NationStates Jolt Archive

On MSNBC last night, Chris Matthews commented that fully half of Bush's supporters believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and ties to Al-Qaida. This shocked me beyond the capacity of mere words to describe. Nevertheless, I shall attempt it:

THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ BY THE TIME WE INVADED! THERE WERE NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAIDA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN!

This is not a liberal rant. These are the conclusions drawn by the Bush Administration's final report to Congress regarding the disposition of the Iraq conflict. That report was called the Duelfer Report. A summary of it by the Washington Post can be found here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html


In addition, the Key Findings of report sent to the Central Intelligence Agency can be found at:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

The CIA copy largely confirms that Iraq was not a clear and present danger, a DIRECT contradiction of what the President told us prior to the War. Again, these are official government documents.

PS: If the President did not square with us on the Iraq war, how does that affect his credibility on the overall War On Terror?

THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ BY THE TIME WE INVADED! THERE WERE NO CONNECTIONS BETWEEN AL-QAIDA AND SADDAM HUSSEIN!


That is your opinion based on media reports, not an informed opinion based on intelligence.

Sorry dude but there where multiple connections between Saddam and AL-QAIDA.




AND YES THEY dID HAVE WMD'S WE HAVE PROOF THAT QUIT A BIT OF STUFF WAS TRANCE PORTED TO IRAN RIGHT BEFORE THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WHERE SHIPPING? COWS? HOUSES? WOOD? WOMEN? NO THEY WHERE GETTING RIDE OF THERE WMD'S.






FACE IT YOU LIB GEORGE BUSH WAS CORRECT IN GOING TO IRAQ AND IF WE HAD TO VOTE AGAIN I WOULD VOTE: YES!!!!!!!!








MAN ARE YOU SOME KIND OF PACIFIST? GREENEY?

No, Kerry scares me.

That is your opinion based on media reports, not an informed opinion based on intelligence.

Have you seen any WMDs lately, heard about them in Iraq, or seen any terrorists in Iraq, let me help you There are none! Or werent at least, there may be some now but thats thanks to Bush. Talk about intelligence, weve been there for two and a half years.

You know what I bet you only listen to: CNN ABC and CBS.


Dan rather is prob your dad and michel moore is your mom.





GET A LIFE. Do you really really beleive that those news sources would tell the truth?

Sorry dude but there where multiple connections between Saddam and AL-QAIDA.




AND YES THEY dID HAVE WMD'S WE HAVE PROOF THAT QUIT A BIT OF STUFF WAS TRANCE PORTED TO IRAN RIGHT BEFORE THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WHERE SHIPPING? COWS? HOUSES? WOOD? WOMEN? NO THEY WHERE GETTING RIDE OF THERE WMD'S.






FACE IT YOU LIB GEORGE BUSH WAS CORRECT IN GOING TO IRAQ AND IF WE HAD TO VOTE AGAIN I WOULD VOTE: YES!!!!!!!!








MAN ARE YOU SOME KIND OF PACIFIST? GREENEY?

Easy junior, transported is one word, and where did you see the trucks delivering the WMDs to IRan, oh right you just made that up in hopes we would believe you. Uh-uh, not gonna happen, were not as dumb as you, listening to everything you here from Bush and trusting him. Im so sick of Bush fanatics, isnt everybody else?

You know what I bet you only listen to: CNN ABC and CBS.


Dan rather is prob your dad and michel moore is your mom.





GET A LIFE. Do you really really beleive that those news sources would tell the truth?

ARE YOU INSANE!!!!!!!!!!! WHO THE HELL DO YOU LISTEN TO, WAIT, LET ME GUESS, FOX NEWS AND EVERYONE ON FOX NEWS, ONLY THE MOST BIASED MEDIA IN THE WORLD! REALLY, ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THE IGNORANCE IN BUSH SUPPORTERS IS UNBELIEVEABLE.

George Bush is our president. And as a true American I will give him the chance to: diffend him self, show us all the facts. And I would beleive him.


I would rahter beleive the president of the United States than listen to our media.


I know witch one will tell the truth and witch one has an egenda.

You know what I bet you only listen to: CNN ABC and CBS.


Dan rather is prob your dad and michel moore is your mom.





GET A LIFE. Do you really really beleive that those news sources would tell the truth?

You guys are idiots. My sources include CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC. And occasionally BBC.

And I repeat. There were no weapons or Al-Qaida connections. The Bush Administration admitted that during the debates AND in the report to Congress. Are you going to argue about the written words on the CIA website next? Bet all the Agents up there are diehard liberals just working day and night to lie to the American public.. (Sarcasm)

If all the WMDs were shipped to Iran before hand then what was the point in invading Iraq? (And also if we knew weapons were being transported than why didn't we bomb the cars/trucks/planes that transported them.) Then again it is very likely that Iraq gave all it's most powerful weapons to Iran. After all those two countries have always been buddies right?

On the Al-Quaida note, most of Saddam's and Al-Quaida's ties developed after, and because we started threatening Iraq. Beforehand Saddam and Osama-bin Laden actually didn't get along well since the baath party promoted secularism, and Osama...well he does not.

It doesn't matter to Bush voters that the Deulfer Report and the 9/11 Commission Report contradict the President. They will insist on the lies being true, and will call you and your sources 'biased'. Dude, it's called "wilful ignorance".

You guys are idiots. My sources include CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC. And occasionally BBC.

And I repeat. There were no weapons or Al-Qaida connections. The Bush Administration admitted that during the debates AND in the report to Congress. Are you going to argue about the written words on the CIA website next? Bet all the Agents up there are diehard liberals just working day and night to lie to the American public.. (Sarcasm)

I love you.

George Bush is our president. And as a true American I will give him the chance to: diffend him self, show us all the facts. And I would beleive him.


I would rahter beleive the president of the United States than listen to our media.


I know witch one will tell the truth and witch one has an egenda.


Bush will not be the most likely bet to tell you the truth. He has a political agenda.

The news media is more likely to speak the truth because all those media outlets are competing against each other. Don't you remember how quick they jumped on CBS for the National Guard files on Bush?

It amazes me that bush is even in power let alone allowed to invade countries, i am english and horrified that our prime minister supported bush, MAN ARE YOU SOME KIND OF PACIFIST? GREENEY? is the kind of mentality we are dealing with when bush supporters have to put people into pidgeon holes FACE IT YOU LIB when in Shalrirorchia's original message he clearly said This is not a liberal rant.
He backed up his evidence wheres your sources the great axis?

I love you.

thank you. :D

That was my temper. ;)

Have you seen any WMDs lately, heard about them in Iraq, or seen any terrorists in Iraq, let me help you There are none! Or werent at least, there may be some now but thats thanks to Bush. Talk about intelligence, weve been there for two and a half years.
I have seen mass graves filled with vicitms of WMDs. I have seen multiple news reports this week about missing WMDs. So, which is it. THey had them and they are missing, or they never had them, and all those people died of the flu. Ask a soldier about WMDs. I have seen them.

George Bush is our president. And as a true American I will give him the chance to: diffend him self, show us all the facts. And I would beleive him.


I would rahter beleive the president of the United States than listen to our media.


I know witch one will tell the truth and witch one has an egenda.

You spelled half of your words wrong, weve given him 4 frekkin years to show us the evidence, he blocks most of them out, then goes to church for the day, Haha, Bush tell the truth, man you are dumb.

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Go ahead...knock the source as "right-wing propaganda," I'm right-wing anyway so I love it! At least you'll understand conservatives a little better.

bah, iraq had no weapons.. it had absolutly nothing to do with al-quida.. so on so on..

kerry might be an unstimulating sleezball but at least you cant get much worse than bush... lol

Do you want to know what all the news sources I listen to daily. (and I don't mean I flip them on when I want to take a nap)



Fox
World net daily
DEBKA
Rush Limhgba
Michel savage
msn
BBC
and two other news sources out of Israel that I won't even mention becuse you won't have heard of them junior!

I have seen mass graves filled with vicitms of WMDs. I have seen multiple news reports this week about missing WMDs. So, which is it. THey had them and they are missing, or they never had them, and all those people died of the flu. Ask a soldier about WMDs. I have seen them.

YOU IDIOT, I MEAN IVE MET SOME IGNORANT BASTARDS IN MY LIFE BUT YOU TAKE THE CAKE! THE PEOPLE WHO DIED WERE KILLED BY SADDAM, A WMD IS A NUCLEAR BOMB, NOT A KNIFE! AND THE MISSING WEAPONS WERE STOLEN BY IRAQIS THAT BUSH AND RUMSFELD DECIDED TO LEAVE UNGUARDED, BUSH SUPPORTERS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE I KNOW, RETARTED PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THEM! NO YOU HAVENT SEEN THEM, ALL SOLDIERS HAVE NOT SEEN THEM, BUSH HASNT SEEN THEM YET YOU IDIOT. SO DONT GO MAKING STUFF UP YOU IGNORANT BASTARD!!!

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Go ahead...knock the source as "right-wing propaganda," I'm right-wing anyway so I love it! At least you'll understand conservatives a little better.

I won't knock it. But what the Hell is a "weapons of mass destruction component"? Steel tubes? Bolts? Wiring? I mean, there is nothing magical about a WMD. It's composed of a variety of devices and parts, many of which have civilian (and innocent) purposes as well.

bah, iraq had no weapons.. it had absolutly nothing to do with al-quida.. so on so on..

Then why in 1998 did the Clinton Justice Department accuse Saddam and al-Qaeda of putting aside differences and cooperating with one another in their indictment of UBL?

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

Source: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html

Go ahead...knock the source as "right-wing propaganda," I'm right-wing anyway so I love it! At least you'll understand conservatives a little better.


AMEN!


And since the UN said it you are bound to beleive it. Or is the Un wright-wing too?

I have seen mass graves filled with vicitms of WMDs. I have seen multiple news reports this week about missing WMDs. So, which is it. THey had them and they are missing, or they never had them, and all those people died of the flu. Ask a soldier about WMDs. I have seen them.

You seem to have a timing problem. You see, Saddam Hussein DID at one time have WMDs. He used them to crush the Kurds. But after all the years of sanctions and inspections, by year 2003, the weapons were no more. Just because he had them at one time doesn't justify a war NOW when he did not have them.

Do you want to know what all the news sources I listen to daily. (and I don't mean I flip them on when I want to take a nap)



Fox
World net daily
DEBKA
Rush Limhgba
Michel savage
msn
BBC
and two other news sources out of Israel that I won't even mention becuse you won't have heard of them junior!

Fox and Rush lean, the others are nuetral, so they wouldnt persuade you to vote democrat, only the leaners would persuade you. Seriously, I hate you, you are the downfall of this country with your dumbass president.

AMEN!


And since the UN said it you are bound to beleive it. Or is the Un wright-wing too?

I repeat, what is a weapon of mass destruction component?

I have seen mass graves filled with vicitms of WMDs. I have seen multiple news reports this week about missing WMDs. So, which is it. THey had them and they are missing, or they never had them, and all those people died of the flu. Ask a soldier about WMDs. I have seen them.
so you dont believe the 9/11 report?

you dont know the difference between explosives and wmd?

you dont know the difference between 2003 and 1991 (and earlier)?

we had 10+ years of sanctions and inspectors in iraq who, as it turns out, were very successful at locating and removing iraqs wmds and wmd programs.

but youre just trolling right? you arent really this ignorant.

You do know one of bushes relatives has a high position in the fox news network don't you and that he was the one that annouced that bush was president and all the other networks went with it.
Bush has multiple ties with oil companies iraq has alot of oil, when bush was senator of texas he had taliban officials over to america to discuss oil pipe lines then they went and invaded afganistan and put someone in power who would let them build the pipeline.

YOU IDIOT, I MEAN IVE MET SOME IGNORANT BASTARDS IN MY LIFE BUT YOU TAKE THE CAKE! THE PEOPLE WHO DIED WERE KILLED BY SADDAM, A WMD IS A NUCLEAR BOMB, NOT A KNIFE! AND THE MISSING WEAPONS WERE STOLEN BY IRAQIS THAT BUSH AND RUMSFELD DECIDED TO LEAVE UNGUARDED, BUSH SUPPORTERS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE I KNOW, RETARTED PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THEM! NO YOU HAVENT SEEN THEM, ALL SOLDIERS HAVE NOT SEEN THEM, BUSH HASNT SEEN THEM YET YOU IDIOT. SO DONT GO MAKING STUFF UP YOU IGNORANT BASTARD!!!




Do you know what WMD stands for? Wepons of {MASS} distruction.

Ok do you know what mass means? or what would you consider mass when we are talking about death. 5 people or 6 maybe 100 or even 500! BUT WE HAVE FOUND AND DOCUMENTED OVER 1 MILLION DEATHS. Now if that is not "MASS" to you than you are a very very ill person.

AMEN!


And since the UN said it you are bound to beleive it. Or is the Un wright-wing too?

The UN said no such thing, they disaproved our little Iraq adventure, and they always say there are no WMDs. SO IN YOUR FACE JESUS-FREAK!

Do you know what WMD stands for? Wepons of {MASS} distruction.

Ok do you know what mass means? or what would you consider mass when we are talking about death. 5 people or 6 maybe 100 or even 500! BUT WE HAVE FOUND AND DOCUMENTED OVER 1 MILLION DEATHS. Now if that is not "MASS" to you than you are a very very ill person.

They werent killed by a nuclear bomb, or chemicals, Saddam had them shot, with a gun, the kind of weapon that Bush is trying to aprove, after all the hard work of Clinton to ban them.

Do you know what WMD stands for? Wepons of {MASS} distruction.

Ok do you know what mass means? or what would you consider mass when we are talking about death. 5 people or 6 maybe 100 or even 500! BUT WE HAVE FOUND AND DOCUMENTED OVER 1 MILLION DEATHS. Now if that is not "MASS" to you than you are a very very ill person.

Those were mass executions by Saddam's troopers and death squads. That was not WMD.

Do not mistake my purpose. I think Saddam Hussein is an evil man. I think what he did to the Iraqi people was terrible. But he was NOT AN IMMEDIATE SECURITY THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

We must deal with the threats to U.S. national security first. Only THEN can we go and "liberate" the people yearning for freedom.

You do know one of bushes relatives has a high position in the fox news network don't you and that he was the one that annouced that bush was president and all the other networks went with it.
Bush has multiple ties with oil companies iraq has alot of oil, when bush was senator of texas he had taliban officials over to america to discuss oil pipe lines then they went and invaded afganistan and put someone in power who would let them build the pipeline.

Yes thank you so much, but Bush was never the senator he was the governer. Might wanna change that.

I repeat, what is a weapon of mass destruction component?


A WMD is a wepon that is used to kill mass amounts of people.

Those were mass executions by Saddam's troopers and death squads. That was not WMD.

Do not mistake my purpose. I think Saddam Hussein is an evil man. I think what he did to the Iraqi people was terrible. But he was NOT AN IMMEDIATE SECURITY THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES.

We must deal with the threats to U.S. national security first. Only THEN can we go and "liberate" the people yearning for freedom.

Exactly, and only if they want liberation, apparently Iraqis do not, or at least not the majority.

Then why in 1998 did the Clinton Justice Department accuse Saddam and al-Qaeda of putting aside differences and cooperating with one another in their indictment of UBL?

hang on, i'm just gonna be brave enough to say that i don't know what you're talking about! lol

**

But if saddam did have WMDs then wouldn't a known mad dictator who has proven time and time again he has no problem slaughtering his own people and the enemy on their land or his no matter the cost? Well i'd say a Dictator like Saddam would most certainly have used those WMDs on our (brit and american) troops stationed in Kueit before the invasion or would have used them on our troops as they were advancing to baghdad.. you have to admit thats a point..

He may have certainly posessed them once (when the US was allies with saddam before '91, or,the brits and american weapons manufactururs kept the recipts), but not when we invaded, and that was the main argument for war.. we found sod all! haha

I won't knock it. But what the Hell is a "weapons of mass destruction component"? Steel tubes? Bolts? Wiring? I mean, there is nothing magical about a WMD. It's composed of a variety of devices and parts, many of which have civilian (and innocent) purposes as well.

Knowing that the Duelfer Report confirmed that Saddam Hussein had a calculated strategy to engage in oil and arms sales with UN Security Council members, which he did (France, Russia, Germany, & China), and in exchange, use them to help him lift the sanctions imposed on him, with the intent to reconstitute the weapons programs, do you honestly believe that the tons of WMD components and the Iraqi facilities that were dismantled at the rate of about 1,000 tons of metal a month conviently right before the war were used for civilian purposes?

A WMD is a wepon that is used to kill mass amounts of people.

So your saying a gun is a weapon of mass destuction? NO! You are an idiot. Look it up in no dictionarys would it say, WMDs, a gun.

Yes, but technically my school has WMD components in it since chlorine (for the pool) can be used as a chemical weapon.

(in reply to 37)

A WMD is a wepon that is used to kill mass amounts of people.

That is not what I asked. You said that Iraq was shipping Weapons of Mass Destruction components into Iran. I was asking what the hell a "component" is. Is a tube of aluminum a component?

And a WMD is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction


92.31% of you say that this will have no effect on your vote for Bush. This floors me. Have you constructed such a mindset that you literally cannot see any wrongs President Bush involves himself in? If there were no pressing reasons for invading Iraq, then this is all a big mistake. How can you continue to support Bush, rationally, given the context?

So you thikn that a WMD has to be a nuclear bomb or chemical wepon?


Give a mad man a machine gun and a large crowd and he is a WMD.


Bush was trying to get rid of Saddam yes bush uses guns two but so far I have not seen graves here in America or in Iraq wher millions have been killed at the hand of George W. Bush!

A new report came out today saying that perhaps 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during U.S. military operations there. Is that sufficient?

all this iraq stuff and whatever is just the democrats who disagree with bush and the republicans who like him. If Kerry ran for election last time and won and he went to Iraq the democrats would love him and the republicans would disagree with him. It's just the two sides. Not the decision to go to Iraq. My opinion.

Yes, but technically my school has WMD components in it since chlorine (for the pool) can be used as a chemical weapon.

(in reply to 37)

...........aaaaaaand this is when it just becomes silly paranoia!

YOU IDIOT, I MEAN IVE MET SOME IGNORANT BASTARDS IN MY LIFE BUT YOU TAKE THE CAKE! THE PEOPLE WHO DIED WERE KILLED BY SADDAM, A WMD IS A NUCLEAR BOMB, NOT A KNIFE! AND THE MISSING WEAPONS WERE STOLEN BY IRAQIS THAT BUSH AND RUMSFELD DECIDED TO LEAVE UNGUARDED, BUSH SUPPORTERS ARE THE DUMBEST PEOPLE I KNOW, RETARTED PEOPLE ARE SMARTER THAN THEM! NO YOU HAVENT SEEN THEM, ALL SOLDIERS HAVE NOT SEEN THEM, BUSH HASNT SEEN THEM YET YOU IDIOT. SO DONT GO MAKING STUFF UP YOU IGNORANT BASTARD!!!
:p Wow, that is going to be seared, seared into my memory.

You seem to have a timing problem. You see, Saddam Hussein DID at one time have WMDs. He used them to crush the Kurds. But after all the years of sanctions and inspections, by year 2003, the weapons were no more. Just because he had them at one time doesn't justify a war NOW when he did not have them.
No, you don't understand. I have seen WMDs recently in Iraq. Among the weapons bunkers so often spoken of this week. The Unites States is working hard to destroy them, or render them inert.

so you dont believe the 9/11 report?

you dont know the difference between explosives and wmd?

you dont know the difference between 2003 and 1991 (and earlier)?

we had 10+ years of sanctions and inspectors in iraq who, as it turns out, were very successful at locating and removing iraqs wmds and wmd programs.

but youre just trolling right? you arent really this ignorant.
Man you all are quick to lable someone, be it troll, or neocon, or bastard, but never admit your wrong. That is a good policy. The 9/11 report was very politicised and ignored a lot of evidence, and also says nothing about Al-quaeda and Iraq not talking, contrary to what you may think. Stop trolling.

The UN said no such thing, they disaproved our little Iraq adventure, and they always say there are no WMDs. SO IN YOUR FACE JESUS-FREAK!
He didn't insult your religion, why do you have to attack his?

Listen, guys (to the people who support Bush). Being strong is good, but there IS a difference between strength and being stubborn. Bush has weakened the United States by overplaying our hand in Iraq. If you require proof, then just LOOK at North Korea and Iran. They are ramping up their WMD programs openly, racing for the Bomb. And the U.S. is not doing anything about it. We have not got the resources to make it so. Bush has weakened us for little gain.

That is not what I asked. You said that Iraq was shipping Weapons of Mass Destruction components into Iran. I was asking what the hell a "component" is. Is a tube of aluminum a component?

And a WMD is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction


92.31% of you say that this will have no effect on your vote for Bush. This floors me. Have you constructed such a mindset that you literally cannot see any wrongs President Bush involves himself in? If there were no pressing reasons for invading Iraq, then this is all a big mistake. How can you continue to support Bush, rationally, given the context?


i really don't like a lot of what Bush has done. Infact I dissagree with him on just about every thing exept the war on teror and the war on iraq.


BUT having said that. I don't think kerry is any better. He has allready lied about veitnam and he is not even in office yet. He thinks that we should bow to the UN and ther agenda. he is for gays and abortion.


THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I CAN NOT AS A CHRISTAN SUPPORT!

:p Wow, that is going to be seared, seared into my memory.


No, you don't understand. I have seen WMDs recently in Iraq. Among the weapons bunkers so often spoken of this week. The Unites States is working hard to destroy them, or render them inert.


Man you all are quick to lable someone, be it troll, or neocon, or bastard, but never admit your wrong. That is a good policy. The 9/11 report was very politicised and ignored a lot of evidence, and also says nothing about Al-quaeda and Iraq not talking, contrary to what you may think. Stop trolling.


He didn't insult your religion, why do you have to attack his?

Where is the proof? Where are the pictures of WMD?

So you thikn that a WMD has to be a nuclear bomb or chemical wepon?


Give a mad man a machine gun and a large crowd and he is a WMD.


Bush was trying to get rid of Saddam yes bush uses guns two but so far I have not seen graves here in America or in Iraq wher millions have been killed at the hand of George W. Bush!

Try Washington DC, where 1000 plus Americans have been killed by this war, I think I would call that being killed by Bush. and No its still not a WMD, is a knife a WMD? JUST ANSWER THAT TO ME!

hang on, i'm just gonna be brave enough to say that i don't know what you're talking about! lol

**

But if saddam did have WMDs then wouldn't a known mad dictator who has proven time and time again he has no problem slaughtering his own people and the enemy on their land or his no matter the cost? Well i'd say a Dictator like Saddam would most certainly have used those WMDs on our (brit and american) troops stationed in Kueit before the invasion or would have used them on our troops as they were advancing to baghdad.. you have to admit thats a point..

Actually, considering that Saddam was perhaps the only arab leader who publicly praised the 9/11 attacks and had a portrait made depicting the burning twin towers with him smiling in front of it, and that Russia (who opposed the War) has admitted that it was they (the Russians) who told George W. Bush that Russian intelligence believed that Saddam Hussein was planning terrorist attacks in the United States shortly after 9/11, I think that Saddam, knowing that his gig was up and that he could not defeat a superpower even with WMDs, would rather hide the weapons so that they might be found in terrorist hands to use inside of America.

What would cause more harm and be more devatating to America? WMDs used on American and British troops or WMDs smuggled into the U.S. and detonated in an American city?

You have to admit, thats a point...

i really don't like a lot of what Bush has done. Infact I dissagree with him on just about every thing exept the war on teror and the war on iraq.


BUT having said that. I don't think kerry is any better. He has allready lied about veitnam and he is not even in office yet. He thinks that we should bow to the UN and ther agenda. he is for gays and abortion.


THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I CAN NOT AS A CHRISTAN SUPPORT!

Christians stick up for the underdog. Christians demand equality, and social justice. Christians turn the other cheek, and are supposed to keep their values in the church, not in the ballot box.

I'm a Catholic. I know.

So you thikn that a WMD has to be a nuclear bomb or chemical wepon?


Give a mad man a machine gun and a large crowd and he is a WMD.


Bush was trying to get rid of Saddam yes bush uses guns two but so far I have not seen graves here in America or in Iraq wher millions have been killed at the hand of George W. Bush!

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

i really don't like a lot of what Bush has done. Infact I dissagree with him on just about every thing exept the war on teror and the war on iraq.


BUT having said that. I don't think kerry is any better. He has allready lied about veitnam and he is not even in office yet. He thinks that we should bow to the UN and ther agenda. he is for gays and abortion.


THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I CAN NOT AS A CHRISTAN SUPPORT!

Do you have a problem with gay people, I know a lot of cool gay people, and you saying that their evil or bad, its really anoying, they cant choose how they were born, wait, your a nazi, thats like killing someone without blonde hair and blue eyes. It wasnt their choice. YOU ARE AN IDIOT BASTARD!

Christians stick up for the underdog. Christians demand equality, and social justice. Christians turn the other cheek, and are supposed to keep their values in the church, not in the ballot box.

I'm a Catholic. I know.


i think I missed somthing. Whats your point?

Christians stick up for the underdog. Christians demand equality, and social justice. Christians turn the other cheek, and are supposed to keep their values in the church, not in the ballot box.

I'm a Catholic. I know.

I agree with so much you just said.

i think I missed somthing. Whats your point?

Yeah, how about you missed everything, like the last four years, if you want to support your religion, go to church put money in the wicker basket, not by voting a religious nut-job to be president. You gay hating bastard.

[QUOTE=Ell Schwaido]If all the WMDs were shipped to Iran before hand then what was the point in invading Iraq? (And also if we knew weapons were being transported than why didn't we bomb the cars/trucks/planes that transported them.) Then again it is very likely that Iraq gave all it's most powerful weapons to Iran. After all those two countries have always been buddies right?QUOTE]


It's time to come out that fridge you've living in for the last 20 years my friend. Saddam and Iranians friends? HA HA. First of all Saddam was largely backed by the Sunni sect of islam, hated enemies of the Iranian shi'tes. And, oh yeah, didn't they have a decade long war between one another costing an estimated 1 million lives, one of the deadliest wars since WW2. So just think about that the next time you call them friends........ :sniper:

Do you have a problem with gay people, I know a lot of cool gay people, and you saying that their evil or bad, its really anoying, they cant choose how they were born, wait, your a nazi, thats like killing someone without blonde hair and blue eyes. It wasnt their choice. YOU ARE AN IDIOT BASTARD!


Well for one you can't really cal me a bastard..I have a father.

To tell you the truth I have blond hair and blue-ish eyes.


God in the Bible says that loving another man in the way a man would love a women is wrong. And it is a sin.

I don't think you will agree with me becuse you don't know god. You don't beleive in him so you can never under stand this point of veiw. Not un-till you be come a beleiver.

:p Wow, that is going to be seared, seared into my memory.


No, you don't understand. I have seen WMDs recently in Iraq. Among the weapons bunkers so often spoken of this week. The Unites States is working hard to destroy them, or render them inert.


Man you all are quick to lable someone, be it troll, or neocon, or bastard, but never admit your wrong. That is a good policy. The 9/11 report was very politicised and ignored a lot of evidence, and also says nothing about Al-quaeda and Iraq not talking, contrary to what you may think. Stop trolling.


He didn't insult your religion, why do you have to attack his?

HE IS MY RELIGION!!! I just dont like to mix religion with poitics, its crazy, and what do you live in Iraq, because you did NOT see anything in Iraq, especially if the president your defending says, "We havent found any WMDs yet." IN YOUR FUCKING FACE!!!

so you dont believe the 9/11 report?

The findings of the 9/11 comission were greatly mischaracterized. The comission concluded that Saddam had no involvement in 9/11 and that there was no evidence that Saddam and al-Qaeda had cooperated in terrorist attacks in the past, but also confirmed many contacts between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda members.

Watch this video from a right-wing propaganda site: http://www.richwatch.net/gorespeech.htm.

It also critisizes Al Gore and proves him a "flip-flopper."

Well for one you can't really cal me a bastard..I have a father.

To tell you the truth I have blond hair and blue-ish eyes.


God in the Bible says that loving another man in the way a man would love a women is wrong. And it is a sin.

I don't think you will agree with me becuse you don't know god. You don't beleive in him so you can never under stand this point of veiw. Not un-till you be come a beleiver.

I dont care, Im calling you a nazi, by defining your hair and eye color youve helped my point. And the bible isnt an autobiography, people wrote it, in the dark and middle ages. Maybe we should go back to torture, wait a minute, what about the Iraqi sexual torture in that prison! Hmm, Bush really likes the 1200s. And its spelled until not un-till, go to school. I thin that god, if he exhists wouldnt hate someone because of their sexuality. You are wrong not me!

Where is the proof? Where are the pictures of WMD?
http://www.rferl.org/images/photo/iraq-nuclear.jpg

Actually, considering that Saddam was perhaps the only arab leader who publicly praised the 9/11 attacks and had a portrait made depicting the burning twin towers with him smiling in front of it, and that Russia (who opposed the War) has admitted that it was they (the Russians) who told George W. Bush that Russian intelligence believed that Saddam Hussein was planning terrorist attacks in the United States shortly after 9/11, I think that Saddam, knowing that his gig was up and that he could not defeat a superpower even with WMDs, would rather hide the weapons so that they might be found in terrorist hands to use inside of America.

What would cause more harm and be more devatating to America? WMDs used on American and British troops or WMDs smuggled into the U.S. and detonated in an American city?

You have to admit, thats a point...

yes thats a good point aswell.. but we can't really have a proper agrument untill we have actually found where these phantom weapons are if they still exist, if they ever existed.. this is where it turns all to speculation :(

The findings of the 9/11 comission were greatly mischaracterized. The comission concluded that Saddam had no involvement in 9/11 and that there was no evidence that Saddam and al-Qaeda had cooperated in terrorist attacks in the past, but also confirmed many contacts between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda members.

Watch this video from a right-wing propaganda site: http://www.richwatch.net/gorespeech.htm.

It also critisizes Al Gore and proves him a "flip-flopper."

Yeah there were no terrorists from Iraq, out of the 19 15 of them were from Saudi but wait, Bush wouldnt attack there, because he is good friends with THE FUCKIN' ROYAL FAMILY OF SAUDI ARABIA! The other 4 came from Egypt. Ignorant Bastard.

http://www.rferl.org/images/photo/iraq-nuclear.jpg

Its a picture of a shed and a lot of dirt, whats your point?

Hey, HyperionCentauri! Just so you know, I responded to your post on page 4..BTW.

Also, the link to the video I gave isn't working well on my computer so it might not work for you guys either.

HE IS MY RELIGION!!! I just dont like to mix religion with poitics, its crazy, and what do you live in Iraq, because you did NOT see anything in Iraq, especially if the president your defending says, "We havent found any WMDs yet." IN YOUR FUCKING FACE!!!



I do not live in iraq but I have a brother in the sevice over there. He has spent more than six months over there. And he sees the stuff first hand. He has sent me picturse that HE took and he has told me stuff over the phone and you know what he is glad we are over there helping them. And he says that 99% of them are glad we are there.


So when you say you "know" about the stuff over there, you don't know


In 1 year when I am old enough then I will be in the service right along with my brother serving our country. Sure its a risk we might die or lose a limb but it is the price that some of the most brave eople in America take.

Ok, think about this for a second. Saddam is a bad man. You just can't dissagree with that. He has a bad history behind him. He killed his own people. He killed people for the fun of it. He documented all he did. It is better for the country to be more free. Bush got rid of a bad man. Also why the heck do you say your voting for kerry because bush was wrong in going to war. KERRY WANTED TO GO TO WAR TOO. So this just goes to show that your not supporting for kerry because he would make a great pres. YOu supporting Kerry becouse you don't like bush. I just don't know how this argument is valid. in the first place I thought it valid if you just said bush. But is started out as "bush supporters" meaning in voting terms. having more than just that group.

I do not live in iraq but I have a brother in the sevice over there. He has spent more than six months over there. And he sees the stuff first hand. He has sent me picturse that HE took and he has told me stuff over the phone and you know what he is glad we are over there helping them. And he says that 99% of them are glad we are there.


So when you say you "know" about the stuff over there, you don't know


In 1 year when I am old enough then I will be in the service right along with my brother serving our country. Sure its a risk we might die or lose a limb but it is the price that some of the most brave eople in America take.

Ok tell me what regiment is he in. What is his ranking. And if he says 99% are glad you are there. He is on drugs, especially since drug production in Iraq and Afghanistan has quadroopled since we got there.

Ok, think about this for a second. Saddam is a bad man. You just can't dissagree with that. He has a bad history behind him. He killed his own people. He killed people for the fun of it. He documented all he did. It is better for the country to be more free. Bush got rid of a bad man. Also why the heck do you say your voting for kerry because bush was wrong in going to war. KERRY WANTED TO GO TO WAR TOO. So this just goes to show that your not supporting for kerry because he would make a great pres. YOu supporting Kerry becouse you don't like bush. I just don't know how this argument is valid. in the first place I thought it valid if you just said bush. But is started out as "bush supporters" meaning in voting terms. having more than just that group.

Yeah but Kerry didnt plan the war, he just aproved, it, he didnt rush into it, and at the time it seemed to him to be the right war. Maybe he is not great on the war. But he wouldve been better than Dubya I can asure you, and also if tomorow, Bush found Osama Bin-Laden in a room in Iraq filled with WMDs I still wouldnt vote for him. Because he has fucked up on everything else.

I think that if everyone would follow the facts and know what information was available when all decisions were made and analyse everything that they would come to the conclusion that Bush is a good president, and that the media is liberal. Anything no matter how rediculous that is said against Bush is supported or at least not mention by the media, this leads people to beleive the lies. But also the media lies to cover up the wrongness done by the liberal side. I'm not just saying this to make the liberals look bad, I'm saying this simply because it is true. There is proof, in news stations many are told not to represent both sides equally leaving most everyone that gets there information from the main stream news wanting Kerry in office instead of Bush, if that's was all I listened to I'd want Kerry to win.

Are you criticizing a soldier? Are you questioning the honor of a warrior, you faggot? You seditious coward. You talk big from your comp I bet your just another 98 lb. wuss whining because he thinks the world owes him for living. hahahahaha, pussy.


A better question is, if you are old enough. Why don't YOU go voer and find out for yourself. I am, sadly, not in the Army yet. But I put enough faith in my brothers in uniform. I'm just in the USAF Auxiliary (CAP) at the moment and have heard enough stories myself, punk. No go back to whichever dark corner you came out of and stay in your little comfprt bubble and wait for the terrorists to come and behead you while others fight for your right to whine about nothing!

I think that if everyone would follow the facts and know what information was available when all decisions were made and analyse everything that they would come to the conclusion that Bush is a good president, and that the media is liberal. Anything no matter how rediculous that is said against Bush is supported or at least not mention by the media, this leads people to beleive the lies. But also the media lies to cover up the wrongness done by the liberal side. I'm not just saying this to make the liberals look bad, I'm saying this simply because it is true. There is proof, in some news stations many are told not to represent both sides equally leaving most everyone that gets there information from the main stream news wanting Kerry in office instead of Bush, if that's was all I listened to I'd want Kerry to win.

The only Biased media is Fox News, toward Republicans, if you havent figured that out yet you have serious problems, and define good Presidents. Terrorists vote for Bush people dont forget that!

Ok tell me what regiment is he in. What is his ranking. And if he says 99% are glad you are there. He is on drugs, especially since drug production in Iraq and Afghanistan has quadroopled since we got there.
Well you won't under stand this but Ill tell ya anyways.


STC. Martin Danell ACO 1-63ar unit 28010



Thats just part of his mailing address I can't remeber all of it.

:.


Man you all are quick to lable someone, be it troll, or neocon, or bastard, but never admit your wrong. That is a good policy. The 9/11 report was very politicised and ignored a lot of evidence, and also says nothing about Al-quaeda and Iraq not talking, contrary to what you may think. Stop trolling.


so you DONT beleive the 9/11 report

you DONT know the difference between explosives and wmd

you DONT know the difference between 1991 and 2003

well i could go to great lengths to show you your errors but i just dont have enough respect for anyone so willfully ignorant to waste my time with it.

Yeah there were no terrorists from Iraq, out of the 19 15 of them were from Saudi but wait, Bush wouldnt attack there, because he is good friends with THE FUCKIN' ROYAL FAMILY OF SAUDI ARABIA! The other 4 came from Egypt. Ignorant Bastard.

Is that enough for an indictment of the Saudi government (proof of involvement) and pretext for war?

I would think not, especially since just about every government agencies and the democrat's beloved 9/11 comission have investigated these claims throughly and have exonerated the Saudi government from involvement in or prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Same goes for Egypt. I have not called you any names such as 'Ignorant Bastard" and I'll thank you for treating me with the same courtesy.

Don't gove out his mailing address. If that punk doesn't believe the word of a soldier, he isn't worth much.

Are you criticizing a soldier? Are you questioning the honor of a warrior, you faggot? You seditious coward. You talk big from your comp I bet your just another 98 lb. wuss whining because he thinks the world owes him for living. hahahahaha, pussy.


A better question is, if you are old enough. Why don't YOU go voer and find out for yourself. I am, sadly, not in the Army yet. But I put enough faith in my brothers in uniform. I'm just in the USAF Auxiliary (CAP) at the moment and have heard enough stories myself, punk. No go back to whichever dark corner you came out of and stay in your little comfprt bubble and wait for the terrorists to come and behead you while others fight for your right to whine about nothing!

I weigh 180 pounds and could kick your fucking ass! I would never insult a soldier, if they fight for the wrong war that is not there fault, I dont like soldiers who love Bush. And I wouldnt fight if I was drafted, I would if this was any other war, but this war it is fighting for a pig, they want the oil, corperations including Halliburton discussed how much money they could make off of this war. If it was WWII WWI etc. I would fight. But I will never lift a gun, or a finger for billionaires who make money off of the suffering of the poor and less fortunate. Why doesnt Bushs daughter fight in the war? or Dick Cheyneys? Or any other congress member? Because they care about one thing $$$. Now go back to sucking Bushs dick. if he has one.

Well you won't under stand this but Ill tell ya anyways.


STC. Martin Danell ACO 1-63ar unit 28010



Thats just part of his mailing address I can't remeber all of it.

Thank you now at least I know that you know something.

oh, and by the way. I do know Great Axis personally and I can vouch for the fact that his brother is 19D (Cav Scout) in the US Army.

Is that enough for an indictment of the Saudi government (proof of involvement) and pretext for war?

I would think not, especially since just about every government agencies and the democrat's beloved 9/11 comission have investigated these claims throughly and have exonerated the Saudi government from involvement in or prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

Same goes for Egypt. I have not called you any names such as 'Ignorant Bastard" and I'll thank you for treating me with the same courtesy.

Thats because Im not an ignorant bastard.

oh, and by the way. I do know Great Axis personally and I can vouch for the fact that his brother is 19D (Cav Scout) in the US Army.

Do you both live in Redneck county Alabama? Cause I think I was there once.

I dont care, Im calling you a nazi, by defining your hair and eye color youve helped my point. And the bible isnt an autobiography, people wrote it, in the dark and middle ages. Maybe we should go back to torture, wait a minute, what about the Iraqi sexual torture in that prison! Hmm, Bush really likes the 1200s. And its spelled until not un-till, go to school. I thin that god, if he exhists wouldnt hate someone because of their sexuality. You are wrong not me!



Are you saying every one with blue eyes and blond hair are nazis? boy! thats like 1/3 of the people in the United States.


And I don't think god would hate you if you where gay. God loves all his children "yes that includes you" Now homosexaulity is a sin adn god does not like it when we sin. Now god will forgive us when you ask him into your heart. but untill then god will love you but you still going to hell.

Thank you now at least I know that you know something.
What an arrogant streak you have.

Some of you have yet to realise that Farinheit 9/11 is not a trueful movie by any means. It even says so on the movie that it was made for entertainment purposes only.

Are you saying every one with blue eyes and blond hair are nazis? boy! thats like 1/3 of the people in the United States.


And I don't think god would hate you if you where gay. God loves all his children "yes that includes you" Now homosexaulity is a sin adn god does not like it when we sin. Now god will forgive us when you ask him into your heart. but untill then god will love you but you still going to hell.

Im saying your a nazi because you dicriminate people because of how they were born, and the fact that you have blonde hair blue eyes is just another brick in the wall, have you heard, of Pink Floyd? Maybe you like rock? 99% of them are Democrats. Or maybe you like redneck hick country and Bluegrass? 99% of them are Republican, and stupid.

The Great Axis your mostly right exept he's not going to hell, i seriously doubt anyone here will.

Some of you have yet to realise that Farinheit 9/11 is not a trueful movie by any means. It even says so on the movie that it was made for entertainment purposes only.
What about it was untruthful?

Do you both live in Redneck county Alabama? Cause I think I was there once.


Nope some podunk town in Alaska

Don't gove out his mailing address. If that punk doesn't believe the word of a soldier, he isn't worth much.

My ancestors have lived here since the 1630s, and fought in every war except this one. Some were important Captains, and generals in the Civil War and WWII. I think I believe my own ancestors, you may have moved here from Hell, I dont know, but your ancestors wouldnt have been proud of you.

Kramers, I agree with you politically, but let's keep the discussion civilized, ok? No Nazism for the Bush supporters, no communism for the Kerry supporters.

Im saying your a nazi because you dicriminate people because of how they were born, and the fact that you have blonde hair blue eyes is just another brick in the wall, have you heard, of Pink Floyd? Maybe you like rock? 99% of them are Democrats. Or maybe you like redneck hick country and Bluegrass? 99% of them are Republican, and stupid.


Do you even live in the US? sounds like you from China or somthing

Kramers, I agree with you politically, but let's keep the discussion civilized, ok? No Nazism for the Bush supporters, no communism for the Kerry supporters.

Im not saying hes a Nazi because hes a Bush supporter only because he discriminates against people the way they were born, such as homosexuals. That to me is a Nazi, Im not saying Bush is a Nazi, or his supporters, he is just our worst president ever.

What about it was untruthful?

Take your pick: http://bowlingfortruth.com/

Even George Soros has the intellectual honesty to publicaly acknowledge Moore is a liar.

Better film: http://www.fahrenhype911.com/

Do you even live in the US? sounds like you from China or somthing

My ancestors have lived in America since the 1630s, and fought in every war except this one. Some were important Captains, and generals in the Civil War and WWII. I think I believe my own ancestors, you may have moved here from Hell, I dont know, but your ancestors wouldnt have been proud of you.

Im not saying hes a Nazi because hes a Bush supporter only because he discriminates against people the way they were born, such as homosexuals. That to me is a Nazi, Im not saying Bush is a Nazi, or his supporters, he is just our worst president ever.He may be a terrible president, but I'm Jewish and my grandparents endured the Holocaust. Bush may oppose gay marriage, but Hitler massacred them.

Dude, chill out. We're the party of tolerance, remember? We don't have to stoop to their level.

Totally my bad, delete your message, Ill delete mine.

The Bush family ties were untruethful, but mainly he intentionally decieves the viewer. He does this by not answering questions and leaving you to assume the logical obvious answer from the set of lies he's placed in front of you.

Ooh! Alaska! fortunaly you only have a voice of 3 electoral votes, now go back to your igloo stupid eskimo.


Man that just shows how dumb you are. Right now it is 43 digrees and less then 2 months ago we had 80 digree weather up here. So no iglos for us.


And I am not an eskimo "dumbass!" man are you dumb.

Wow, liberal ignorance rearing its ugly head once again on this board.

What about it was untruthful?

Have you been asleep or something since that movie was shown?

Wow, liberal ignorance rearing its ugly head once again on this board.
Who was that for?

The Bush family ties were untruethful, but mainly he intentionally decieves the viewer. He does this by not answering questions and leaving you to assume the logical obvious answer from the set of lies he's placed in front of you.I strongly doubt that Bush had ties to bin Laden, but it is very well-known that the Saudi royal family has had a relationship that is not in America's interest.

Name calling is dumb and NEVER accomplishes anything.

Wow, liberal ignorance rearing its ugly head once again on this board.not ignorance, just sudden rise in blood pressure :D

Who was that for?

For me. I said some things, about eskimos, sorry about that. Here, let me apologize for my actions thats, a-po-lo-gize.

The Great Axis: Sorry dude but there where multiple connections between Saddam and AL-QAIDA.

AND YES THEY dID HAVE WMD'S WE HAVE PROOF THAT QUIT A BIT OF STUFF WAS TRANCE PORTED TO IRAN RIGHT BEFORE THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WHERE SHIPPING? COWS? HOUSES? WOOD? WOMEN? NO THEY WHERE GETTING RIDE OF THERE WMD'S.

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

That's interesting that Iran has all the WMD's now, because they've begun rallying on the side of Bush for president. Nothing like voting on the same side of the terrorists all you Bush brown-noses claimed to hate. Apparently they're not scared of Bush's war tactics, and feel that Kerry might actually do something to the people who attacked our country, and not some psychotic power-hungry sex fiend.

Name calling is dumb and NEVER accomplishes anything.ok, we agree on SOMETHING :rolleyes:

not ignorance, just sudden rise in blood pressure :D

Yes, ignorance. Blood pressure is irrelevant.

There is really no use in even arguing but I will try anyways.

Four seperate intelligence agencies told Bush that there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the war. His decision was that it was in the best interest of the US to get rid of Saddam before he got a chance to use those WMD's.

I know that all of you that are agaisnt Bush will say that they knew there werent any WMD's but they lied and went anyways, and thats ok. Everyone can beleive what they want.

Yes, ignorance. Blood pressure is irrelevant.Political conversations tend to get the heart racing and sometimes make people forget that they're talking toother human beings

There is really no use in even arguing but I will try anyways.

Four seperate intelligence agencies told Bush that there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the war. His decision was that it was in the best interest of the US to get rid of Saddam before he got a chance to use those WMD's.

I know that all of you that are agaisnt Bush will say that they knew there werent any WMD's but they lied and went anyways, and thats ok. Everyone can beleive what they want.

I agree with everything you wrote. Even the first statement.

What can possibly motivate people to deny the truth of the reports produced by the very administration they long to support, just because they show the failures of that administration?

There must be passions at work that go far beyond reason.

Passions like class and race, I suspect.

That's interesting that Iran has all the WMD's now, because they've begun rallying on the side of Bush for president. Nothing like voting on the same side of the terrorists all you Bush brown-noses claimed to hate. Apparently they're not scared of Bush's war tactics, and feel that Kerry might actually do something to the people who attacked our country, and not some psychotic power-hungry sex fiend.[/QUOTE]

HAHA! Yes!

The Great Axis: Sorry dude but there where multiple connections between Saddam and AL-QAIDA.

AND YES THEY dID HAVE WMD'S WE HAVE PROOF THAT QUIT A BIT OF STUFF WAS TRANCE PORTED TO IRAN RIGHT BEFORE THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY WHERE SHIPPING? COWS? HOUSES? WOOD? WOMEN? NO THEY WHERE GETTING RIDE OF THERE WMD'S.

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

That's interesting that Iran has all the WMD's now, because they've begun rallying on the side of Bush for president. Nothing like voting on the same side of the terrorists all you Bush brown-noses claimed to hate. Apparently they're not scared of Bush's war tactics, and feel that Kerry might actually do something to the people who attacked our country, and not some psychotic power-hungry sex fiend.The people who attacked your country are dead.
Can't you dumb warmongers get it once and for all?
It was terrorists. 20 people with fucking knives.
They didn't need to be supported by the KGB, Iran or whatever. They were just fucking mad terrorists with knives. There is no alien involvment or communist conspiracy behind it.

What can possibly motivate people to deny the truth of the reports produced by the very administration they long to support, just because they show the failures of that administration?

There must be passions at work that go far beyond reason.

Passions like class and race, I suspect.
Passions like fierce partisanship. Although it is in many rich white people's self-interest to vote for Bush.

There is really no use in even arguing but I will try anyways.

Four seperate intelligence agencies told Bush that there were WMD's in Iraq prior to the war. His decision was that it was in the best interest of the US to get rid of Saddam before he got a chance to use those WMD's.

I know that all of you that are agaisnt Bush will say that they knew there werent any WMD's but they lied and went anyways, and thats ok. Everyone can beleive what they want.
So what, what those fucking WMD have to do with you? You think Saddam was about to attack the US? Get real.
The WMD thing was something to get UN approval for the war, because Iraq was not allowed to have them, nothing more.

Bush really is an embarrasment to our country the majority of the world agrees.

Bush really is an embarrasment to our country the majority of the world agrees.What would be even more embarassing is if Schwarzenegger was president

I honestly don't see how anyone can support either of these candidates and feel 100% gung ho about it. Either way it's only a matter of time before our national debt is going to cripple us. The only reasonable thing I can think of doing is to vote for Bush so I'll still legally be able to buy a gun and dig a hole in the ground somewhere out in the midwest and wait for this parade of ass clowns to finish pissing all over my life and each other.

The people who attacked your country are dead.
Can't you dumb warmongers get it once and for all?
It was terrorists. 20 people with fucking knives.
They didn't need to be supported by the KGB, Iran or whatever. They were just fucking mad terrorists with knives. There is no alien involvment or communist conspiracy behind it.

HEY BUDDY! THE MAJORITY OF THE US HATES THIS WAR AND BUSH. Why are Europeans so immature? Just stay out of our business you asshole. I am suffering because of the state I have watched my country go through in the past four years, I hate your type, I can agree with Bush supportes better than an asshole like you who stereotypes, let me stereotype too, all Europeans sip tea, bow to the fuckin queen eat croisonts and pasta, see, you are ignorant, becuase I know that there are countrys in Europe besides England France and Italy, but you generalize the US population, and I feel sorry that you cant see anything you dont want to see. Now shut up and go back to your life.

I honestly don't see how anyone can support either of these candidates and feel 100% gung ho about it. Either way it's only a matter of time before our national debt is going to cripple us. The only reasonable thing I can think of doing is to vote for Bush so I'll still legally be able to buy a gun and dig a hole in the ground somewhere out in the midwest and wait for this parade of ass clowns to finish pissing all over my life and each other.
I'm about 90-95% gung-ho John Kerry. I would like to see the day when Congressman Barney Frank would be president.

So what, what those fucking WMD have to do with you? You think Saddam was about to attack the US? Get real.
The WMD thing was something to get UN approval for the war, because Iraq was not allowed to have them, nothing more.

Yes, it was something to get approval for the war because they believed it to be true. Also nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass dest., boilogical weapons are just as deadly if not more so. Another reason we went in was to remove Saddam from power.

What would be even more embarassing is if Schwarzenegger was president

Thank god hes Austrian.

Bush didn't go to war "'cuz he felt like it". He went to war because of intelligence. Mostly BRITISH intelligence, at that, saying that there WERE WMDs (or the capacity to start creating them) in Iraq. The CIA reviewed the reports, and supposedely agreed with the conclusions.

Yes, it was something to get approval for the war because they believed it to be true. Also nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass dest., boilogical weapons are just as deadly if not more so. Another reason we went in was to remove Saddam from power.

Why was removing Saddam any of our business, I can admit he was horrible, but its not our business. Would you like people from say, Europe to "liberate" us from Bush, even though I hate Bush, I dont like intruders on my country just like the Iraqis, and I feel so sorry for them right now.

Yes, it was something to get approval for the war because they believed it to be true. Also nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass dest., boilogical weapons are just as deadly if not more so. Another reason we went in was to remove Saddam from power.Removing Saddam is nice, but does that mean we go and invade North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran? Removing a bad guy from power is not enough to invade a country. Also there were no biological weapons, either.

Bush didn't go to war "'cuz he felt like it". He went to war because of intelligence. Mostly BRITISH intelligence, at that, saying that there WERE WMDs (or the capacity to start creating them) in Iraq. The CIA reviewed the reports, and supposedely agreed with the conclusions.

So we have WMDs and were the only country to have ever used them you dont see China "liberating" us.

Removing Saddam is nice, but does that mean we go and invade North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran? Removing a bad guy from power is not enough to invade a country. Also there were no biological weapons, either.

Exactly, sorry I have to leave now I leave the responsiblity of upholding our glorious Democratic party mainly up to you now. Good luck.

Bush didn't go to war "'cuz he felt like it". He went to war because of intelligence. Mostly BRITISH intelligence, at that, saying that there WERE WMDs (or the capacity to start creating them) in Iraq. The CIA reviewed the reports, and supposedely agreed with the conclusions.
the buck never stops at Bush, does it? It's the CIA's fault, it's Tony Blair's fault, it's Clinton's fault. Take some responsibility

Why was removing Saddam any of our business, I can admit he was horrible, but its not our business. Would you like people from say, Europe to "liberate" us from Bush, even though I hate Bush, I dont like intruders on my country just like the Iraqis, and I feel so sorry for them right now.

If you agree he was horrible then I think helping people by removing him from power is our buisness becasue we did a good thing.

If you agree he was horrible then I think helping people by removing him from power is our buisness becasue we did a good thing.getting Saddam out was good, but letting the country fall into a terrorist haven was not.

So we have WMDs and were the only country to have ever used them you dont see China "liberating" us.

Ask yourself why do we have nukes and why other countries want nukes.

Ask yourself why do we have nukes and why other countries want nukes.I do believe that the U.S. has the right to have nuclear weapons. But do we have to have so goddamn many?! The more we create, the more likely it will be used against us.

Yes, it was something to get approval for the war because they believed it to be true. Also nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass dest., boilogical weapons are just as deadly if not more so. Another reason we went in was to remove Saddam from power.I can't believe you are THAT naive.
What would Saddam have done with those weapons? Spread them in New York? lol. Saddam didn't give a fuck about NY.
IF and I say IF Saddam ever had WMD, that would have be to defend himself, nothing more. To think the US invaded for removal of WMD is toltally naive. It would have been 100% stupid. Saddam would have used the WMD to defend himself that's all.

getting Saddam out was good, but letting the country fall into a terrorist haven was not.

We didn't try to make the terrorists have a haven there we were removing Saddam and in the process liberating the country. Bringing in the terrorists was not our intentions and of course we don't want them there.

I do believe that the U.S. has the right to have nuclear weapons. But do we have to have so goddamn many?! The more we create, the more likely it will be used against us.

I agree.

We didn't try to make the terrorists have a haven there we were removing Saddam and in the process liberating the country. Bringing in the terrorists was not our intentions and of course we don't want them there.
So, what was the plan?
We bomb everything to hell and it sorts itself out magically?

We didn't try to make the terrorists have a haven there we were removing Saddam and in the process liberating the country. Bringing in the terrorists was not our intentions and of course we don't want them there.
of course it wasn't, but it still happened. and Bush has to take responsibility as chief architect of the war

HEY BUDDY! THE MAJORITY OF THE US HATES THIS WAR AND BUSH. Why are Europeans so immature? Just stay out of our business you asshole. I am suffering because of the state I have watched my country go through in the past four years, I hate your type, I can agree with Bush supportes better than an asshole like you who stereotypes, let me stereotype too, all Europeans sip tea, bow to the fuckin queen eat croisonts and pasta, see, you are ignorant, becuase I know that there are countrys in Europe besides England France and Italy, but you generalize the US population, and I feel sorry that you cant see anything you dont want to see. Now shut up and go back to your life.Good I like how you talk.

So, what was the plan?
We bomb everything to hell and it sorts itself out magically?

Of couse this is a ridiculous statement, shewing the facts, and you swearing in anger, nothing good can ever come from that and you know it you just rufese to accept it, but what you do accept is the word of our enemies before really considering the facts.

Good I like how you talk.Yeah, it's like going to the murder mystery section of a library and claiming that it has a murder mystery bias!

of course it wasn't, but it still happened. and Bush has to take responsibility as chief architect of the war

I you were driving along in a car and you accidently ended up hitting some one by no fault of your own would it be your fault?

Of couse this is a ridiculous statement, shewing the facts, and you swearing in anger, nothing good can ever come from that and you know it you just rufese to accept it, but what you do accept is the word of our enemies before really considering the facts.I'll tell you what was the plan.
The plan was to secure the oil supply and prevent Saddam from selling the oil in €, and also implent US oil drillers there.
It would have worked if it was less obvious.
It was obvious that a war would destabilize the region.
It was obvious that Saddam was not a threat.
It was obvious that Saddam was not going to sell his oil in $.

I'll tell you what was the plan.
The plan was to secure the oil supply and prevent Saddam from selling the oil in €, and also implent US oil drillers there.
It would have worked if it was less obvious.

Have you read my previous statements about what I said about the US going to war?

Have you read my previous statements about what I said about the US going to war?
Where is it?

I you were driving along in a car and you accidently ended up hitting some one by no fault of your own would it be your fault?Nobody plans to hit a car. Bush PLANNED to go to Iraq from day 10 of his presidency. therefore he should accept responsibility

Where is it?

They are scattered throughout this particular argument. I will list reasons in a sec.

Nobody plans to hit a car. Bush PLANNED to go to Iraq from day 10 of his presidency. therefore he should accept responsibility

Where did you read this? It is not true, because if it was that would mean that Bush planned 9/11 because this was the only way that Bush would get enough suppert to go to Iraq.

I can't believe you are THAT naive.
What would Saddam have done with those weapons? Spread them in New York? lol. Saddam didn't give a fuck about NY.
IF and I say IF Saddam ever had WMD, that would have be to defend himself, nothing more. To think the US invaded for removal of WMD is toltally naive. It would have been 100% stupid. Saddam would have used the WMD to defend himself that's all.
Just like he defended himself against the Israelis in 1991 with the SCUDs, right?

Where did you read this? It is not true, because if it was that would mean that Bush planned 9/11 because this was the only way that Bush would get enough suppert to go to Iraq.
According to Paul O'Neill, the Secretary of the Treasury, on day 10 of the presidency Bush told Rumsfeld to "explore possible military action against Iraq". I don't think Bush planned 9/11, I just think it gave him a great excuse.

Just like he defended himself against the Israelis in 1991 with the SCUDs, right?My father is a native Israeli so I love the country. But anyway, nobody died directly because of those SCUDS. If we were going to invade every country that's contributed in some way to the hatred of Israel, we would be invading half the world.

My father is a native Israeli so I love the country. But anyway, nobody died directly because of those SCUDS. If we were going to invade every country that's contributed in some way to the hatred of Israel, we would be invading half the world.
Imagine SCUDs with WMD loaded on them. Think more than zero people would have died?

We went to Iraq because at the time we thought that they were develpoing nuclear and biological weapons. Biological weapons can be just as deadly if not more so than nuclear weapons. Now if we thought they were develpoping these weapons what would they want them for? We went there because we wanted to remove Saddam from power, I'm sure you can understand why. We went there because of 9/11 and we realised that we're not safe from terrorists. I do also believe that oil was a small economical factor. But Bush made the right choice, and he certainly wasn't planning to invade before he was in office.

Just like he defended himself against the Israelis in 1991 with the SCUDs, right?
Exactly.
All he wanted was to stay in power.
He gazed the kurds because they rebelled.
He funded palestinian terrorists' families because he needed to look like he was islamic in order to get a little support from them.
He launched SCUDS at Israel because he wanted the muslims to join the war on his side.

He didn't give a toss about the US.

Imagine SCUDs with WMD loaded on them. Think more than zero people would have died?Imagine this, Imagine that. The reality is that they WEREN'T.

Imagine SCUDs with WMD loaded on them. Think more than zero people would have died?Although the SCUDS couldn't reach the US.

We went to Iraq because at the time we thought that they were develpoing nuclear and biological weapons. Biological weapons can be just as deadly if not more so than nuclear weapons. Now if we thought they were develpoping these weapons what would they want them for? We went there because we wanted to remove Saddam from power, I'm sure you can understand why. We went there because of 9/11 and we realised that we're not safe from terrorists. I do also believe that oil was a small economical factor. But Bush made the right choice, and he certainly wasn't planning to invade before he was in office.For oil?

Imagine this, Imagine that. The reality is that they WEREN'T.
So? Did you even read the quote of the post I replied to in the first place?

Although the SCUDS couldn't reach the US.
They could reach one of our only real allies in the region, and US bases all over. It wouldn't have been a problem with Saddam have missiles which could reach outside of the permitted range, but he did.

So? Did you even read the quote of the post I replied to in the first place?yes. so?

They could reach one of our only real allies in the region, and US bases all over. It wouldn't have been a problem with Saddam have missiles which could reach outside of the permitted range, but he did.
And why didn't Israel send troups?
Why is the US fighting a war for their allies when their allies aren't even there?

For oil?

Yes, no matter how much you try to do good noone's judgment is perfectly unclouded. The yerening to make america succeed economically could have influenced his decision but ultimately it was irrelevant if anyone would think about it because it got us in to a defict which makes the war for oil idea almost completely irrelevant but still not entirely.

And why didn't Israel send troups?Because the entire world would have pounced on them and called them Arab-hating warmongers. And then the Palestinians would use that as an excuse to detonate themselves.

And why didn't Israel send troups?
Because they didn't want to inflame the situation by having Israeli troops invade a Muslim country. Saddam attacked them anyway though.

yes. so?
It was in reply to his contention that Saddam only wanted weapons to defend himself, when he had shown that he was willing to go on the offensive, for example, 1991.

Because they didn't want to inflame the situation by having Israeli troops invade a Muslim country. Saddam attacked them anyway though.the first part is correct, but the "attack" was minimal at most.

Yes, no matter how much you try to do good noone's judgment is perfectly unclouded. The yerening to make america succeed economically could have influenced his decision but ultimately it was irrelevant if anyone would think about it because it got us in to a defict which makes the war for oil idea almost completely irrelevant but still not entirely.
Then what was the point of removing Saddam?

It was in reply to his contention that Saddam only wanted weapons to defend himself, when he had shown that he was willing to go on the offensive, for example, 1991.Yes, but he didn't use WMD in 1991.

the first part is correct, but the "attack" was minimal at most.
It was an attack nonetheless. If we lobbed 39 missiles at some country, do you think they would sit around and do nothing, saying it wasn't that bad?

OK friends, I think it's due time for a moderate in here.

Unbiased Opinion! woo!

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction... throughout 91' After the first war, UN weapons inspectors moved in and pretty much irritated the Iraqi weapon facilities. However, because of a lack of interest in the UN security council of upholding the sanctions against Iraq (COUGH)France(COUGH) the UN weapons inspectors had no real backup. So they were lied to.

This reached a boiling point in 98'

Top Iraqi officials defected and spilled the beans on Iraqi nuclear programs (and their alternative methods for enriching Uranium) New intelligence was gathered. Clinton bombed Iraq, and weapons inspectors once again gained steam.

After September 11th, and the fall of Afghanistan, George Bush decided that any state that has weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists was a threat. Iraq stands out because it's a rather easy target as well. Internationally, Saddam Hussein is not a well liked guy. Even though nobody knew if anything was left of the WMDs that Iraq had in 91. Nobody. The Iraqis were giving Hans Blix fits as he tried to inspect.

So, naturally, we assumed he had something to hide.

During the war, no WMDs were used, after the war, no WMDs were found. What WAS gathered was information from Iraqi archives about the weapons programs. Apparently, not only had Saddam not had weapons since at least 98, he had given up on even formally persuing them.

Short Answer time.

Did Iraq have WMDS: No.
Did George Bush know this: Of course not.
Was it right to assume that they did: This is a matter of opinion. It is influenced by how it was presented to the American people. (Since he outwardly said they did, without a doubt)

So there ya go. Little History Lesson. (Credit: PBS, Dalfour Report, 911 Commision)

EDIT: Saddam DID use WMDS in the first Gulf War. He used nerve gas (chemical weapons count under Bush's definition.)

Yes, but he didn't use WMD in 1991.
I know he didn't. But he also proved that he wasn't a nice guy only trying to defend himself. Which was my point.

Because the entire world would have pounced on them and called them Arab-hating warmongers. And then the Palestinians would use that as an excuse to detonate themselves.
So it was better to have the US defend Israel and be called arab-hating warmonger instead of Israel, and all that in order to defend Israel.

It was an attack nonetheless. If we lobbed 39 missiles at some country, do you think they would sit around and do nothing, saying it wasn't that bad?
In 1991, after the first Gulf war.

Then what was the point of removing Saddam?
Look at Pibb Xtra's answer.

So it was better to have the US defend Israel and be called arab-hating warmonger instead of Israel, and all that in order to defend Israel.The US didn't invade Iraq to protect Israel because Saddam didn't represent a threat!

The US didn't invade Iraq to protect Israel because Saddam didn't represent a threat!Ugh, I knew I shouldn't have brought up Israel! :headbang:

OK friends, I think it's due time for a moderate in here.

Unbiased Opinion! woo!

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction... throughout 91' After the first war, UN weapons inspectors moved in and pretty much irritated the Iraqi weapon facilities. However, because of a lack of interest in the UN security council of upholding the sanctions against Iraq (COUGH)France(COUGH) the UN weapons inspectors had no real backup. So they were lied to.

This reached a boiling point in 98'

Top Iraqi officials defected and spilled the beans on Iraqi nuclear programs (and their alternative methods for enriching Uranium) New intelligence was gathered. Clinton bombed Iraq, and weapons inspectors once again gained steam.

After September 11th, and the fall of Afghanistan, George Bush decided that any state that has weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists was a threat. Iraq stands out because it's a rather easy target as well. Internationally, Saddam Hussein is not a well liked guy. Even though nobody knew if anything was left of the WMDs that Iraq had in 91. Nobody. The Iraqis were giving Hans Blix fits as he tried to inspect.

So, naturally, we assumed he had something to hide.

During the war, no WMDs were used, after the war, no WMDs were found. What WAS gathered was information from Iraqi archives about the weapons programs. Apparently, not only had Saddam not had weapons since at least 98, he had given up on even formally persuing them.

Short Answer time.

Did Iraq have WMDS: No.
Did George Bush know this: Of course not.
Was it right to assume that they did: This is a matter of opinion. It is influenced by how it was presented to the American people. (Since he outwardly said they did, without a doubt)

So there ya go. Little History Lesson. (Credit: PBS, Dalfour Report, 911 Commision)

EDIT: Saddam DID use WMDS in the first Gulf War. He used nerve gas (chemical weapons count under Bush's definition.)But Iraq did not harbor terrorists either, did it?
I have another explanation.
According to the UN charter, it is forbidden to attack a country if not dirrectly attacked. The only way to justify the war in front of the UN was to proove Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. This is why it was labelled an act of war.
After the war it was easy to say "sorry I swear I thought they attacked us".

But Iraq did not harbor terrorists either, did it?
I have another explanation.
According to the UN charter, it is forbidden to attack a country if not dirrectly attacked. The only way to justify the war in front of the UN was to proove Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. This is why it was labelled an act of war.
After the war it was easy to say "sorry I swear I thought they attacked us".
uh-oh, don't bring up the big, bad UN

Ugh, I knew I shouldn't have brought up Israel! :headbang:
Way to defend your position. (sarcasm)

Way to defend your position. (sarcasm)It's just that sometimes I end up debating members of MY OWN PARTY about Israel because much of the new left is very pro-Palestinian

uh-oh, don't bring up the big, bad UN
Come on you can't say stuff like that, you have to make your point instead of pretending to answer but not really elaborating.

It's just that sometimes I end up debating members of MY OWN PARTY about Israel because much of the new left is very pro-Palestinian
but Jews almost always vote Democrat

Come on you can't say stuff like that, you have to make your point instead of pretending to answer but not really elaborating.
it was just commentary, that's all

It's just that sometimes I end up debating members of MY OWN PARTY about Israel because much of the new left is very pro-Palestinian
OK, but if you don't agree with something that someone said by someone in your party you should still challenge them on the issue.

OK, but if you don't agree with something that someone said by someone in your party you should still challenge them on the issue.right, it's just frustrating

it was just commentary, that's all
But it does no good.

right, it's just frustrating
understandable

But it does no good.I'm too tired. I think I gotta stop. GO KERRY!

I'm too tired. I think I gotta stop. GO KERRY!
Awwwww, come on continue argueing against me, arn't there any other point you want to bring up? GO BUSH!

But Iraq did not harbor terrorists either, did it?
I have another explanation.
According to the UN charter, it is forbidden to attack a country if not dirrectly attacked. The only way to justify the war in front of the UN was to proove Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. This is why it was labelled an act of war.
After the war it was easy to say "sorry I swear I thought they attacked us".

Yes, Saddam did harbor terrorists. Plenty of terrorists ran out of Bagdhad. This is common knowledge. And let me restate that yes, Saddam did use WMDs in the first gulf war (Nerve Agent)

Yes, Saddam did harbor terrorists. Plenty of terrorists ran out of Bagdhad. This is common knowledge. And let me restate that yes, Saddam did use WMDs in the first gulf war (Nerve Agent)
You claim you a moderate but who are you voting for, and if your too young like me, who do u want to win?

Hmmm is anyone still here that is against Bush? Or is anyone still here at all?

Sooo, who are you voting for, and if your too young like me, who do u want to win?

Well... since you asked nicely I'll let you know.

I'm voting for Kerry. His economic plan is much sounder, and the Iraq war was still a war that was poorly planned, and misleading in it's reasoning. Kerry's policies on the environmet, and education is just plain better.

Really, the decision for me is about 70-30 in favor of Kerry judging right by the issues. Bush is a very charming man, with good convictions, but he has not performed at the level of a president regarding domestic affairs and the world distrusts him. It is in America's best interest that he step aside.

End moderate opinion.

An interesting quote (not mine), check www.publicaddress.net for the full shiz..

"It is a great source of puzzlement to liberal thinkers that rationality seems to play so small a part in most peoples' decision making... the inconsistencies in the position of supporters of George Bush illustrates this point once again. There is nothing new in this position: Marcus Aurelius commented on it nearly 2000 years ago and it is something that exercised Greek philosophers before that. It is interesting to wonder why rational thought seems to be so unimportant in making decisions.

It is easy to over-analyse a decision, but why such little analysis should be so common among those making decisions is hard to understand. We are probably more used to making decisions based on our emotional reactions rather than our thoughts. Most people have had the experience of instinctively making what turned out to be the right decision only to have talked ourselves out of it after subsequent analysis.

Perhaps we conflate two kinds of judgements: whether we like someone, which is rather an imponderable, with logical decisions such as "is the invasion of Iraq a good idea?". Election campaigns often seem to encourage this conflation and George Bush's team is better than most at this. After all, based on his record, I find it hard to believe that anyone could approve of his actions. However, if you can persuade people that Bush is to be better trusted than John Kerry, then such minor details as what Bush has actually done over the last 4 years become largely unimportant. A failure to recognize this distinction is something very common among those who count themselves as rational. This failure to comprehend this distinction could itself be thought of as somewhat irrational. Hardly a comforting thought but not as surprising a phenomenon as your email seems to suggest."

THis is perhaps the scariest thread I've ever read. Even the Bush admin have admitted there were no WMDs. They've since tried to use the excuse that he would have gotten some if they hadn't invaded, but that's a big difference between having any. But that's a digression - the point is he didn't have any at the time of the invasion. The report stated categorically that there hadn't been for a decade.
THERE WERE NONE.
Yet there's so many of you so blinded to this that you cannot see this. You are desperately making any connection (a machine gun is a WMD?! I mean come on, how pathetic and teneous can you get?) to justify a proven and admitted lie.

Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm

President Bush conceded that much of the intelligence was "wrong"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3724894.stm

Get a reality check pls before it's too late!!

Well... since you asked nicely I'll let you know.

I'm voting for Kerry. His economic plan is much sounder, and the Iraq war was still a war that was poorly planned, and misleading in it's reasoning. Kerry's policies on the environmet, and education is just plain better.

Really, the decision for me is about 70-30 in favor of Kerry judging right by the issues. Bush is a very charming man, with good convictions, but he has not performed at the level of a president regarding domestic affairs and the world distrusts him. It is in America's best interest that he step aside.

End moderate opinion.
His economic plan presents even greater deficits to come, bush has increased funding for education by 49%. If the wourld distrusts him its becasue they don't know the truth or they don't know the whole story. And truely Kerry does change positions no matter how much he says he doesn;t its still a fact. The reasons that people say that Bush is bad for the environment is becasue he doesn't agree with the people that if there views were put into place we would go bakwards on everything and make life unlivable. It's not in the best interest that he step aside because he will do a much better job than someone who makes tons of obvios lies and promises to benefit himself. Please respond with your arguement against me.

THis is perhaps the scariest thread I've ever read. Even the Bush admin have admitted there were no WMDs. They've since tried to use the excuse that he would have gotten some if they hadn't invaded, but that's a big difference between having any. But that's a digression - the point is he didn't have any at the time of the invasion. The report stated categorically that there hadn't been for a decade.
THERE WERE NONE.
Yet there's so many of you so blinded to this that you cannot see this. You are desperately making any connection (a machine gun is a WMD?! I mean come on, how pathetic and teneous can you get?) to justify a proven and admitted lie.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3718150.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3724894.stm

Get a reality check pls before it's too late!!
The point was not that they didn't have them the point is that at the time they were sure that they did, also this is just one of many reasons that we invaded iraq.

His economic plan presents even greater deficits to come, bush has increased funding for education by 49%. If the wourld distrusts him its becasue they don't know the truth or they don't know the whole story. And truely Kerry does change positions no matter how much he says he doesn;t its still a fact. The reasons that people say that Bush is bad for the environment is becasue he doesn't agree with the people that if there views were put into place we would go bakwards on everything and make life unlivable. It's not in the best interest that he step aside because he will do a much better job than someone who makes tons of obvios lies and promises to benefit himself. Please respond with you arguement against me.

Sure! Be glad too! Kerry's economic plan does not present greater deficets. Democratic administrations have proven to balance the budget. (Clinton even presented a surplus) The trick is paying for what you spend. Without billions upon billions in tax cuts (80% of it going to 1% of citizens) it is possible.

Bush's increased funding hasn't quite been enough. His no child left behind, while admirable, is underfunded. Kerry's plan for lowering costs for college is very noble. And it's one of Bush's weaknesses (college tuition has raised by a third in the last 4 years)

Bush isn't BAD for the environment per-se but his administration hasn't gone along with most world treaties, and the loopholes they give polluting companies appalled me when I spent the last semester studying them.

Look, the world distrusts the guy. You can't blame THE WORLD for that. It comes from the source. America will have an increasingly tough time in International Relations with him in office.

Why is it so hard for half the US population to admit that Bush is a liar, when it is so blindingly obvious for the rest of us?

This is a genuine question!

Is it really that hard to believe that the President of the US could be a liar? Why is there so much faith in George W Bush that makes people blindly believe whatever he says?

What happened to the good old-fashioned (and sensible) 80's cynicism where nobody believed anything any politician ever said? How come people are believing in what politicians say again?

The American people, myself included, rallied behind our leaders after September 11th. Was it blind patriotism? Yeah, it might have been. For some, it hasn't worn off yet.

Are you criticizing a soldier? Are you questioning the honor of a warrior, you faggot? You seditious coward. You talk big from your comp I bet your just another 98 lb. wuss whining because he thinks the world owes him for living. hahahahaha, pussy.


A better question is, if you are old enough. Why don't YOU go voer and find out for yourself. I am, sadly, not in the Army yet. But I put enough faith in my brothers in uniform. I'm just in the USAF Auxiliary (CAP) at the moment and have heard enough stories myself, punk. No go back to whichever dark corner you came out of and stay in your little comfprt bubble and wait for the terrorists to come and behead you while others fight for your right to whine about nothing!


Brilliant, just brilliant.

Sure! Be glad too! Kerry's economic plan does not present greater deficets. Democratic administrations have proven to balance the budget. (Clinton even presented a surplus) The trick is paying for what you spend. Without billions upon billions in tax cuts (80% of it going to 1% of citizens) it is possible.

Bush's increased funding hasn't quite been enough. His no child left behind, while admirable, is underfunded. Kerry's plan for lowering costs for college is very noble. And it's one of Bush's weaknesses (college tuition has raised by a third in the last 4 years)

Bush isn't BAD for the environment per-se but his administration hasn't gone along with most world treaties, and the loopholes they give polluting companies appalled me when I spent the last semester studying them.

Look, the world distrusts the guy. You can't blame THE WORLD for that. It comes from the source. America will have an increasingly tough time in International Relations with him in office.
About the tax cut most of it went to the rich becasue under bush they've been paying more taxes, and also to stimulate the economy in a time of reccession. You can't just say "I'm going to spend only what I get and therfore i'll have more money to pay for all the promises I made." There is a limited amount of money and bush has done what he can with that, sometimes things happen and bush wasn't God in all of his decisions. The world treaties would have had us stopping pollutants by a much larger percentage than all of the other countries that signed the treaties and it would have hurt the economy and lost jobs so Bush thought that it was in his and everyone's best interest ig he didn't sign it. If the World distrusts Bush thenn the world is misinformed and Bush would certainly do a better job then Kerry claims he will.

Why is it so hard for half the US population to admit that Bush is a liar, when it is so blindingly obvious for the rest of us?

This is a genuine question!

Is it really that hard to believe that the President of the US could be a liar? Why is there so much faith in George W Bush that makes people blindly believe whatever he says?

What happened to the good old-fashioned (and sensible) 80's cynicism where nobody believed anything any politician ever said? How come people are believing in what politicians say again?
We don't have blind faith in him, we believe the facts. I think that you have been listening to Micheal Moores lies for too long.

The American people, myself included, rallied behind our leaders after September 11th. Was it blind patriotism? Yeah, it might have been. For some, it hasn't worn off yet.

I totally understand that - for what it's worth, the rest of the world (a few dancing palestinians notwithstanding) was with America too. Obviously not to the same degree but man, that was an intense day EVERYWHERE.

Even Bush got more respect in my eyes that day as he dropped the stuttering act and re-learned to talk.

Nothing wrong with blind patriotism after 9/11.

What I don't get though, is why patriotism should be partisan in politics - isn't Kerry as American as Bush? Why do people think that an American senator would be somehow "weak" protecting America from terrorists?

About the tax cut most of it went to the rich becasue under bush they've been paying more taxes, and also to stimulate the economy in a time of reccession. You can't just say "I'm going to spend only what I get and therfore i'll have more money to pay for all the promises I made." There is a limited amount of money and bush has done what he can with that, sometimes things happen and bush wasn't God in all of his decisions. The world treaties would have had us stopping pollutants by a much larger percentage than all of the other countries that signed the treaties and it would have hurt the economy and lost jobs so Bush thought that it was in his and everyone's best interest ig he didn't sign it. If the World distrusts Bush thenn the world is misinformed and Bush would certainly do a better job then Kerry claims he will.

The problem with tax cuts for the wealthy, is that it does not boost the economy. Trickle-down economics fall apart when you realize that much of the money in the top 1% of citizens is invested overseas.

And no, the statement "There is a limited amount of money and bush has done what he can with that, sometimes things happen and bush wasn't God in all of his decisions." is untrue. Bush has used money that we don't have. It's a simple matter to borrow money from countries like Japan and China, which is what we've done. Deficet Spending is what this is called, so no, there isn't a limited amount of money.

I agree with you about the treaties, but we can't expect other countries to follow if we don't. The economic repercussions would not be severe, especially if the government forsaw the changes.

It doesn't matter if the world is misinformed (not sure about what exactly) is they distrust us, it's not good. It is my opinion that Kerry would do a better job, and I have read BOTH plans.

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/

I want to add also, Cheeseits, that it's so refreshing to have a civilized debate with someone. As a moderate, I can't stand the opinions of Michael Moore types, Chris Hannity types, you get the idea.

I like making an informed decision, not a biased one.

Sure! Be glad too! Kerry's economic plan does not present greater deficets. Democratic administrations have proven to balance the budget. (Clinton even presented a surplus) The trick is paying for what you spend. Without billions upon billions in tax cuts (80% of it going to 1% of citizens) it is possible.
80%? Of the part that Kerry wants to roll back - the income tax cuts - it'll be a few percent increase on taxes of the rich, and it will not provide enough income to fund a national healthcare system so everyone gets treatment like a congressman, increase the military by 40,000, double special forces capabilities, double the CIA's overseas personnel, invest two billion in making rails safer, invest untold billions in making ports and airlines safer, double the U.S. funding to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, increase defense research, develop altenative fuels, cut taxes for 98% of Americans and 99% businesses, additional tax credits of $4,000 to help pay for college and $5,000 to help pay for children, create a new jobs credit, cut healthcare premiums by $1,000, have $10 billion to states lower the cost of college tuitions, keep every public school open until 6 PM, extend and improve unemployment insurance, expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, increase funding for worker training, Double funding for the manufacturing extension partnership, establish a National Trust Fund for education, fund the expansion of broadband internet, restore funding for the advanced technology program, create a Small Business Opportunity Fund, have tax credits to help small businesses cover energy costs, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, set up a new Small Business Retirement Initiative, give tax credits for reservists called up for duty, and thats only the first two categories on his website. You think raising taxes on the rich a few percent is going to cover all of that?

We don't have blind faith in him, we believe the facts. I think that you have been listening to Micheal Moores lies for too long.

See?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Forget Michael Moore, I don't like his moralizing tone. There are plenty of other books, newspapers, and other media chronicling the many lies of George W Bush.

I'm not sure how to convince someone who can't see the truth when it's right in front of them... try a google search for "Bush lies", you may even learn something!

The problem with tax cuts for the wealthy, is that it does not boost the economy. Trickle-down economics fall apart when you realize that much of the money in the top 1% of citizens is invested overseas.

And no, the statement "There is a limited amount of money and bush has done what he can with that, sometimes things happen and bush wasn't God in all of his decisions." is untrue. Bush has used money that we don't have. It's a simple matter to borrow money from countries like Japan and China, which is what we've done. Deficet Spending is what this is called, so no, there isn't a limited amount of money.

I agree with you about the treaties, but we can't expect other countries to follow if we don't. The economic repercussions would not be severe, especially if the government forsaw the changes.

It doesn't matter if the world is misinformed (not sure about what exactly) is they distrust us, it's not good. It is my opinion that Kerry would do a better job, and I have read BOTH plans.

http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/

http://www.georgewbush.com/Agenda/
So have I. Also obiously there is a limited amount of money there is infinate of nothing. We couldn't have agreed to those treaties. Regardless of what you say, the tax cut stopeed the reccesion that started before Gearge W was in office. Have you seen Micheal Moore's "documenteries" aka "movie's composed on false statements?" I f so please don't let yourself belief that stuff.

80%? Of the part that Kerry wants to roll back - the income tax cuts - it'll be a few percent increase on taxes of the rich, and it will not provide enough income to fund a national healthcare system so everyone gets treatment like a congressman, increase the military by 40,000, double special forces capabilities, double the CIA's overseas personnel, invest two billion in making rails safer, invest untold billions in making ports and airlines safer, double the U.S. funding to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, increase defense research, develop altenative fuels, cut taxes for 98% of Americans and 99% businesses, additional tax credits of $4,000 to help pay for college and $5,000 to help pay for children, create a new jobs credit, cut healthcare premiums by $1,000, have $10 billion to states lower the cost of college tuitions, keep every public school open until 6 PM, extend and improve unemployment insurance, expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, increase funding for worker training, Double funding for the manufacturing extension partnership, establish a National Trust Fund for education, fund the expansion of broadband internet, restore funding for the advanced technology program, create a Small Business Opportunity Fund, have tax credits to help small businesses cover energy costs, eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, set up a new Small Business Retirement Initiative, give tax credits for reservists called up for duty, and thats only the first two categories on his website. You think raising taxes on the rich a few percent is going to cover all of that?

You raise a good point. But remember, all that stuff is practically ALL we're doing, not what we're doing extra. The national economy makes LOTS of money. Rolling back the Bush programs and installing these covers a lot of ground. Jon Edwards has focused his "lawyer like tendancies" in congress to get rid of a lot of red tape. Check his DNC speech for his answer to your questions. So to answer your question, no I don't believe that. But it still can be done, make no mistake.

You raise a good point. But remember, all that stuff is practically ALL we're doing, not what we're doing extra. The national economy makes LOTS of money. Rolling back the Bush programs and installing these covers a lot of ground. Jon Edwards has focused his "lawyer like tendancies" in congress to get rid of a lot of red tape. Check his DNC speech for his answer to your questions. So to answer your question, no I don't believe that. But it still can be done, make no mistake.
I don't buy either candidates claim that they will reduce the deficit. Bush has proven that he won't. And every candidate coming to Washington promsing to reduce the deficit while covering all the other spending by cutting out pork barrel spending and other wasteful spending has, well, failed.

So have I. Also obiously there is a limited amount of money there is infinate of nothing. We couldn't have agreed to those treaties. Regardless of what you say, the tax cut stopeed the reccesion that started before Gearge W was in office. Have you seen Micheal Moore's "documenteries" aka "movie's composed on false statements?" I f so please don't let yourself belief that stuff.

There isn't a limited amount of money for the government to access if they feel it's neccessary. Te government taks loans, and that's the deficet we're all talking about.

I believe that the recession Bush was handed resulted fromt he election debacle, and the normal recovery from the 9/11 scare in the stock market is what ended it, not the tax cuts. (They did affect it, no doubt, but not nearly worth the cost)

See?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Forget Michael Moore, I don't like his moralizing tone. There are plenty of other books, newspapers, and other media chronicling the many lies of George W Bush.

I'm not sure how to convince someone who can't see the truth when it's right in front of them... try a google search for "Bush lies", you may even learn something!
Sory to say but that is really stupid, I don't like to call names but it's true. If you would consider everything and realise everything with all the facts you come to the conclusion that Gearge W is a very good pres. So what lies are you accusing him of?

Bush's only mistake was this: After Baghdad fell, the Marines should have turned northeast and headed toward Tehran and the Army should have turned northwest and headed toward Damascus. Then we would have found all the WMDs that Saddam exited from his country. :sniper:

There isn't a limited amount of money for the government to access if they feel it's neccessary. Te government taks loans, and that's the deficet we're all talking about.

I believe that the recession Bush was handed resulted fromt he election debacle, and the normal recovery from the 9/11 scare in the stock market is what ended it, not the tax cuts. (They did affect it, no doubt, but not nearly worth the cost)
There is a limit to how much we ca barrow before they think that there's a possibility we can't pay it back, and they stop loaning us money. They Reccesion started months before the election debacle, and 9/11 happened way after.

I don't buy either candidates claim that they will reduce the deficit. Bush has proven that he won't. And every candidate coming to Washington promsing to reduce the deficit while covering all the other spending by cutting out pork barrel spending and other wasteful spending has, well, failed.

Kerry will reduce the deficet. At very least, he won't resort to deficet spending without approximating funds elsewhere. No president has the chance to fullfill campaign promises. Heck, Bush promised he'd create jobs. He even promised drugs from Canada in 2000!

And if you are unconvincable on this (and that is MORE than reasonable) then at least know that Kerry will do better than Bush in regards to the deficet. (Based on Bush's record)

There is only one way to prove me wrong. President Kerry. And wow, you 2 are making me sound awfully partisan, but realize I'm only debating the issues you raise. I'd do the same to Democrats.

Kerry will reduce the deficet. At very least, he won't resort to deficet spending without approximating funds elsewhere. No president has the chance to fullfill campaign promises. Heck, Bush promised he'd create jobs. He even promised drugs from Canada in 2000!

And if you are unconvincable on this (and that is MORE than reasonable) then at least know that Kerry will do better than Bush in regards to the deficet. (Based on Bush's record)

There is only one way to prove me wrong. President Kerry. And wow, you 2 are making me sound awfully partisan, but realize I'm only debating the issues you raise. I'd do the same to Democrats.
I know Kerry will do better than Bush on the deficit. He's stated that he'll axe his plans in order to get the deficit to 1/2 its current level. Which brings up the question of why he's promising so much if he knows he's not going to implement it all.

There is a limit to how much we ca barrow before they think that there's a possibility we can't pay it back, and they stop loaning us money. They Reccesion started months before the election debacle, and 9/11 happened way after.

We're the US, having a debt from us is a marvelous position to have in the World System. There's not a country in the world who wouldn't loan us money. You're partially right about the election, but Clinton had our economy at it's highest point.... ever. Really hard for that to continue. 9/11 happened 8 months after the election. The recession was only beginning to gain steam at that point (and 9/11 dropped stocks, really cementing it)

I know Kerry will do better than Bush on the deficit. He's stated that he'll axe his plans in order to get the deficit to 1/2 its current level. Which brings up the question of why he's promising so much if he knows he's not going to implement it all.

Because if all goes well, he'll do what he promises. Everyone needs a platform, and the platform is based on long term, lofty goals. You know he'll implement the majority of it. Or at least send it at Congress to approve. It's really their call.

Kerry will reduce the deficet. At very least, he won't resort to deficet spending without approximating funds elsewhere. No president has the chance to fullfill campaign promises. Heck, Bush promised he'd create jobs. He even promised drugs from Canada in 2000!

And if you are unconvincable on this (and that is MORE than reasonable) then at least know that Kerry will do better than Bush in regards to the deficet. (Based on Bush's record)

There is only one way to prove me wrong. President Kerry. And wow, you 2 are making me sound awfully partisan, but realize I'm only debating the issues you raise. I'd do the same to Democrats.
Under Bush there is a lower unemplayment rate then the rate that clinton bragged about as president. We arn't sure that the cheap drugs from canada are safe. I think that Kerry will lose more money than Bush also.

We're the US, having a debt from us is a marvelous position to have in the World System. There's not a country in the world who wouldn't loan us money. You're partially right about the election, but Clinton had our economy at it's highest point.... ever. Really hard for that to continue. 9/11 happened 8 months after the election. The recession was only beginning to gain steam at that point (and 9/11 dropped stocks, really cementing it)
All im saying is there isn't infinte money, end of story. It wasn't because of Clinton that the economy was so high it was because of the timeing of his presidency. The economy was declineing while he was still in office and continued into Bushes term.

Under Bush there is a lower unemplayment rate then the rate that clinton bragged about as president. We arn't sure that the cheap drugs from canada are safe. I think that Kerry will lose more money than Bush also.

First off, that'd be pretty damn hard to lose more money than Bush. The whole "safe" thing is really fishy considering the lofty stature that Canada's national health system maintains. It's really an excuse for the drug companies, who lobby many republicans. Bush's lower employment rate? His was MUCH higher during the first 3 years of the presidency, and the jobs he has created pay much lower. The gap between classes has grown by leaps and bounds during his presidency. It's a very misleading statistic.

All im saying is there isn't infinte money, end of story. It wasn't because of Clinton that the economy was so high it was because of the timeing of his presidency. The economy was declineing while he was still in office and continued into Bushes term.

OK... There isn't infinite money. Fine, just realistically there is. Story over. And yes, it was because of Clinton's policies that the economy grew. If the economic seesaw of the last 25 years is an indication, the economy should have fallen apart halfway through his 8 years in office... but it never did.

Sory to say but that is really stupid, I don't like to call names but it's true. If you would consider everything and realise everything with all the facts you come to the conclusion that Gearge W is a very good pres. So what lies are you accusing him of?


Hey, reading my posts again I feel I may be coming across WAY more antagonistic than I want to.

New at this forum shiz... ;-)

Anyway try www.bushlies.com, www.bushwatch.com, actually just run a search for it in google. Search amazon for Bush, there's a LOT of books out.

Check the Daily Show, they did a pretty funny take on what Bush was saying vs. what was going on in reality.

Now obviously a lot, if not the majority of these are going to be pretty partisan! Not all though, and honestly, do you think that George W Bush has NEVER lied while he has been President? Ever?

However like I said I am not the rabid left-winger I may have appeared to be... politicians have ALWAYS lied & GWB is no exception. Neither was Clinton, Bush, Reagan, any American president before that (or any New Zealand politician).

Bringing me back to my original question - where did that 1980's cynicism go? Why are people now believing what politicians say? It is like you HAVE to believe EITHER Bush or Kerry... there is always the other possibility, that they are BOTH lying.

Or that even if you are a Conservative - you don't have to Believe or Trust every conservative politician and everything they say!

Re Bush being a very good pres... honestly mate I doubt history will judge him this kindly. I could be wrong though, but unless Iraq achieves some kind of lasting peace & stability he will go down as the guy who made a really, really bad decision.

Anyway, my 2 cents

First off, that'd be pretty damn hard to lose more money than Bush. The whole "safe" thing is really fishy considering the lofty stature that Canada's national health system maintains. It's really an excuse for the drug companies, who lobby many republicans. Bush's lower employment rate? His was MUCH higher during the first 3 years of the presidency, and the jobs he has created pay much lower. The gap between classes has grown by leaps and bounds during his presidency. It's a very misleading statistic.
NO! I meant for the next term. Also as i implied earlier its not bushes fault that the economy was declining before he was in office. Your rate it is sort of misleading and the rate is only .2% better but still a fact nontheless.

NO! I meant for the next term. Also as i implied earlier its not bushes fault that the economy was declining before he was in office. Your rate it is sort of misleading and the rate is only .2% better but still a fact nontheless.

Ah, I get ya. You think if Bush was president another 4 years, the deficet would grow less than if Kerry was president. OK, that's a matter of opinion. I personally think that Kerry's policies on taxes and job growth is better, but I respect yours.

The number one issue in this political campaign for me is American Security. It is a new world after 9/11. Bush understands, but Kerry does not. The overall War on Terror is only part over:

Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are finished. We now have to go after the other sponsors of Terror: Syria, Iran, and North Korea. George Bush is the man!!

The number one issue in this political campaign for me is American Security. It is a new world after 9/11. Bush understands, but Kerry does not. The overall War on Terror is only part over:

Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are finished. We now have to go after the other sponsors of Terror: Syria, Iran, and North Korea. George Bush is the man!!


Uh huh. OK.

How?

Hey, reading my posts again I feel I may be coming across WAY more antagonistic than I want to.

New at this forum shiz... ;-)

Anyway try www.bushlies.com, www.bushwatch.com, actually just run a search for it in google. Search amazon for Bush, there's a LOT of books out.

Check the Daily Show, they did a pretty funny take on what Bush was saying vs. what was going on in reality.

Now obviously a lot, if not the majority of these are going to be pretty partisan! Not all though, and honestly, do you think that George W Bush has NEVER lied while he has been President? Ever?

However like I said I am not the rabid left-winger I may have appeared to be... politicians have ALWAYS lied & GWB is no exception. Neither was Clinton, Bush, Reagan, any American president before that (or any New Zealand politician).

Bringing me back to my original question - where did that 1980's cynicism go? Why are people now believing what politicians say? It is like you HAVE to believe EITHER Bush or Kerry... there is always the other possibility, that they are BOTH lying.

Or that even if you are a Conservative - you don't have to Believe or Trust every conservative politician and everything they say!

Re Bush being a very good pres... honestly mate I doubt history will judge him this kindly. I could be wrong though, but unless Iraq achieves some kind of lasting peace & stability he will go down as the guy who made a really, really bad decision.

Anyway, my 2 cents

OK, I've heard tons and tons of lies that Bush supposably told but most every single one is just a ridiculous lie its self or is bent to appear as if Bush is bad. Look, I've look at the facts and your right noone is perfect and everyone screws up sometimes and lies. That by no means means that Bush is a bad pres. I think that history willl see bush as a much better person than most people see him. Have you gotten any of your lies about Bush for Farenheit 9/11?

How? All means available at our disposal. Financial, political, and certainly the military. We need to send in the B's: B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s. Within weeks we will be done.

The number one issue in this political campaign for me is American Security. It is a new world after 9/11. Bush understands, but Kerry does not. The overall War on Terror is only part over:

Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are finished. We now have to go after the other sponsors of Terror: Syria, Iran, and North Korea. George Bush is the man!!

We're not attacking Syria, Iran, and North Korea dude. You're uninformed if you think that. We simply do not have the troops and Georgie has promised not to have a draft.

We're not attacking Syria, Iran, and North Korea dude. You're uninformed if you think that. We simply do not have the troops and Georgie has promised not to have a draft.

We don't have to have the draft if we send in the Bs. I do not rule out the use of nukes to force a surrender of the enemy.

ARE YOU INSANE!!!!!!!!!!! WHO THE HELL DO YOU LISTEN TO, WAIT, LET ME GUESS, FOX NEWS AND EVERYONE ON FOX NEWS, ONLY THE MOST BIASED MEDIA IN THE WORLD! REALLY, ARE YOU KIDDING ME, THE IGNORANCE IN BUSH SUPPORTERS IS UNBELIEVEABLE.

hey people we need to look at it this way... which station has the least biased weatherman now when the weather man is biased there's a new low now i know what your thinking who heard of a biased weatherman well i said the same thing about newpaper comic strip writers till i saw the anti Bush comic strip. so lets look at the weathermen cause there the important people i mean who can say something that might be wrong and still adjust what you wear and take with you... that is a power...

OK, I've heard tons and tons of lies that Bush supposably told but most every single one is just a ridiculous lie its self or is bent to appear as if Bush is bad. Look, I've look at the facts and your right noone is perfect and everyone screws up sometimes and lies. That by no means means that Bush is a bad pres. I think that history willl see bush as a much better person than most people see him. Have you gotten any of your lies about Bush for Farenheit 9/11?


nah haven't seen it, not worth paying money for.

C'mon dude, join the real world. There's no way we could use nukes without the political retaliation from Russia and France (who also have nukes). No more innocents need to die here.

The way to deal with those 3 is politically, and John Kerry has a much better chance in a hostile political spectrum. (Since even our allies can't back Bush any longer)

nah haven't seen it, not worth paying money for.
So true... the only thing it could ever be could for is to learn the lies Moore has said and refute them.

How? All means available at our disposal. Financial, political, and certainly the military. We need to send in the B's: B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s. Within weeks we will be done.

Right on! Bomb them back to the Stone Age!

Or nuke 'em back to the Dust Age.

Then all America's security problems will be solved.

Apart from an entire planet full of hostile mutants.

You know what I bet you only listen to: CNN ABC and CBS.


Dan rather is prob your dad and michel moore is your mom.





GET A LIFE. Do you really really beleive that those news sources would tell the truth?



and can you honestly say that the other news stations are any better?

I don't watch Fox News. They are too liberal. Bill O'reilly has gone soft. We need a President like Truman who wouldn't hesitate to drop nukes. You are the crazy one. We wouldn't start with the enemy's capital cities, we would start with a small or medium size city, nuke it and threaten to nuke more if they do not surrender to our terms. This war could be over quick and then we can finally live in peace.

(And also if we knew weapons were being transported than why didn't we bomb the cars/trucks/planes that transported them.)
Now, if you think about it, it seems very unlikely that we would have ever done that. After all, public outcry would have been even worse than that which resulted from the invasion. At least the people are out from under the heel of Hussein, and even if the election results in placing a man who hates America in the seat of the government of Iraq, at least it will be someone they chose. That is enough of a benefit for me. I'd say removing a man who abused his people and committed multiple acts of genocide counts as a plus...

C'mon dude, join the real world. There's no way we could use nukes without the political retaliation from Russia and France (who also have nukes). No more innocents need to die here.

The way to deal with those 3 is politically, and John Kerry has a much better chance in a hostile political spectrum. (Since even our allies can't back Bush any longer)
Kerry will not be better than bush at forign policies. Also we're not going to use nukes.

I don't watch Fox News. They are too liberal. Bill O'reilly has gone soft. We need a President like Truman who wouldn't hesitate to drop nukes. You are the crazy one. We wouldn't start with the enemy's capital cities, we would start with a small or medium size city, nuke it and threaten to nuke more if they do not surrender to our terms. This war could be over quick and then we can finally live in peace.

I'm sorry, but how is that not an act of terrorism? You are seriously no better than they are in this respect.

Right on! Bomb them back to the Stone Age!

Or nuke 'em back to the Dust Age.

Then all America's security problems will be solved.

Apart from an entire planet full of hostile mutants.
Yeah, radiating the planet is not the best idea.

Kerry will not be better than bush at forign policies. Also we're not going to use nukes.

I agree with you on the nukes issue. But Bush, who throws them into an "axis of evil" has no chance BARGAINING with them. He's branded them evil! We'll need world support for our policies, and that's something Bush cannot provide.

This is a war over wills. The enemy think we do not have the stomach to fight on (in part because of Kerry) but also in part because we do not use all the weapons at our disposal. If we used nukes, the enemy will know our will is strong to win. Regardless of international opinion.

I don't watch Fox News. They are too liberal. Bill O'reilly has gone soft. We need a President like Truman who wouldn't hesitate to drop nukes. You are the crazy one. We wouldn't start with the enemy's capital cities, we would start with a small or medium size city, nuke it and threaten to nuke more if they do not surrender to our terms. This war could be over quick and then we can finally live in peace.
i think arnold swartzenager he would be great and hey we could just drop him on the front lines o if only silvester stallon were still young and rambo (personally i liked rambo 1) but arnold would fight back against the robots so i think he should be president.

I agree with you on the nukes issue. But Bush, who throws them into an "axis of evil" has no chance BARGAINING with them. He's branded them evil! We'll need world support for our policies, and that's something Bush cannot provide.
Yes he can. Also Bush bargined with them long enough, how long should you bargain and make threats before you carry them out? Accouding to Kerry, Forever!