of the matter is that Bush sent the soldiers into Iraq several months before the appropriations money vote. 40,000 soldiers were sent into combat without proper armor. How is that Kerry's fault?

Kerry never voted for war itself. According to Kerry's own speech that day and Bush's speech that day, it was not a vote for war. It was a vote for, as it were "loading the weapon" to bring additional pressure on Saddam. War was to be used at the last resort. Kerry also said in his speech (before Howard Dean, before the war started, before the whole flip-flop myth,) that war should only be undertaken after diplomatic avenues were fully explored, we had a fully manned coalition (yeah, right, a coalition of 30 countries that only contributes 15% of the manpower and 10% of the funing is a real coalition...not to mention that 8 members of the coalition have dropped out or are considering dropping out.) and that the weapons inspectors were allowed to conduct their business. The UN was indeed willing to help out at that time, as long as proper diplomatic channels were followed. This is all from documentation from the time, not Monday morning quarterbacking. Now, considering Saddam's capabilities, would he have been able to do anything at all to us if we had merely waited a month or two before marching to war? Of course not. Would we be in a better position now if we had been allowed the time to further investigate WMD and plan for making the peace? Again, clearly yes.

Bush broke his promise that day, as the original documentation clearly shows, and then turned around and labeled Kerry a flip-flopper. Fuck Bush. Fuck Bush for rushing to war and then laying blame on everyone but himself.

As for the $87 billion dollar war appropriations bill. Kerry did indeed vote for it when it included a rollback of the tax break for the nation's most wealthy. Bush thought the tax rollback was more improtant than our troops, so he threatened to veto it. Veto it! The provision in the bill for the tax rollback was removed. Various oversights into how the money would be spent were also removed. Kerry correctly voted against it, since it would plow us further into deficit and would not have vital constraints to make sure that the money was spent on our men. The second version of the bill passed. Net result: Many soldiers STILL didn't get their armor, even though the bill passed.

See, a vote for military money doesn't automatically mean that the money will be used well. This was was Kerry was fighting for when he voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill.


Well, there are two myths busted. Next?

I heard that there was a lot to be critical of with Moore's most recent doc.

Ah, you heard? Meaning, of course, that you haven't seen for yourself. Nice job.

Yes, Moore fudges the conclusions. Yes it's partisan. Does it bring some vital and true information to light as well? You bet it does. Is it 100% credible? You bet it isn't. This is why Thinking for one's-goddam-self is so important.

And thus, Bush's idiocy will live throughout the years as an object example of a history that should never be repeated.

Yeah... Kerry's C/C- college GPA is somehow stronger than Bush's 3+ GPA. I guess that makes Bush an idiot somehow. Talk about an "example of history that should never be repeated"??? Take a look at Kerry's "foreign policy" plans. That's worth a good laugh!

Kerry is only a talking paradox if one lacks the cognitive ability to think in shades of gray. Way to swallow the propaganda.

I love this "cognitive ability to think in shades of gray" comment. That's hilarious! If only you realized just how foolish that sounds.... It shows a complete lack of resolve... no soul... no fundamentals... no philosophical ideals... no idiology... lack of reason... lack of intelligence.

I love this "cognitive ability to think in shades of gray" comment. That's hilarious! If only you realized just how foolish that sounds.... It shows a complete lack of resolve... no soul... no fundamentals... no philosophical ideals... no idiology... lack of reason... lack of intelligence.

One can be resolved and still have the ability to grasp that the world is a complex and often unfair place, that intentions do not always lead to results. I don't see how this in any way is reflective of the existence or non-existence of a soul. Perhaps you'd like to explain? A thorough belief in fundamentals does not mean that you think everyone should share your beliefs, nor does it mean that there is only one right way to express or acheive your ideals. Philosophy is all about the struggle between life in all it's complexities and eternal truths. Ideology? I have my ideals, my idea of the sublime. Does that mean I can cause them to come to fruition without struggle? Does that mean I need to be single-minded? Does that mean I should persue my ideology even in the face of contradictory information? Lack of reason? The inability to think in abstract, non-dichotomous ways is a lack of reason. Inelligence? I see your need to simplify everything into "right and wrong" and "black and white" based purely on your preconceptions to be a retreat from intelligent discourse.

I believe the ability to think in shades of gray, to know that there isn't always a "right" answer, that a "right" answer for one may be all wrong for another to be a pillar of rational thought. The abilty to learn from mistakes. The ability to see beyond oneself. The ability to put together the facts and sometimes come to a conclusion that is unpleasant. These are all examples of superior thought, and your shallow dismissal of it reveals volumes.

Yeah... Kerry's C/C- college GPA is somehow stronger than Bush's 3+ GPA. I guess that makes Bush an idiot somehow. Talk about an "example of history that should never be repeated"??? Take a look at Kerry's "foreign policy" plans. That's worth a good laugh!

You have those grades reversed. Also, Bush was unable to get in to Law School (maybe that explains his bitterness towards lawyers,) yet Kerry got in and had a distinguished career as a prosecutor (you know, the guys who put criminals away.)

Ah, you heard? Meaning, of course, that you haven't seen for yourself. Nice job.

Yes, Moore fudges the conclusions. Yes it's partisan. Does it bring some vital and true information to light as well? You bet it does. Is it 100% credible? You bet it isn't. This is why Thinking for one's-goddam-self is so important.

I haven't heard so I haven't seen?

You're getting so worked up, take a pill! :rolleyes:

I haven't heard so I haven't seen?

You're getting so worked up, take a pill! :rolleyes:

Try rereading what I posted. Maybe it will become clearer to you. You mixed up at least one word I used.

The fact of the matter is that Bush sent the soldiers into Iraq several months before the appropriations money vote. 40,000 soldiers were sent into combat without proper armor. How is that Kerry's fault?

OK... Read carefully! Kerry has been in the Senate for years. In fact, he was there during the Clinton regime. Do you recall the demiliterization of the US throughout the '90's? Defense spending was over $300 B when Bush41 left office. Throughout most of Clinton's term, military spending averaged around $275 B. He cut troops. He cut defense spending. And, Kerry was there the whole time voting for these cuts. "How is he responsible," you say? His actions have consequences, and we had to deal with them!!!

Kerry never voted for war itself. According to Kerry's own speech that day and Bush's speech that day, it was not a vote for war. It was a vote for, as it were "loading the weapon" to bring additional pressure on Saddam. War was to be used at the last resort. Kerry also said in his speech (before Howard Dean, before the war started, before the whole flip-flop myth,) that war should only be undertaken after diplomatic avenues were fully explored, we had a fully manned coalition

First of all, this is something that Kerry claimed AFTER he announced his candidacy for president. He NEVER said this prior to his run for the presidency.

(yeah, right, a coalition of 30 countries that only contributes 15% of the manpower and 10% of the funing is a real coalition...not to mention that 8 members of the coalition have dropped out or are considering dropping out.)

Actually, it was a coalition of nearly 40 countries this time. Keep in mind that the original coalition during the early 90's was only 47 countries to start with. It was later determined that most of those who opted out of the coalition had illegal oil contracts with Saddam. Of course, nobody will hold them liable in this pansy world of today. As for the rest of you statement, you need to review what happened during the original gulf war... you'll find similar stats, and that was WITH UN backing.

and that the weapons inspectors were allowed to conduct their business. The UN was indeed willing to help out at that time, as long as proper diplomatic channels were followed. This is all from documentation from the time, not Monday morning quarterbacking.

We had nearly 12 years of UN resolutions, weapons inspectors, tough speeches and hard language. None of it worked! The world was getting rich off Saddam, and we had enough of the cat-and-mouse games. Even after we went in and found chemical cannisters that were supposed to have been destroyed, the world turned their head and claimed it wasn't enough. Even when we found illegal radar jamming equipment sold to Saddam by Russia, the world turned their head and claimed it wasn't enough. Even when we found well-maintained chemical warheads that were tagged for destruction in the early 90's, the world turned their head and claimed it wasn't enough. We found Russian made depleted uranium missles, and the world turned their head and claimed it wasn't enough. We even found post-1990 Russian MiGs with state-of-the-art radar jamming and missle guidance systems, and the world turned their head and claimed it wasn't enough. ALL OF THIS was illegal under various UN resolutions passed throughout the 1990's.

Now, considering Saddam's capabilities, would he have been able to do anything at all to us if we had merely waited a month or two before marching to war? Of course not. Would we be in a better position now if we had been allowed the time to further investigate WMD and plan for making the peace? Again, clearly yes.

Once again, this is nothing more than nonsense speculation. Kerry may be preaching it today, but he doesn't know this. He definitely didn't know this at the time. His speeches at the time were clear... "we must disarm Saddam"... etc., etc....

Bush broke his promise that day, as the original documentation clearly shows, and then turned around and labeled Kerry a flip-flopper. Fuck Bush. Fuck Bush for rushing to war and then laying blame on everyone but himself.

Kerry didn't become a "flip-flopper" until he decided to run for the White House! Check your facts!!! KERRY WAS IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THE WAR UNTIL HE DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT! That's when he started taking the opposing side. He noticed the anti-war movement and saw a quick opportunity to gain momentum.

As for the $87 billion dollar war appropriations bill. Kerry did indeed vote for it when it included a rollback of the tax break for the nation's most wealthy. Bush thought the tax rollback was more improtant than our troops, so he threatened to veto it. Veto it! The provision in the bill for the tax rollback was removed. Various oversights into how the money would be spent were also removed. Kerry correctly voted against it, since it would plow us further into deficit and would not have vital constraints to make sure that the money was spent on our men. The second version of the bill passed. Net result: Many soldiers STILL didn't get their armor, even though the bill passed.

See, a vote for military money doesn't automatically mean that the money will be used well. This was was Kerry was fighting for when he voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill.

That sounds so responsible. Maybe, I'll vote for Kerry too. Honestly, that's all a nice story that he devised after the fact. During every military action in our history, we fell into deficit spending. Kerry doesn't want you to know that, and Bush is too stupid to set him straight. In fact, after the US decided to enter WWII, our deficit spending exceeded the government's revenues. In other words, the government was spending over twice as much as it was collecting.

Well, there are two myths busted. Next?

Not quite....

*Giggles* I voted in the poll.. but I can't vote in the American election. :p

i voted in the poll but

I ALREADY VOTED

early voting in new mexico started on saturday and i voted this morning.

You forgot Poland!

I voted that I liked Kerry and his platform. I also hate Bush vehemently. Positive won out over negative though.

Indeed, though for me, I don't think Bush is a creep, I think he's an pleasant-faced, zealous puppet of the Republican party, whose platform I find to be vile and backwards. By comparison, I'm thrilled with Kerry's platform.

I don't like Bush too much but I think Kerry would be worse.

One can be resolved and still have the ability to grasp that the world is a complex and often unfair place, that intentions do not always lead to results.

Stated the way you just stated this, I can't disagree. By the way, it takes a lot more than intentions to achieve results. That's where we usually differ.

I don't see how this in any way is reflective of the existence or non-existence of a soul. Perhaps you'd like to explain?


Soul translates to a person's core values. Many people wander around with these shades of gray without adopting any reasonable value system. Of course, we all know that there are shades of gray, but they are only within reason and guided by sound principles.

A thorough belief in fundamentals does not mean that you think everyone should share your beliefs, nor does it mean that there is only one right way to express or acheive your ideals.

I'm not asking anyone to share my beliefs, but I do expect you to believe that the world is essentially round and not flat. I expect that all sensible people have fundamental values and core beliefs that dictate/influence their actions and decisions. These people who worship these shades of gray usually behave unpredictably and lack consistency. It's that irrational behavior that bothers us so much.

Philosophy is all about the struggle between life in all it's complexities and eternal truths.

But, there's no room for your level of shades of gray with eternal truths. A crime IS ALWAYS a crime, no matter the intention!

Ideology? I have my ideals, my idea of the sublime. Does that mean I can cause them to come to fruition without struggle? Does that mean I need to be single-minded? Does that mean I should persue my ideology even in the face of contradictory information?

Do whatever makes you happy.

Lack of reason? The inability to think in abstract, non-dichotomous ways is a lack of reason. Inelligence? I see your need to simplify everything into "right and wrong" and "black and white" based purely on your preconceptions to be a retreat from intelligent discourse.

Actually, it's your inability to apply reason to your shades of gray that shows a lack of intelligence. We all accept various shades of gray. We only hope that people are intelligent enough to keep them within reason.

I believe the ability to think in shades of gray, to know that there isn't always a "right" answer, that a "right" answer for one may be all wrong for another to be a pillar of rational thought. The abilty to learn from mistakes. The ability to see beyond oneself. The ability to put together the facts and sometimes come to a conclusion that is unpleasant.

Once again, I cannot disagree with this, but we need to keep all of this within the reasonable constraints of those "eternal truths" that you mentioned earlier. Rational thought is one thing, but when you ignore those "eternal truths" and lack intelligence, it becomes irrational, mindlessly inconsistent and sometimes dangerous.

These are all examples of superior thought,

That's quite arrogant and demonstrates the opposite of what you just preached in the previous sentences.

and your shallow dismissal of it reveals volumes

My point is that I don't shallowly dismiss these shades of gray. I merely recognize that there are truths that keep those shades of gray within reasonable constraints.

I did? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=you+forgot+poland&r=f)
Now that web site you posted is hilarious. Two thumbs up!! :D

OK... Read carefully! Kerry has been in the Senate for years. In fact, he was there during the Clinton regime. Do you recall the demiliterization of the US throughout the '90's? Defense spending was over $300 B when Bush41 left office. Throughout most of Clinton's term, military spending averaged around $275 B. He cut troops. He cut defense spending. And, Kerry was there the whole time voting for these cuts. "How is he responsible," you say? His actions have consequences, and we had to deal with them!!!

OK... Read carefully! Throughout Clinton's term, military spending averaged $316 Billion. The lowest amount was in 1996 at $296 Billion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

Lets see now. After the Gulf war, there was less need for military expenditures. Also the Cold War was over and countries around the world were cutting their military budgets.

Now for the clincher!!!

WHO was in control of both the Senate and the House as military spending decreased? REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Can't blame Kerry.....nice try. :eek:

OK... Read carefully! Throughout Clinton's term, military spending averaged $316 Billion. The lowest amount was in 1996 at $296 Billion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html

Lets see now. After the Gulf war, there was less need for military expenditures. Also the Cold War was over and countries around the world were cutting their military budgets.

Now for the clincher!!!

WHO was in control of both the Senate and the House as military spending decreased? REPUBLICANS!!!!!!

Can't blame Kerry.....nice try. :eek:

Don't you know Kerry rules the world! He has power over everything. The world bends to meet his will. :)
Now Hillary Clinton also has those kind of powers.
I love how repubs are so scared of her: its amusing when she is just a person.
Oh and i'm just thinking of those who watch Rush Limbaugh, he is really scared of her.

First of all, this is something that Kerry claimed AFTER he announced his candidacy for president. He NEVER said this prior to his run for the presidency.

October 9th, 2002


The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

Now don't you feel like an absolute idiot? I've only posted this 5,000,000 times. It's located in the archives of the Senate if you want to verify it. This is the EXACT STANCE Kerry has had all along, but you're too brainwashed to see it. You want so badly to believe Kerry changed his story, but he hasn't

Kerry detractors always find something else to do when I post this.

I love this "cognitive ability to think in shades of gray" comment. That's hilarious! If only you realized just how foolish that sounds.... It shows a complete lack of resolve... no soul... no fundamentals... no philosophical ideals... no idiology... lack of reason... lack of intelligence.

Here's a lack of intelligence and reason:

I believe X.
All that exists is a dichotomous world (black and white).
Thusly, a belief must be either true or false.
Likewise, there can only be good and evil, right and wrong.
By it's nature, good must always be right.
I must be good, for I am certainly not evil.
Therefor, I must be right.

No shades of gray...you set yourself up to infalible in your own mind, and that's madness. That's the madness driving the extremists in society today, and "that's the fuck of it; you know, the old thing about the crazy person who never knows they're crazy." -JtHM (JVC)

Your ideology is primitive, your fundamentals flawed, and you've steeled your resolve in a foolish ideology. People like you screamed when Galileo spoke.

Kerry detractors always find something else to do when I post this.
Perhaps because they can't handle the truth?

OK... Read carefully! Throughout Clinton's term, military spending averaged $316 Billion. The lowest amount was in 1996 at $296 Billion.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904490.html



This will take the wind out of your sails...
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/US/08/09/defense.bill/

... and that was one of his largest budgets according to the article.

Lets see now. After the Gulf war, there was less need for military expenditures. Also the Cold War was over and countries around the world were cutting their military budgets.

Nice try... As the Cold War was ending, Reagan, Bush41 and a host of bipartisan leaders were claiming that we needed to increase spending on military technology and intelligence. Clinton did the opposite. Then came the embassy bombings, kidnappings, USS Cole and eventually 9/11.

Now for the clincher!!!

WHO was in control of both the Senate and the House as military spending decreased? REPUBLICANS!!!!!!.

Actually, the largest decrease in military spending came during the first two years of Clinton's term. Most of that money was shifted to social programs. At the time, he had a House AND Senate controlled by Democrats.

When the Repubs took control, they tried to increase spending, and they were successful to a small degree.

Can't blame Kerry.....nice try. :eek:

Kerry was there and has always been a big opponent of military spending. His actions speak louder than his words.

Here's a lack of intelligence and reason:

I believe X.
All that exists is a dichotomous world (black and white).


Go out and build someone else as your straw man. I never said anything like that.

Your ideology is primitive, your fundamentals flawed, and you've steeled your resolve in a foolish ideology. People like you screamed when Galileo spoke.

You know nothing of my ideology.

Now, get back to your coloring book and leave us grown-ups alone.

Didn't take long to confirm what I suspected - that is that more than half of the people who plan to vote Kerry are not doing so based on his platform and ideals where over 2/3 of people voting for Bush are doing so based on his platform and ideals.

Voting for someone regardless of their platform or ideals is a dangerous game - and not likely to succeeed.

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

But I thought "Bush lied about WMDs"! Is Kerry admitting to their existence???

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein..

And, isn't that exactly what happened? Didn't the UN pass another resolution? And, didn't Saddam lock doors and block the inspection process prior to our actions? Didn't we proceed with war as our last resort?

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

And once again, isn't that exactly what happened? Didn't the UN pass another resolution? And, didn't Saddam lock doors and block the inspection process prior to our actions? Didn't we proceed with war as our last resort? And finally, didn't we build a coalition of nearly 40 nations prior to our military actions???

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

And, we did this!

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

And, isn't this exactly what's happening?

Now don't you feel like an absolute idiot? I've only posted this 5,000,000 times. It's located in the archives of the Senate if you want to verify it.

This is great! It proves that Bush did act appropriately. Thanks!!!

This is the EXACT STANCE Kerry has had all along, but you're too brainwashed to see it. You want so badly to believe Kerry changed his story, but he hasn't

The point here is that Kerry is trying to claim that Bush didn't satisfy any of this. The truth is that he did. Kerry didn't beat his chest with these false claims until after he decided to run for the presidency. Truth and actions speak louder than his words.

no we didnt need to goto war, we didnt have our last resort, we could of got people to go into iraq and disarm saddam from the inside but it turns out he didnt have any to begin with.

and i dont like either one of the bastards kerry or bush but bush wants to get rid of Head start, he thinks we dont need it, its easy for him to say that as he doesnt have 3 or 4 year olds anymore.

But I thought "Bush lied about WMDs"! Is Kerry admitting to their existence???

Yes, bad and cherry picked intelligence had everyone believing there were WMD. Unlike Bush, when new and better info came out, Kerry learned from it.


And, isn't that exactly what happened? Didn't the UN pass another resolution? And, didn't Saddam lock doors and block the inspection process prior to our actions? Didn't we proceed with war as our last resort?

No, the UN was not allowed to pass another resolution. Bush thought the resolutions were enough, even though this was the first resolution was the first backed by a locked and loaded military. Saddam, according to head weapons inspector Hans Blix, was not being 100% cooperative and yet the weapons inspectors were still able to do their job, until Bush arbitrarily ordered them out. How quickly people forget.


And once again, isn't that exactly what happened? Didn't the UN pass another resolution? And, didn't Saddam lock doors and block the inspection process prior to our actions? Didn't we proceed with war as our last resort? And finally, didn't we build a coalition of nearly 40 nations prior to our military actions???

No, again, Saddam did not lock the doors and block the inspectors. War was not a last resort. Saddam was contained. Our military was ready in case he so much as farted without permission. The coalition was primarily a paper coalition. Only approximately 15% of the ground troops were supplied by non-US coalition members, most of that by the UK. Many of the countries did nothing more that sign the equivalent of a petition (though Morocco did offer to send mine-kamikazee monkeys, ha!)



And, we did this!



And, isn't this exactly what's happening?



This is great! It proves that Bush did act appropriately. Thanks!!!

No we didn't. Legitimacy was not gained, as Bush was the subject of the largest simultaneous anti-war protest in the history of the world. We still lack legitimacy to this day, hence why the majority of the world now thinks the US is the greatest threat to world peace. A good diplomat would have created conditions where terrorists, our greatest enemies, were the consesus greatest threat instead of us. Bush broke his promises.

The point here is that Kerry is trying to claim that Bush didn't satisfy any of this. The truth is that he did. Kerry didn't beat his chest with these false claims until after he decided to run for the presidency. Truth and actions speak louder than his words.

Kerry has been consistent. What he said in this speech before the war is what he's saying now. Saddam was a threat. We needed more global cooperation. We needed to do a better job rebuiling Iraq than we did in Afghanistan. All 100% consistent. Now you may have a point that Kerry became more vocal after his run for Presidency, but part of that is that nobody listens to mere Senators. The cameras of the world were not pointed at Kerry at the time.

The real point is that while Saddam was a threat, he was not, in any way, an iminent threat. Bush didmissed further attempts at diplomacy, even though this time they were clearly working. Given a bit more time in a country not wracked with war, the inspectors could have dertermined what we know from the Dulfur report today, that while Saddam wanted WMD, he neither had them nor had any immediate way to begin producing them. We would have saved billions of dollars, over 1000 of our soldier's lives, our economy would be better, our world relations would be better and we would have been in a better position to hunt down the terrorists that are now in 60 countries around the world. We also would have been in better shape to lock horns with Iran and North Korea, since our military would not have been so committes to a war that is now awash in insurgency, meaning we aren't just fighting terrorists, we are fighting normal Iraqi citizens who simply want us the fuck out of their country.

God, how can you be so blind to recent history?

Didn't take long to confirm what I suspected - that is that more than half of the people who plan to vote Kerry are not doing so based on his platform and ideals where over 2/3 of people voting for Bush are doing so based on his platform and ideals.

Voting for someone regardless of their platform or ideals is a dangerous game - and not likely to succeeed.

Maybe the choices should have been
"Voting for Kerry because you support his platform AND think Bush is a creep" or "Voting for Kerry simply because Bush is a creep"

Didn't take long to confirm what I suspected - that is that more than half of the people who plan to vote Kerry are not doing so based on his platform and ideals where over 2/3 of people voting for Bush are doing so based on his platform and ideals.

Voting for someone regardless of their platform or ideals is a dangerous game - and not likely to succeeed.

And yet the number who are voting for Kerry because of his platform is still twice what Bush is getting for his platform.

Maybe the choices should have been
"Voting for Kerry because you support his platform AND think Bush is a creep" or "Voting for Kerry simply because Bush is a creep"
Can't have it both ways - we found out which one you feel most strongly about.

And yet the number who are voting for Kerry because of his platform is still twice what Bush is getting for his platform.
well duh - this is primarily a liberal forum.

You left out Badnarik!!!

Who?

;)

Can't have it both ways - we found out which one you feel most strongly about.

Maybe because Bush is that bad of a President. One can feel most strongly that Bush is a horrible President and yet still be mildly pleased with Kerry.

Didn't take long to confirm what I suspected - that is that more than half of the people who plan to vote Kerry are not doing so based on his platform and ideals where over 2/3 of people voting for Bush are doing so based on his platform and ideals.

Voting for someone regardless of their platform or ideals is a dangerous game - and not likely to succeeed.

This is the national trend Bozzy. I've been following this poll, not this one but the real one, and it is saying the samething. Nearly all Bush supporter are voting FOR the president and the majority of Kerry's support is voting AGAINST Bush.

well duh - this is primarily a liberal forum.

This I can believe

Maybe because Bush is that bad of a President. One can feel most strongly that Bush is a horrible President and yet still be mildly pleased with Kerry.

And yet, this is a very close election. If Bush was such a bad president, don't you think that Kerry would be winning in a blowout?

www.realclearpolitics.com

It does a nice job of breaking down the electoral vote.

And yet, this is a very close election. If Bush was such a bad president, don't you think that Kerry would be winning in a blowout?

www.realclearpolitics.com

It does a nice job of breaking down the electoral vote.

Well, Kerry would be winning in a blowout of there weren't so many single-issue voters. There are people who will vote for a candidate who is outwardly religious noo matter what their platform is. Many of those are in the South. There are people who will never vote for a "liberal" who supports a woman's right to choose. There are those still bitterly divided by Vietnam. These people will never change their vote, no matter what the comparative competence of the candidates are. I would say the concentration of people who are basically single-issue voters lies primarily on the Republican side.

Can't have it both ways - we found out which one you feel most strongly about.

Really? Which one do *I* feel most strongly about?

Thank you Gymoor, you helped explain what I meant by my rewording the poll questions.

Voted for the liberation of Iraq and then voting against spending money on body armor and other equipment for soldiers in Iraq. You like him voting against your brother's protection Sdaeriji?
Actually, that's not true.

And yet, this is a very close election. If Bush was such a bad president, don't you think that Kerry would be winning in a blowout?

www.realclearpolitics.com

It does a nice job of breaking down the electoral vote.

True, but the same could be said for 2000.

If the shrub was such a great candidate, why didn't he blowout Gore?

People that vote tend to vote no matter what.

You may not like the choices but you choose the one closest to your viewpoints.

As it has been said(now we make the Liberterians cringe) the lessor of the two evils.

And yet, this is a very close election. If Bush was such a bad president, don't you think that Kerry would be winning in a blowout?

www.realclearpolitics.com

It does a nice job of breaking down the electoral vote.

With Bush's job approval rating hovering around 50%, I think the reason Kerry doesn't have much more support is because people know what to expect from Bush. As the incumbent, we've had 4 years to see how Bush does things. With Kerry, there is more uncertainty and the Bush campaign has done a good job of putting doubt in the minds of voters as to how Kerry will manage as President. In essence, Bush becomes the "devil we know" and many would rather stick with what they know than take a risk. This feeling is possibly even more pronounced with the current war on terror being one of the most important issues.

Voted for the liberation of Iraq and then voting against spending money on body armor and other equipment for soldiers in Iraq. You like him voting against your brother's protection Sdaeriji?

Love the Republican sound bite arguments! You might want to look up the reasons before parroting comments.

Finally the question that should be asked.

For the amount of time that was spent planning this thing; why did the shrub send the troops over without proper equipment?

I would vote for a wilting tomato plant over Bush, but I've actually gotten to like Kerry's platform, so I've made the transformation from voting against Bush to voting for Kerry. And I think over the last couple of months, a large percentage of Democrats and independents have done the same.

With Bush's job approval rating hovering around 50%, I think the reason Kerry doesn't have much more support is because people know what to expect from Bush. As the incumbent, we've had 4 years to see how Bush does things. With Kerry, there is more uncertainty and the Bush campaign has done a good job of putting doubt in the minds of voters as to how Kerry will manage as President. In essence, Bush becomes the "devil we know" and many would rather stick with what they know than take a risk. This feeling is possibly even more pronounced with the current war on terror being one of the most important issues.

Ahh but the "devil we know" does't always work. If you think you are screwed(ie the majority of the middle class), you might just think "well we see we get nothing from this guy so why not try the other?"

The only doubt that the shrub has spread is to the people that already will vote for him.

He does not seem to be really getting ahead. Far too close and it's probably going to be lawsuit crazy this time. So much that it's going to make 2000 look like a well run election. :rolleyes:

Ohio will probably be the test site. Unemployment higher then the rest of the country. Cleveland has 1 out of every 2 children at the poverty level.

If the Shrub can convince them he is good for them, he will probably win.

The terrorist boogyman doesn't mean much if you are living day to day and or can't find a job.

Well, Kerry would be winning in a blowout of there weren't so many single-issue voters. There are people who will vote for a candidate who is outwardly religious noo matter what their platform is. Many of those are in the South. There are people who will never vote for a "liberal" who supports a woman's right to choose. There are those still bitterly divided by Vietnam. These people will never change their vote, no matter what the comparative competence of the candidates are. I would say the concentration of people who are basically single-issue voters lies primarily on the Republican side.

Now I don't know if I agree with all of what you are saying but I can generally agree with what you say. It does make some sort of sense.

True, but the same could be said for 2000.

If the shrub was such a great candidate, why didn't he blowout Gore?

People that vote tend to vote no matter what.

You may not like the choices but you choose the one closest to your viewpoints.

As it has been said(now we make the Liberterians cringe) the lessor of the two evils.

LOL!!! Your right about people who vote, vote no matter what.

And we can actually take your 2000 example and turn it on its head. Now you may bash me for this but if Gore was such a great candidate, then why didn't he win his home state of TN or for that matter the election?

With Bush's job approval rating hovering around 50%, I think the reason Kerry doesn't have much more support is because people know what to expect from Bush. As the incumbent, we've had 4 years to see how Bush does things. With Kerry, there is more uncertainty and the Bush campaign has done a good job of putting doubt in the minds of voters as to how Kerry will manage as President. In essence, Bush becomes the "devil we know" and many would rather stick with what they know than take a risk. This feeling is possibly even more pronounced with the current war on terror being one of the most important issues.

With this, I can agree with you. Better stick to the guns that you know of than those that you don't.

LOL!!! Your right about people who vote, vote no matter what.

And we can actually take your 2000 example and turn it on its head. Now you may bash me for this but if Gore was such a great candidate, then why didn't he win his home state of TN or for that matter the election?
Because people cared more about a President who looked like he would be fun to hang out with than one who could do the job.

When Gore sighed in the debates that sealed it for some people. He looked like he was "uncool". And people vote for the cool beer drinker type. Clinton had that cool persona so he beat the others when he ran.

LOL!!! Your right about people who vote, vote no matter what.

And we can actually take your 2000 example and turn it on its head. Now you may bash me for this but if Gore was such a great candidate, then why didn't he win his home state of TN or for that matter the election?

I am not going to bash you for Gore. The fact that he didn't carry his own state showed he is a political idiot.

Clinton offered to stump for him and he refused thinking it would loose the election.

Kerry used him before the surgery and it still using him in the email campaigns.

I am not going to bash you for Gore. The fact that he didn't carry his own state showed he is a political idiot.

Clinton offered to stump for him and he refused thinking it would loose the election.

Kerry used him before the surgery and it still using him in the email campaigns.

And yet in most national polls, Bush is still winning and in some cases, over the margin of error. You can have pros and cons of this and I don't want to get into that debate, but Clinton can have a small factor in this but I don't believe it will ultimately decide this election.

And yet in most national polls, Bush is still winning and in some cases, over the margin of error. You can have pros and cons of this and I don't want to get into that debate, but Clinton can have a small factor in this but I don't believe it will ultimately decide this election.I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that. Bush is outside the MOE in only one poll--the GAllup/CNN/USA Today poll--and it's so horribly flawed that it's not even funny. Every other major poll, even those from conservative-leaning publications like the Wall Street Journal, have it neck and neck.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that. Bush is outside the MOE in only one poll--the GAllup/CNN/USA Today poll--and it's so horribly flawed that it's not even funny. Every other major poll, even those from conservative-leaning publications like the Wall Street Journal, have it neck and neck.

I apologize! It is a neck and neck race with most polls having Bush up.

WP/ABC News Poll--Bush 50% to 47%! I don't know what the margin of error here is though unfortunately.

I will concede though that polls are meaningless except the one on election day.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong about that. Bush is outside the MOE in only one poll--the GAllup/CNN/USA Today poll--and it's so horribly flawed that it's not even funny. Every other major poll, even those from conservative-leaning publications like the Wall Street Journal, have it neck and neck.
Debates stopped bushs Convention bump. So we are back to neck and neck of course.
Look the President can't label Kerry a fdlip flop and at the same time say he is one wrong side of every issue. To do so means even Bush is on the wrong side.
Kerry is on both sides + he is always on wrong side = both siders wrong.

Simple math too: so what was Bush's people thinking with thweiur attacks. You choose one plan and attack with it when you do two you mess up big time.

It made it so easy for Kerry. All he had to do was seem consistent and people were like he is a good choice. Republicans gave people a low expectation of Kerry so he naturally passed.
Republicans gave a high debate expectation so Bush failed. He wasn't a master debater or finisher he was just average.

But I'm just rambling lol

First Mr. Bigley, now some charity worker. . . who claims to be British.

She holds British citizenship, along with Irish. Just like Mr. Bigley
She also holds Iraqi citzenship that she recieved after marrying an Iraqi

No claiming about it.

EDIT: I assume your talking about Margaret Hassan?

The fact of the matter is that Bush sent the soldiers into Iraq several months before the appropriations money vote. 40,000 soldiers were sent into combat without proper armor. How is that Kerry's fault?

Kerry never voted for war itself. According to Kerry's own speech that day and Bush's speech that day, it was not a vote for war. It was a vote for, as it were "loading the weapon" to bring additional pressure on Saddam. War was to be used at the last resort. Kerry also said in his speech (before Howard Dean, before the war started, before the whole flip-flop myth,) that war should only be undertaken after diplomatic avenues were fully explored, we had a fully manned coalition (yeah, right, a coalition of 30 countries that only contributes 15% of the manpower and 10% of the funing is a real coalition...not to mention that 8 members of the coalition have dropped out or are considering dropping out.) and that the weapons inspectors were allowed to conduct their business. The UN was indeed willing to help out at that time, as long as proper diplomatic channels were followed. This is all from documentation from the time, not Monday morning quarterbacking. Now, considering Saddam's capabilities, would he have been able to do anything at all to us if we had merely waited a month or two before marching to war? Of course not. Would we be in a better position now if we had been allowed the time to further investigate WMD and plan for making the peace? Again, clearly yes.

Bush broke his promise that day, as the original documentation clearly shows, and then turned around and labeled Kerry a flip-flopper. Fuck Bush. Fuck Bush for rushing to war and then laying blame on everyone but himself.

As for the $87 billion dollar war appropriations bill. Kerry did indeed vote for it when it included a rollback of the tax break for the nation's most wealthy. Bush thought the tax rollback was more improtant than our troops, so he threatened to veto it. Veto it! The provision in the bill for the tax rollback was removed. Various oversights into how the money would be spent were also removed. Kerry correctly voted against it, since it would plow us further into deficit and would not have vital constraints to make sure that the money was spent on our men. The second version of the bill passed. Net result: Many soldiers STILL didn't get their armor, even though the bill passed.

See, a vote for military money doesn't automatically mean that the money will be used well. This was was Kerry was fighting for when he voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill.


Well, there are two myths busted. Next?

Why do you hate America so much???

Why do you hate America so much???
Bush does not equal America.

:)

Bush does not equal America.

:)

He is our war president, and he needs our support in our struggle against the forces of evil. Stop giving aid and comfort to our enemies!!!! :mad:

He is our war president, and he needs our support in our struggle against the forces of evil. Stop giving aid and comfort to our enemies!!!! :mad:Grow the fuck up.

Grow the fuck up.

Agreed Incertonia though Bush is a wartime president wether you like it or not.

Agreed Incertonia though Bush is a wartime president wether you like it or not.
Oh, I know he's a wartime President. He's taken us into a ruinous and unnecessary war which has destroyed tens of thousands of lives on both sides. Being a wartime President when you're talking about the war in Iraq is not a plus.

Oh, I know he's a wartime President. He's taken us into a ruinous and unnecessary war which has destroyed tens of thousands of lives on both sides. Being a wartime President when you're talking about the war in Iraq is not a plus.

I am going to disagree with you here. I believe that this war is necessary. Seventeen UN resolutions, Saddam buying off key members of the UNSC, illegal equipment in Iraq! Yes, this was the necessary war. I supported it from the start and still do.

I do not agree with Kerry on the unilateral thing. We DO have a coalition of forces in Iraq. France and Germany will not send troops no matter who is president. As for a plus, talking negative about the war in Iraq is not a plus either. He practically insulted our allies and the President of Poland even stated as such in the most diplomatic of terms. He insulted Allawi and that was not smart.

Yes bad things are happening in Iraq, I will not deny it. However, there are good things happening in Iraq that is NOT getting the press coverage. How can people see exactly what is going on if the media continues to broadcast the bad news and only the bad news? On Dayside with Linda on Fox News, they have a segment where they do a piece of good news coming out of Iraq. Why can't more stations do this? I don't know about CNN or MSNBC so someone is going to have to tell me if they do something similiar.

I am going to disagree with you here. I believe that this war is necessary. Seventeen UN resolutions, Saddam buying off key members of the UNSC, illegal equipment in Iraq! Yes, this was the necessary war. I supported it from the start and still do.

I do not agree with Kerry on the unilateral thing. We DO have a coalition of forces in Iraq. France and Germany will not send troops no matter who is president. As for a plus, talking negative about the war in Iraq is not a plus either. He practically insulted our allies and the President of Poland even stated as such in the most diplomatic of terms. He insulted Allawi and that was not smart.

Yes bad things are happening in Iraq, I will not deny it. However, there are good things happening in Iraq that is NOT getting the press coverage. How can people see exactly what is going on if the media continues to broadcast the bad news and only the bad news? On Dayside with Linda on Fox News, they have a segment where they do a piece of good news coming out of Iraq. Why can't more stations do this? I don't know about CNN or MSNBC so someone is going to have to tell me if they do something similiar.
I know Kerry started using this as a slogan a couple of weeks ago, but I had it long before that--wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but he wasn't a threat, and people inside the administration including Condi Rice and Colin Powell were saying that Saddam wasn't a threat in 2001.

And our coalition is a joke. Britain has the second largest group of soldiers there, and they have fewer than 10,000 on the ground. No one else has more than 1,000 if my memory serves--that's no coalition. And as for Poland--Bush got all incensed at the debates but failed to mention that Poland's president feels like he was fed a line and is pulling his troops early. And Allawi is a puppet--he serves as Prime Minister at our leisure, and the second we pull out of Iraq, he'll be on a plane somewhere because his life won't be worth spit in Iraq without US troops there to protect him.

I know Kerry started using this as a slogan a couple of weeks ago, but I had it long before that--wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. Yes, Saddam was a bastard, but he wasn't a threat, and people inside the administration including Condi Rice and Colin Powell were saying that Saddam wasn't a threat in 2001.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we were technically still in a state of war with Iraq. We never had a formal Peace Treaty with Iraq just a cease fire right? Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire. Under international law, if you violate a cease fire, it is grounds to go back in.

And our coalition is a joke.

Its talk like this that could cost Kerry the election. Your spouting something from the Democratic ticket and it should stop. Our coalition IS NOT a joke. It is serious business.

Britain has the second largest group of soldiers there, and they have fewer than 10,000 on the ground. No one else has more than 1,000 if my memory serves--that's no coalition. And as for Poland--Bush got all incensed at the debates but failed to mention that Poland's president feels like he was fed a line and is pulling his troops early.

And yet the Polish President was not happy with Kerry's comments. Britain is the second largest and you are approximately right on troops by other nations. I need to go get numbers on what nation has how many number of troops there. Again back to Poland, yea he may have felt that but he could've withdrawn his forces the minute that he thought that but he did not. He believes in this mission as does other nations.

And Allawi is a puppet--he serves as Prime Minister at our leisure, and the second we pull out of Iraq, he'll be on a plane somewhere because his life won't be worth spit in Iraq without US troops there to protect him.

I disagree with this statement! You may consider Allawi a puppet if you so wish. I disagree with it but that is what you believe then so be it. Allawi actually has good approval ratings over there and is about ready to order an assault on Fallujja. Something we should've done alot earlier if you ask me.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we were technically still in a state of war with Iraq. We never had a formal Peace Treaty with Iraq just a cease fire right? Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire. Under international law, if you violate a cease fire, it is grounds to go back in.
I'm only going to go into this point because the others just aren't worth discussing in my opinion.

I do not dispute that the US technically had the right to go into Iraq. That doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do. It was a stupid decision, plain and simple. We had more pressing and urgent matters to attend to--a fellow named Osama Bin laden and a group named al Qaeda for starters. So whether or not we were legally able to go is irrelevant--the decision to go into Iraq under the circumstances was a stupid one made by an incompetent administration, and the end result is that tens of thousands of people are dead or wounded or mentally destroyed as a result, our homeland is no safer, and our deadliest enemy is still largely on the loose.

I'm only going to go into this point because the others just aren't worth discussing in my opinion.

And I'm glad its your opinion even though I would've loved to hear your comments on the rest of my post. BTW, did you know that Senator Kerry voted AGAINST the 1st Gulf War and that had UN Backing!

I do not dispute that the US technically had the right to go into Iraq. That doesn't mean it was a smart thing to do. It was a stupid decision, plain and simple.

Care to elaborate how it was stupid? If your talking troops, then blame CENTCOM as in Central Command! They're the ones that request troops for operations in the Middle East. I guess Senator Kerry forgot that as well as most of the country. Equipment? Being taken care of as we speak. They are upgrading equipment based on mission priority. Money? At least it passed the House and Senate. Kerry voted against it. Yes he did before you decide to go off on me for stating that. I don't care if he voted for a different bill. The one he voted against PASSED and the one that he voted for FAILED!

We had more pressing and urgent matters to attend to--a fellow named Osama Bin laden and a group named al Qaeda for starters.

And to my knowledge we have specialized troops hunting for him in the mountains. That will take time to do since he knows the terrain and that he knows that we are hunting him too. He's in a cave sick. Why haven't we heard from him recently anyway? All we have been hearing is from his second in command. I want to know why.

So whether or not we were legally able to go is irrelevant--the decision to go into Iraq under the circumstances was a stupid one made by an incompetent administration, and the end result is that tens of thousands of people are dead or wounded or mentally destroyed as a result, our homeland is no safer, and our deadliest enemy is still largely on the loose.

And the WMD was only a small fraction of the reasons we went in on. Yes it was the one that got the most press but it was really only one reason in a list of reasons. I wish people would understand that.

And I'm glad its your opinion even though I would've loved to hear your comments on the rest of my post. BTW, did you know that Senator Kerry voted AGAINST the 1st Gulf War and that had UN Backing!

Care to elaborate how it was stupid? If your talking troops, then blame CENTCOM as in Central Command! They're the ones that request troops for operations in the Middle East. I guess Senator Kerry forgot that as well as most of the country. Equipment? Being taken care of as we speak. They are upgrading equipment based on mission priority. Money? At least it passed the House and Senate. Kerry voted against it. Yes he did before you decide to go off on me for stating that. I don't care if he voted for a different bill. The one he voted against PASSED and the one that he voted for FAILED!

And to my knowledge we have specialized troops hunting for him in the mountains. That will take time to do since he knows the terrain and that he knows that we are hunting him too. He's in a cave sick. Why haven't we heard from him recently anyway? All we have been hearing is from his second in command. I want to know why.

And the WMD was only a small fraction of the reasons we went in on. Yes it was the one that got the most press but it was really only one reason in a list of reasons. I wish people would understand that.
As I expected, my point went zooming over your head and vanished into the mists in the distance. I'll try again and I'll make it as simple as possible.

It was stupid to go into Iraq when we did because we didn't have to go in there. Iraq was not a threat, wasn't even a gathering threat. It was a pathetic little regime ruled by a tinpot dictator who couldn't even threaten his neighbors anymore. We had bigger issues to deal with than Iraq, and yet this administration decided we just had to bog down our military in an unnecessary war. That was stupid. That was incompetent. The lack of troops, the lack of supplies for them--that's just icing on the incompetence cake. The stupid move was fighting an unnecessary war in the first place. Got it?

As I expected, my point went zooming over your head and vanished into the mists in the distance. I'll try again and I'll make it as simple as possible.

It was stupid to go into Iraq when we did because we didn't have to go in there. Iraq was not a threat, wasn't even a gathering threat. It was a pathetic little regime ruled by a tinpot dictator who couldn't even threaten his neighbors anymore. We had bigger issues to deal with than Iraq, and yet this administration decided we just had to bog down our military in an unnecessary war. That was stupid. That was incompetent. The lack of troops, the lack of supplies for them--that's just icing on the incompetence cake. The stupid move was fighting an unnecessary war in the first place. Got it?

I got it the first time you said it. I guess you didn't hear me clearly. I said that I've supported the Iraq War from the very beginning. Applauded the withdrawal of the second UN resolution, btw stocks soared 300+ points that day, and watched our forces move into Iraq, cheering them all the way to Baghdad. To this day, I continue to support the President in Iraq as well as our troops in Iraq.

Did I make myself clear on this?

I got it the first time you said it. I guess you didn't hear me clearly. I said that I've supported the Iraq War from the very beginning. Applauded the withdrawal of the second UN resolution, btw stocks soared 300+ points that day, and watched our forces move into Iraq, cheering them all the way to Baghdad. To this day, I continue to support the President in Iraq as well as our troops in Iraq.

Did I make myself clear on this?
I never questioned your support of it, did I? I merely expressed my opinion about the retardedness of the decision made by the Bush administration to go into an unnecessary war.

I never questioned your support of it, did I? I merely expressed my opinion about the retardedness of the decision made by the Bush administration to go into an unnecessary war.

And it sounded to me like you were attacking me. I apologize for the confusion.

Go out and build someone else as your straw man. I never said anything like that.

You know nothing of my ideology.

Now, get back to your coloring book and leave us grown-ups alone.

What a cute little insult from a no-account n00b. I was going to berate you here again, but I realized the last time I pointed out how utterly full of crap you and your ilk are, all you did to respond was throw a tantrum and accuse me of being childish. Rather, I'll just continue to prove my point.

No, I don't know you or your specific ideology, but I know the general pattern. Quite frankly, why don't you spell it out for me? Somehow, I don't think you can, because you haven't thought about it. Why? Because the train of thought I've illustrated above, which you defended just a few posts earlier, has no need for introspection - because you know you must be right ! Go ahead, show me where I was wrong about you. You're here to defend the superior "black and white" mentality, remember? Well, get to it!

I'll just go color or something while I wait. ;)

Settle down people.

Originally Posted by The Great Sixth Reich
He's one of those people that think the sloppy Michael Moore is an intelligent person and government officials lie... Also known as jackasses. (The Donkey, the democratic symbol, is also known as a Jackass).

Michael Moore wants to be seen as a "regular guy", which he pulls off quite well. And he actually is intelligent, otherwise he couldn't have put together such a biased film as Fahrenheit 9/11. And yes it is biased. All anyone has to do is research the sources, etc., and it's easy to find where he twisted things. Also, some gov't officials do lie. Right or wrong, it's part of politics, and not exclusive to one party or the other.

Unlike some, I retain the ability to be critical of a source, even if I happen to agree with it. .

I do the same, but don't necessarily trust transcripts 100%. If the candidate says it on camera (the debates, for instance), then I can trust it to not be skewed. Everyone should take some time to investigate the issues for themselves. Might be time-consuming, but considering we're trying to pick who runs the country for the next 4 years, it's worth it.

Applauded the withdrawal of the second UN resolution, btw stocks soared 300+ points that day, and watched our forces move into Iraq, cheering them all the way to Baghdad. To this day, I continue to support the President in Iraq as well as our troops in Iraq.

A bit OT I know, but if you haven't been watching, the DJIA has dropped back below 10,000. Stocks haven't been so hot lately.

I am voting for Bush because Kerry will be very weak on defense and will raise my taxes because he thinks I should be responsible for someone elses healthcare. Someone who smokes and is overweight is responsible for their OWN healthcare. I should not be forced to subsidize these idiots bad lifestyle.

For the record...I have never smoked, seldom drink, am considered thin/skinny and have a cholestoral level in the low 100's.

I would prefer to vote for Badnarik, but this election is too close to risk Kerry winning.

I hate them both

*Writes in Warwick Davis*

A bit OT I know, but if you haven't been watching, the DJIA has dropped back below 10,000. Stocks haven't been so hot lately.

*sighs* Is that all you do is find bad news in everything? We have by my count, some businesses that did not meet expectations. Oil Prices are soaring (and here I thought the Iraq war was going to keep it low. so much for a war for oil), and Delta thinking about downsizing their workforce. Also, some medicines have been pulled from the self and their stocks took a hit. All of this affects the market overall.

Outside of this, the market is actually doing somewhat well.

Correct me if I'm wrong but we were technically still in a state of war with Iraq. We never had a formal Peace Treaty with Iraq just a cease fire right? Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire. Under international law, if you violate a cease fire, it is grounds to go back in.


Its not as simple as your description.

"Clause 33 of Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire in relation to the authorisation of force under the war resolution. This was in effect on acceptance by Iraq of the cease-fire resolution. The cease-fire resolution required, among other things, the dismantling of Iraq's WMD programs and the acceptance of weapons inspections."

"As a strict matter of law, once Iraq accepted the obligations of the cease-fire resolution, the authorisation of force under the war resolution was at an end. As Iraq did accept those obligations, the only way that the authorisation of force under resolution could survive was if the conduct of Iraq showed they had no intention at the time of accepting the obligation of actually complying (that is, there was no real acceptance). As Iraq did comply for several years, the authorisation of force under the war resolution was at an end. Because the war resolution no longer had any force after acceptance of the obligation by Iraq, later non-compliance could not revive it."

http://yourvoice.troy.rollo.name/node/view/24

Its not as simple as your description.

"Clause 33 of Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire in relation to the authorisation of force under the war resolution. This was in effect on acceptance by Iraq of the cease-fire resolution. The cease-fire resolution required, among other things, the dismantling of Iraq's WMD programs and the acceptance of weapons inspections."

"As a strict matter of law, once Iraq accepted the obligations of the cease-fire resolution, the authorisation of force under the war resolution was at an end. As Iraq did accept those obligations, the only way that the authorisation of force under resolution could survive was if the conduct of Iraq showed they had no intention at the time of accepting the obligation of actually complying (that is, there was no real acceptance). As Iraq did comply for several years, the authorisation of force under the war resolution was at an end. Because the war resolution no longer had any force after acceptance of the obligation by Iraq, later non-compliance could not revive it."

http://yourvoice.troy.rollo.name/node/view/24

Actually no sorry incorrect. The only way a cease-fire turns into peace is not by accepting that. Germany Accepted the armistace in 1917 and dismantled their military. However, Hitler rearmed and the west, France and Britain, did nothing. Hitler rampaged throughout eastern Europe and Western Europe. We all know what happened after that.

The point I'm making is that yes Saddam did accept the terms of theCease-fire! However, he stalled and balked on numerous occassions. We have a report that stated that he was going to start up his production of WMD the moment that the sanctions where lifted. Sounds to me like he did not care in the least. If he truely did take reponsibility and disarmed and DISMANTLED his wmd program then WHY did have have the capacity to restart his WMD programs when the sanctions where lifted?

Actually no sorry incorrect. The only way a cease-fire turns into peace is not by accepting that. Germany Accepted the armistace in 1917 and dismantled their military. However, Hitler rearmed and the west, France and Britain, did nothing. Hitler rampaged throughout eastern Europe and Western Europe. We all know what happened after that.

The point I'm making is that yes Saddam did accept the terms of theCease-fire! However, he stalled and balked on numerous occassions. We have a report that stated that he was going to start up his production of WMD the moment that the sanctions where lifted. Sounds to me like he did not care in the least. If he truely did take reponsibility and disarmed and DISMANTLED his wmd program then WHY did have have the capacity to restart his WMD programs when the sanctions where lifted?

I certainly hope you aren't trying to equate the military might of Nazi Germany to the military of Iraq. Other than that, I'm not sure I understood what you were trying to say. That if Iraq was left alone, it would rebuild and drag everyone into another world war?

You acknowledge that Saddam DID accept the terms of the cease-fire as listed in UN Resolution 687. But you believe that because he "balked" on numerous occasions at a later date, that cancelled the cease-fire because he violated its terms, correct? If that is the case, you should re-read what I posted. I'll pull out what I feel is a key part, "As Iraq did accept those obligations, the only way that the authorisation of force under resolution could survive was if the conduct of Iraq showed they had no intention AT THE TIME of accepting the obligation of actually complying." As such, a new resolution would have to be made that would authorise the use of force. Which would then bring us to discussing what "serious consequences" really means.

I'm voting for Kerry because my brother got sent to Iraq and I resent that.

Your brother is a soldier. Soldiers fight wars. Don't resent your brothers service. Celebrate it. Too few people honor our servicemen for their sacrifices.

Oh and depending upon which Kerry you are listening to and which way the wind is blowing at the time. Kerry would have probably done the same thing Bush did, given the intelligence at the time. So your brother would still have been in Iraq.

With this, I can agree with you. Better stick to the guns that you know of than those that you don't.

Anyway, this is why I think things are so neck and neck in the country right now. Kerry gets support from those who don't want Bush in office anymore, and I think he has done a decent job of convincing those same people and some others of his policies.

I definately know plenty of people who, while they don't agree with Bush on very many issues, prefer to stick with what they know. Being a "war-time" president, some think to put someone else in office now would be like getting a new coach half-way through the game. I guess that would make Bush more of a "safe" bet in a sense. I think that is Bush's main advantage outside of the traditional support from one's own political party.

Your brother is a soldier. Soldiers fight wars. Don't resent your brothers service. Celebrate it. Too few people honor our servicemen for their sacrifices.

Oh and depending upon which Kerry you are listening to and which way the wind is blowing at the time. Kerry would have probably done the same thing Bush did, given the intelligence at the time. So your brother would still have been in Iraq.

Kerry would have done the same thing to an extent. He would have gone after Afghanistan (much like Bush) and most likely have stepped up pressure on Iraq, but not attacked without UN support (unlike Bush). So your brother would probably be in Afghanistan now instead of Iraq, IMO.

I certainly hope you aren't trying to equate the military might of Nazi Germany to the military of Iraq. Other than that, I'm not sure I understood what you were trying to say. That if Iraq was left alone, it would rebuild and drag everyone into another world war?

Appeasement is what I was getting at Dementate. I guess history is beyond you. France and Britain appeased Germany and Germany became strong and nearly conquered the world. Hitler dared the world to challenge him and they did not. Hussein dared the world to do the same. He did violate UN Resolutions and nothing happened. Just got hit with more resolutions. Finally the US had enough of this nickle and dime crap and did something about it. We did not wait till he was strong to oppose us when we did finally decide to go in and kick him out. He had the ability to restart his illegal WMD program again. He had the equipment to do so and that in and of itself was illegal. The resolution clear stated to DISMANTLE IT! If he dismantled it then why was he able to begin producing WMD when the sanctions were lifted? That is what I'm getting at.

You acknowledge that Saddam DID accept the terms of the cease-fire as listed in UN Resolution 687. But you believe that because he "balked" on numerous occasions at a later date, that cancelled the cease-fire because he violated its terms, correct?

Yes I do consider it a violation. He was to fully comply with it and he did not fully comply with it. Its a proven fact that he did not comply with it.

If that is the case, you should re-read what I posted. I'll pull out what I feel is a key part, "As Iraq did accept those obligations, the only way that the authorisation of force under resolution could survive was if the conduct of Iraq showed they had no intention AT THE TIME of accepting the obligation of actually complying."

And he did not fully comply. If he did then he would've dismantled his wmd program. He wouldn't have stalled Weapons Inspectors. Require to know where they are going and when even though they are supposed to be unannounced. So much for that hot idea.

As such, a new resolution would have to be made that would authorise the use of force.

For a violation of a cease-fire, no resolution was required. Saddam violated the terms of the Cease-fire thus that is all we actually need to go in and throw him out.

Which would then bring us to discussing what "serious consequences" really means.

What it means to me is. Comply or we'll send in the troops. He didn't and we did.

Its not as simple as your description.

"Clause 33 of Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire in relation to the authorisation of force under the war resolution. This was in effect on acceptance by Iraq of the cease-fire resolution. The cease-fire resolution required, among other things, the dismantling of Iraq's WMD programs and the acceptance of weapons inspections."

"As a strict matter of law, once Iraq accepted the obligations of the cease-fire resolution, the authorisation of force under the war resolution was at an end. As Iraq did accept those obligations, the only way that the authorisation of force under resolution could survive was if the conduct of Iraq showed they had no intention at the time of accepting the obligation of actually complying (that is, there was no real acceptance). As Iraq did comply for several years, the authorisation of force under the war resolution was at an end. Because the war resolution no longer had any force after acceptance of the obligation by Iraq, later non-compliance could not revive it."

http://yourvoice.troy.rollo.name/node/view/24


North and South Korea only signed a cease-fire. They are, according to international recognition technically still in a state of war. Have you ever been there? I spent a year there and can assure you that the beaches are still mined and there are trenches and concrete bunkers all along the coast of South Korea still.

Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire every time they fired on US/British and for awhile, French aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. At any time after the first shot was fired, the US could have invaded. The 12 year wait is clearly indicative that there was no "rush" to war as many assert.

Your brother is a soldier. Soldiers fight wars. Don't resent your brothers service. Celebrate it. Too few people honor our servicemen for their sacrifices.

Oh and depending upon which Kerry you are listening to and which way the wind is blowing at the time. Kerry would have probably done the same thing Bush did, given the intelligence at the time. So your brother would still have been in Iraq.


But kerry may not have rushed into the way and would have had an exit stragty plus being a combat veteran he would have hesatated sending troops.

But kerry may not have rushed into the way and would have had an exit stragty plus being a combat veteran he would have hesatated sending troops.

My dad is a combat veteran and has been in many warzones. Outsside of Vietnam, name one hostile fire zone Kerry's been in?

My dad is a combat veteran and has been in many warzones. Outsside of Vietnam, name one hostile fire zone Kerry's been in?

One more than Bush

One more than Bush

Outside of Vietnam, what firezone has kerry seen?

Outside of Vietnam, what firezone has kerry seen?

Washington D.C. :)

Washington D.C. :)
Which still leaves Kerry one ahead of Bush. :D

Kerry would have done the same thing to an extent. He would have gone after Afghanistan (much like Bush) and most likely have stepped up pressure on Iraq, but not attacked without UN support (unlike Bush). So your brother would probably be in Afghanistan now instead of Iraq, IMO.
But Afganistan was a better war in the sense that we had a better reason. I mean the attacked us on our land so its more reasonable to have a case to attack that land. And we should have made it totally safe before we left. But instead we took majority of troops to go to Iraq.

What a cute little insult from a no-account n00b. I was going to berate you here again, but I realized the last time I pointed out how utterly full of crap you and your ilk are, all you did to respond was throw a tantrum and accuse me of being childish. Rather, I'll just continue to prove my point.

No, I don't know you or your specific ideology, but I know the general pattern. Quite frankly, why don't you spell it out for me? Somehow, I don't think you can, because you haven't thought about it. Why? Because the train of thought I've illustrated above, which you defended just a few posts earlier, has no need for introspection - because you know you must be right ! Go ahead, show me where I was wrong about you. You're here to defend the superior "black and white" mentality, remember? Well, get to it!

I'll just go color or something while I wait. ;)

Actually, I agreed that shades of gray exist, but you haven't read all of my posts in this thread to know that. Once again, here's evidence of another liberal reacting to half-assed, incomplete information. Shades of gray exist, but they require intelligence and the acceptance of undeniable truths to keep those thoughts rational. Otherwise, you'll become a babbling, inconsistent bafoon... like Kerry.

Actually, I agreed that shades of gray exist, but you haven't read all of my posts in this thread to know that. Once again, here's evidence of another liberal reacting to half-assed, incomplete information. Shades of gray exist, but they require intelligence and the acceptance of undeniable truths to keep those thoughts rational. Otherwise, you'll become a babbling, inconsistent bafoon... like Kerry.

If you have the wit to understans complex issues, Kerry has neither babbled nor been inconsistent. Of course, when all one's information is fed to you in 3 second soundbites, it is easy to make that mistake. I suggest you stop listening to brain numbing arch-conservative propaganda.

Yes, bad and cherry picked intelligence had everyone believing there were WMD. Unlike Bush, when new and better info came out, Kerry learned from it.

That's a load of crap. Kerry didn't change his mind until after he decided to run for the presidency. For the most part, he supported the war until he decided to shoot for the White House.

No, the UN was not allowed to pass another resolution. Bush thought the resolutions were enough, even though this was the first resolution was the first backed by a locked and loaded military. Saddam, according to head weapons inspector Hans Blix, was not being 100% cooperative and yet the weapons inspectors were still able to do their job, until Bush arbitrarily ordered them out. How quickly people forget.

Hmmm... What's this?
"In their third progress report since U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed in November..."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq.un/

Seems like a resolution to me!

No, again, Saddam did not lock the doors and block the inspectors. War was not a last resort. Saddam was contained. Our military was ready in case he so much as farted without permission. The coalition was primarily a paper coalition. Only approximately 15% of the ground troops were supplied by non-US coalition members, most of that by the UK. Many of the countries did nothing more that sign the equivalent of a petition (though Morocco did offer to send mine-kamikazee monkeys, ha!)

Hmmm... What's this?
"But in reports to the Security Council on Jan. 27, Blix complained about Iraq's lack of substantive cooperation and suggested the Iraqis may still possess chemical and biological weapons."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/02/iraq/main538987.shtml

Seems like a lack of cooperation to me!

If you check your coalition stats, similar was true of the first gulf war, but it's a good sound bite. Kerry has successfully got you duped.

No we didn't. Legitimacy was not gained, as Bush was the subject of the largest simultaneous anti-war protest in the history of the world. We still lack legitimacy to this day, hence why the majority of the world now thinks the US is the greatest threat to world peace. A good diplomat would have created conditions where terrorists, our greatest enemies, were the consesus greatest threat instead of us. Bush broke his promises.

The anti-war protests were a joke. They were insignificant at best.

Bush broke no promises.

Kerry has been consistent. What he said in this speech before the war is what he's saying now. Saddam was a threat. We needed more global cooperation. We needed to do a better job rebuiling Iraq than we did in Afghanistan. All 100% consistent. Now you may have a point that Kerry became more vocal after his run for Presidency, but part of that is that nobody listens to mere Senators. The cameras of the world were not pointed at Kerry at the time.

But, Kerry is actually saying more now. He's suggesting that Bush didn't do what was necessary, when in fact, Bush did exactly as Kerry stated in the speech that you posted! Where I'm from, they call that lying. Perhaps, that's one of those absolutes that I possess, but there's no room for your shades of gray here. Kerry is being dishonest.

If you read his speach and follow the facts, Bush did exactly as Kerry suggested. No, we didn't win over France, Germany, Canada, Russia and China; but the majority of other nations signed on. In fact, while the first Gulf War initially had 47 nations in the coalition, this Gulf War coalition had nearly 40 nations at the start of military action. There was no great disparity as you suggest. It was later determined that many of those nations had illegal oil contracts and other dealings with Saddam. You folks want to hold these nations as the higher authority, but these nations were involved in corruption that violated many of the resolutions that they supposedly supported.

The real point is that while Saddam was a threat, he was not, in any way, an iminent threat. Bush didmissed further attempts at diplomacy, even though this time they were clearly working. Given a bit more time in a country not wracked with war, the inspectors could have dertermined what we know from the Dulfur report today, that while Saddam wanted WMD, he neither had them nor had any immediate way to begin producing them. We would have saved billions of dollars, over 1000 of our soldier's lives, our economy would be better, our world relations would be better and we would have been in a better position to hunt down the terrorists that are now in 60 countries around the world. We also would have been in better shape to lock horns with Iran and North Korea, since our military would not have been so committes to a war that is now awash in insurgency, meaning we aren't just fighting terrorists, we are fighting normal Iraqi citizens who simply want us the fuck out of their country.

This is all speculation of the worst kind... IT'S GAMBLING WITH LIVES. There have been a number of unconfirmed reports that Saddam smuggled his WMDs into Syria. In fact, the Iranians believe that many are burried in the Southeastern region of Iraq. We'll never actually know what Saddam had prior to our military action.

God, how can you be so blind to recent history?

Wrong again. It's, how can you people be so ignorant of the facts!

Hey Yornoc, you may want to check out the thread on the new PIPA study. Sounds like you may be in the majority of Bush supporters.

If you have the wit to understans complex issues, Kerry has neither babbled nor been inconsistent. Of course, when all one's information is fed to you in 3 second soundbites, it is easy to make that mistake. I suggest you stop listening to brain numbing arch-conservative propaganda.

Oh yeah... and the Socialist Left-speak propaganda is so much better. You people worry me. I hear more of these "3 second soundbites" from the left. You're the guys who need these catchy little slogans of misinformation to energize the ignorant masses. We may have a tendency to speak in cut-and-dried absolutes, but at least we tend to be principled and consistent in our reasoning.

Hey Yornoc, you may want to check out the thread on the new PIPA study. Sounds like you may be in the majority of Bush supporters.

Not that I want to bring that thread discussion over here, but Saddam did have chemical WMDs when he went after the Kurds in the early 90s.

In addition, if we agree to be factually honest, the UN inspectors did find chemical WMDs prior to the war...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/

Of course, because they weren't fueled, readied and aimed at the United States, the world turned their head and ignored it.

Not that I want to bring that thread discussion over here, but Saddam did have chemical WMDs when he went after the Kurds in the early 90s.

In addition, if we agree to be factually honest, the UN inspectors did find chemical WMDs prior to the war...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/16/sproject.irq.wrap/

Of course, because they weren't fueled, readied and aimed at the United States, the world turned their head and ignored it.
Actually, we covered that in another thread a few weeks ago. Saddam didn't use WMD on the Kurds in the early 90s. I thought he had as well, but it turns out that the last documented time Hussein used WMD was in the Iran-Iraq war. He used them on his own people, but not after the first Gulf War. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, but both I and a serious Bush supporter went looking and found nothing.

And as for your link, you're actually going to argue that outdated, empty warheads constitute WMD? I think not.

Actually, we covered that in another thread a few weeks ago. Saddam didn't use WMD on the Kurds in the early 90s. I thought he had as well, but it turns out that the last documented time Hussein used WMD was in the Iran-Iraq war. He used them on his own people, but not after the first Gulf War. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, but both I and a serious Bush supporter went looking and found nothing..

Yes, you're right. I was incorrect. It was approximately 10 years prior. Here's a quick reference...
"The relationship with Iraq was severely tested after Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian forces and even gassed rebellious Kurds in the northern part of the country."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.regime.change/


And as for your link, you're actually going to argue that outdated, empty warheads constitute WMD? I think not.

Both Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons in our arsenals that are clearly 20+ years old. They may be outdated by today's standards, but they're still effective.

Similar is true of these chemical warheads. To suggest that Saddam didn't have plans to obtain the chemicals to arm these weapons is naive and foolish. They were tagged for destruction by UN inspectors in the early 90's, and they were found to still be in good condition in 2002. He did not destroy them as ordered.

Appeasement is what I was getting at Dementate. I guess history is beyond you. France and Britain appeased Germany and Germany became strong and nearly conquered the world. Hitler dared the world to challenge him and they did not. Hussein dared the world to do the same. He did violate UN Resolutions and nothing happened. Just got hit with more resolutions. Finally the US had enough of this nickle and dime crap and did something about it. We did not wait till he was strong to oppose us when we did finally decide to go in and kick him out. He had the ability to restart his illegal WMD program again. He had the equipment to do so and that in and of itself was illegal. The resolution clear stated to DISMANTLE IT! If he dismantled it then why was he able to begin producing WMD when the sanctions were lifted? That is what I'm getting at.

History is not beyond me, but I question what history books you’ve been reading. Still trying to compare Iraq with Nazi Germany? Here is some reading I recommend:

“Germany, after openly breaking the Versailles Treaty by rearming and creating the Luftwaffe, reoccupied the Rhineland, succeeded in Anschluss with Austria and annexed the Czech Sudetenland. Iraq failed in its bloody five year campaign against Iran, was ousted from Kuwait, and has been a declining military power since the UN inspectors started their work twelve years ago. Appeasement in the 1930s was a policy which allowed Germany to grow in military might, occupy new territory and directly threaten Europe without retribution. While the US and its allies can rightly be accused of collaboration with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, our policy since the Gulf War has been a remarkably successful mixture of containment and deterrence.”

http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/2003/030217times.html

or this site http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,894422,00.html

"The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours."

"Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380bn budget."

And he did not fully comply. If he did then he would've dismantled his wmd program. He wouldn't have stalled Weapons Inspectors. Require to know where they are going and when even though they are supposed to be unannounced. So much for that hot idea. For a violation of a cease-fire, no resolution was required. Saddam violated the terms of the Cease-fire thus that is all we actually need to go in and throw him out.

You seem to be overlooking the part of my quote that states “at the time of accepting…” That Saddam did not comply LATER is irrelevant to Resolution 687 and the cease fire. Also, you seem to overlook that the cease fire was between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. This site helps explain it

"This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the April Resolution (687) contains nothing specifying that the cease-fire is to be conditional upon Iraq's compliance with the inspection requirements. It contains nothing to the effect that noncompliance is to be dealt with by the coalition states through revival of the military mandate given by paragraph 2. On the contrary, paragraph 34 of the resolution specifies that problems with implementation of the resolution are to be dealt with by the Security Council itself. Paragraph 34 reads as follows:"

"34. [The Security Council] . . . decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

"Paragraph 34 makes it clear that, in the event of a problem arising from Iraq's breach of its inspection obligations, the responsibility for dealing with the problem is placed not in the hands of the coalition states but in the hands of the Security Council itself."

http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_6.html

What it means to me is. Comply or we'll send in the troops. He didn't and we did.

It is not important what it means to you, what is important is that “serious consequences” is not UN slang for “send in the troops”.

If you have the wit to understans complex issues, Kerry has neither babbled nor been inconsistent. Of course, when all one's information is fed to you in 3 second soundbites, it is easy to make that mistake. I suggest you stop listening to brain numbing arch-conservative propaganda.

OMG Kerry is a jerk! He lies about many things and he dosen't believe that Abortion is MURDER! WHO CAN'T SEE THAT?

. .
L
() :sniper: <ME
^ KERRY

North and South Korea only signed a cease-fire. They are, according to international recognition technically still in a state of war. Have you ever been there? I spent a year there and can assure you that the beaches are still mined and there are trenches and concrete bunkers all along the coast of South Korea still.

True. I haven't done much studying into the Korean War, but wasn't that cease-fire signed between the two nations (North and South Korea)?

Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire every time they fired on US/British and for awhile, French aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. At any time after the first shot was fired, the US could have invaded. The 12 year wait is clearly indicative that there was no "rush" to war as many assert.

And just to play devil's advocate (I'm good at that if you haven't noticed yet), the no fly zone was never authorized by the UN and was seen by Iraq as illegal. It was originally put into effect after Saddam crushed rebellions against him after the first gulf war. In fact, I think Saddam used helicopter gunships that were supplied from a British company but I'd have to look that up again.

OMG Kerry is a jerk! He lies about many things and he dosen't believe that Abortion is MURDER! WHO CAN'T SEE THAT?

. .
L
() :sniper: <ME
^ KERRY

Don't make me contact Homeland Security

(and I DO personally know the guy in charge for my state...)

History is not beyond me, but I question what history books you’ve been reading. Still trying to compare Iraq with Nazi Germany? Here is some reading I recommend:

“Germany, after openly breaking the Versailles Treaty by rearming and creating the Luftwaffe, reoccupied the Rhineland, succeeded in Anschluss with Austria and annexed the Czech Sudetenland. Iraq failed in its bloody five year campaign against Iran, was ousted from Kuwait, and has been a declining military power since the UN inspectors started their work twelve years ago. Appeasement in the 1930s was a policy which allowed Germany to grow in military might, occupy new territory and directly threaten Europe without retribution. While the US and its allies can rightly be accused of collaboration with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, our policy since the Gulf War has been a remarkably successful mixture of containment and deterrence.”

http://www.tgarden.demon.co.uk/writings/articles/2003/030217times.html

It was an 8 year campaign against Iran so the source was wrong! I was talking AFTER THE CEASE-FIRE!!!! Hitler violated the Versailles Treaty and what did the Brits and French do? NOTHING!!! They let them have the Rhineland, let them rearm the Luftwaffe as well as Anschluss with Austria and the annexation of the Czech Sudetenland.

Also this is a British a source and one I am not familiar with. They got the year wrong and as for collaborating with Saddam in the '80s, "the enemy of thy enemy is thy friend"

or this site http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,894422,00.html

"The parallel between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Nazi Germany is transparently ridiculous. In the late 1930s, Hitler's Germany was the world's second largest industrial economy and commanded its most powerful military machine. It openly espoused an ideology of territorial expansion, had annexed the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia in rapid succession and posed a direct threat to its neighbours."

Ok the second sentence is true but Saddam did want to rearm and did illegally. As for expansion, they did fail in Iran but did succeed in Kuwait! However, a coalition of forces threw him out of Kuwait much like a coalition of nations defeated the Axis.

"Iraq is, by contrast, a broken-backed developing country, with a single commodity economy and a devastated infrastructure, which doesn't even control all its own territory and has posed no credible threat to its neighbours, let alone Britain or the US, for more than a decade. Whatever residual chemical or biological weapons Iraq may retain, they are clearly no deterrent, its armed forces have been massively weakened and face the most powerful military force in history - Iraq's military spending is estimated to be about one per cent of the US's $380bn budget."

I guess the Kuwaitis did not know this. I guess the Saudis did not know this since we had troops in BOTH countries since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, something that Kerry voted against. Both nations were STILL SCARED OF SADDAM!!!! So yes, he actually still posed a threat. Israel was threatened by Saddam and Israel is in the neighborhood so that is three nations that felt threatened by Saddam.

You seem to be overlooking the part of my quote that states “at the time of accepting…” That Saddam did not comply LATER is irrelevant to Resolution 687 and the cease fire. Also, you seem to overlook that the cease fire was between the UN and Iraq, not the US and Iraq. This site helps explain it

Actually it DOES NOT MATTER!!!!! A violation of a cease fire is a violation of a cease fire. wether it occured "at the time of accepting" or later.

"This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the April Resolution (687) contains nothing specifying that the cease-fire is to be conditional upon Iraq's compliance with the inspection requirements. It contains nothing to the effect that noncompliance is to be dealt with by the coalition states through revival of the military mandate given by paragraph 2. On the contrary, paragraph 34 of the resolution specifies that problems with implementation of the resolution are to be dealt with by the Security Council itself. Paragraph 34 reads as follows:"

"34. [The Security Council] . . . decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."

"Paragraph 34 makes it clear that, in the event of a problem arising from Iraq's breach of its inspection obligations, the responsibility for dealing with the problem is placed not in the hands of the coalition states but in the hands of the Security Council itself."

http://www.hwcn.org/link/mkg/sect_6.html

We can go back and forth on this issue. You can interpret what it says all you like. However, the Iraq War was just as legal as WWII and WWI and the Opium Wars, the Spanish American War, etc etc etc.

It is not important what it means to you, what is important is that “serious consequences” is not UN slang for “send in the troops”.

Your right. But it IS important in what it means to the President. He took it to be "Comply or we'll send in the troops." That is how I took it to mean, my dad took it to mean, Britain took it to mean and so on.

True. I haven't done much studying into the Korean War, but wasn't that cease-fire signed between the two nations (North and South Korea)?

And yet, the US is also still at war. The Korean War was a UN mandate only because the Russians boycotted the vote and we had Taiwan, not China, on the security Council

True. I haven't done much studying into the Korean War, but wasn't that cease-fire signed between the two nations (North and South Korea)?



And just to play devil's advocate (I'm good at that if you haven't noticed yet), the no fly zone was never authorized by the UN and was seen by Iraq as illegal. It was originally put into effect after Saddam crushed rebellions against him after the first gulf war. In fact, I think Saddam used helicopter gunships that were supplied from a British company but I'd have to look that up again.

Yes....and WHY was the no-fly zone put into place? Because Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire and used his helicopters to attack the marsh Arabs and the Kurds that rose up against him. He violated the cease-fire agreement from the start and we "could" have resumed military action against him right away, but we did not. Maybe we should have.

Both Russia and the United States have nuclear weapons in our arsenals that are clearly 20+ years old. They may be outdated by today's standards, but they're still effective.

Similar is true of these chemical warheads. To suggest that Saddam didn't have plans to obtain the chemicals to arm these weapons is naive and foolish. They were tagged for destruction by UN inspectors in the early 90's, and they were found to still be in good condition in 2002. He did not destroy them as ordered.
To compare some rusted out warheads that may have once contained chemical weapons to the nuclear arsenals of the US and Russia is not just disingenuous, it's retarded. The two are nothing alike.

I think we should wait a while until we have those anitmatter bombs ready then just level everything and start over :D