NationStates Jolt Archive

I mean, they practically endorsed him! AlQueda has announced they want Kerry to win. So...to my fellow Americans, unless you are a complete fool, you will vote Bush to spite the terrorists, right? It's common knowledge, you vote for the guy who the terrorists DON'T want to win!

In fact, the terrorists would have to be total idiots to endorse Kerry, cause all Americans are just gonna vote for Bush and show them! So if the terrorists had ANY sense, they would just keep their mouths shut and hope Americans vote for Kerry on their own. Or better yet, the terrorists would come out in support of Bush and then Americans vote for Kerry instead! And they'd get what they want!



If you're having trouble following my logic, the terrorists endorse Kerry because they want Bush to win. Let the flamefest commence.

How old are you, 12?
Even a new born would have more reason then you...

Whatever the terrorist say... Like the terrorist has a spokes man that informs everybody about what they think.

Anyway, they might want Kerry to win so that they might have a chance to stop being terrorist. I don't think they are doing it as a sport...

As long Bush is there, the terrorist will be there.

Eh, sorry. I'm used to dealing with raving RW lunatics nowadays, and I haven't seen subtle sarcasm in a long while. Excuse me for not getting it.

I let the quote stand, anyway.

Purported Al Qaeda Letter Calls Truce in Spain

By Opheera McDoom
[...]

"The Spanish people... chose peace by choosing the party that was against the alliance with America," the statement said.

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

Bush has given 'terrorists' a world historical boon.

Afghanistan's economy is now based on narcotics, the proceeds of which fund terrorism.

Saudi Arabia, the World Bank of Terrorism, is now making new fortunes from skyrocketing oil prices.

Hundreds of tons of munitions have been appropriated by terrorists in iraq.

Iran now operates its nuclear program without fear of US interference because the US is stuck in the iraq quagmire.

The same is true of North Korea.

How old are you, 12?
Even a new born would have more reason then you...

Whatever the terrorist say... Like the terrorist has a spokes man that informs everybody about what they think.

Anyway, they might want Kerry to win so that they might have a chance to stop being terrorist. I don't think they are doing it as a sport...

As long Bush is there, the terrorist will be there.
I'm not quite sure I'm following you.

Actually, I think you just missed the irony in my post.

Oh well, that's what I get for trying to be clever. Disregard the first part of the post and read the last part again.

Actually, no matter who wins, the terrorists will still be there.

Besides:

Bust = more international and National security (Military, Tax deduct... etc)

Kerry = more internal security (MediCare, Social Security, Medical Research, etc.)

Either way, we're in good hands, just on a different focus.

Luckily we had a republican in office during 9/11 though. Its not difficult for us right-wingers to act against terrorism, it lets us dodge Social Security issues ^^)

I'm not quite sure I'm following you.

Actually, I think you just missed the irony in my post.

Oh well, that's what I get for trying to be clever. Disregard the first part of the post and read the last part again.

Oh.. hem.
Sorry then. Here is just the start of the working day, you know. Not quite awake yet. :)

And recruitment is flourishing. I mean, look. Imagine you're a young Muslim, perhaps 15-20 years old. You don't care much about politics (dangerous stuff, that, where you're living). One day, there are several loud explosions, and your entire street is rubble. You're the only survivor. You learn it was an American bomber who thought your house was a terrorist HQ.
The next day, you hear about people being stripped naked and tortured in prisons. That's also Americans doing it.
The day after that, you get shot in the chest by a passing US jeep. You survive, but your girlfriend doesn't - she got blown apart by a grenade.

The day after that, a man comes over to your house and asks you if you want to strike back at the 'infidel pigs'. What would you say?

And recruitment is flourishing. I mean, look. Imagine you're a young Muslim, perhaps 15-20 years old. You don't care much about politics (dangerous stuff, that, where you're living). One day, there are several loud explosions, and your entire street is rubble. You're the only survivor. You learn it was an American bomber who thought your house was a terrorist HQ.
The next day, you hear about people being stripped naked and tortured in prisons. That's also Americans doing it.
The day after that, you get shot in the chest by a passing US jeep. You survive, but your girlfriend doesn't - she got blown apart by a grenade.

The day after that, a man comes over to your house and asks you if you want to strike back at the 'infidel pigs'. What would you say?
Yup yup I know all this, I've tried explaining it to conservatives again and again and they simply fall back on "Terrorists endorse Kerry, terrorists want Kerry to win."

So, in a bad attempt at sarcasm, I tried to offer an alternate view of why the terrorists may appear to endorse Kerry. The reason? Reverse psychology, as they call it.

Uh. Well, sorry. The past rightwing rants I've seen have eroded my sense of subtlety. :-/

I mean, they practically endorsed him! AlQueda has announced they want Kerry to win. So...to my fellow Americans, unless you are a complete fool, you will vote Bush to spite the terrorists, right? It's common knowledge, you vote for the guy who the terrorists DON'T want to win!

In fact, the terrorists would have to be total idiots to endorse Kerry, cause all Americans are just gonna vote for Bush and show them! So if the terrorists had ANY sense, they would just keep their mouths shut and hope Americans vote for Kerry on their own. Or better yet, the terrorists would come out in support of Bush and then Americans vote for Kerry instead! And they'd get what they want!



If you're having trouble following my logic, the terrorists endorse Kerry because they want Bush to win. Let the flamefest commence.


So let me get this straight.

The terrorists want Bush to win.

But, they know that if they tell us they want Bush, we'll all vote for Kerry to piss them off. And they don't want that.

So they tell us they want Kerry, knowing that to piss them off we'll vote for Bush: which is what they really want.

Ah! but what if they know, that we know, that they know we'll do the opposite to what they want? Because we know they will always endorse the candiate that they don't want - see above - they know that by endorsing kerry, we will see through their trick, and vote for kerry, knowing that. all along, we knew that they were endorsing the candidate they didn't want and so by voting for the candidate they endorsed we have outsmarted them. But they know that we know that so we have played into their hands by voting for him.


But what if they know, that we know, that they know, that we know that they know we know .............

I knew I should have started building my immunity to iocaine powder earlier.

I mean, they practically endorsed him! AlQueda has announced they want Kerry to win. So...to my fellow Americans, unless you are a complete fool, you will vote Bush to spite the terrorists, right? It's common knowledge, you vote for the guy who the terrorists DON'T want to win!

In fact, the terrorists would have to be total idiots to endorse Kerry, cause all Americans are just gonna vote for Bush and show them! So if the terrorists had ANY sense, they would just keep their mouths shut and hope Americans vote for Kerry on their own. Or better yet, the terrorists would come out in support of Bush and then Americans vote for Kerry instead! And they'd get what they want!



If you're having trouble following my logic, the terrorists endorse Kerry because they want Bush to win. Let the flamefest commence.

Would you vote for Adolf Hitler instead of Gorbachev just to spite the communists?

I knew I should have started building my immunity to iocaine powder earlier.
:D:D:D:D:D

In all reality though, the majority of Americans don't look much past the headlines.

This is really reminding me of a South Park episode. Has anyone seen the one where Chef wants the South Park flag changed? The Nazi party decides to support the changing of the flag, so everyone will vote the other way to spite them.

Your arguement is in trouble when South Park logic begins to become relevant.

Would you vote for Adolf Hitler instead of Gorbachev just to spite the communists?
I personally wouldn't, but some people might.

This is really reminding me of a South Park episode. Has anyone seen the one where Chef wants the South Park flag changed? The Nazi party decides to support the changing of the flag, so everyone will vote the other way to spite them.

Your arguement is in trouble when South Park logic begins to become relevant.

But at least the fact the The Princess Bride is on Bravo twice a week finally came in useful. :)

This is really reminding me of a South Park episode. Has anyone seen the one where Chef wants the South Park flag changed? The Nazi party decides to support the changing of the flag, so everyone will vote the other way to spite them.

Your arguement is in trouble when South Park logic begins to become relevant.
Exactly my point. I'm waiting to see what the conservatives have to say to this.

But at least the fact the The Princess Bride is on Bravo twice a week finally came in useful. :)

True true. I feel a little guilty for seeing the movie so many times without reading the book. Apparently it's quite good. Still, The Princess Bride is one of the most quoteable movies ever made!

NEVER GO AGAINST A SICILIAN WHEN DEATH IS ON THE LINE!!! AH HA HA HA HA HA! <thump>

Exactly my point. I'm waiting to see what the conservatives have to say to this.

I think they're still looking for WMD's.

I think they're still looking for WMD's.
HAH!

Actually, WMD's are kinda not important anymore...like Osama. ;)

True true. I feel a little guilty for seeing the movie so many times without reading the book. Apparently it's quite good. Still, The Princess Bride is one of the most quoteable movies ever made!

NEVER GO AGAINST A SICILIAN WHEN DEATH IS ON THE LINE!!! AH HA HA HA HA HA! <thump>

I think I've only watched the movie through like twice, but Bravo's right above the history channel where I live so whenever I flip round I always either seem to get that or inside the Actor's Studio and end up watching about 5 mins of either.

The upshot is that I must have seen the movie (in 5 min segments) around a million times. The drawback is I often get confused and think James Lipton is in it.

HAH!

Actually, WMD's are kinda not important anymore...like Osama. ;)

I know. But I can picture my dad, a hardcore republican, in complete denial. "All we have to do is look harder! It's those damn liberals! They were slackin' off on the job while looking for em!"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

If Fox isn't credible to a right-winger, I don't know what is.

Oh, and Iran endorsed Bush, too.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/10/19/676784-ap.html

Europeans are not terrorists! :mad:

:mp5: oops

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

If Fox isn't credible to a right-winger, I don't know what is.

Oh, and Iran endorsed Bush, too.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/10/19/676784-ap.html
Wow, off of Fox News?! :eek:

So...why do conservatives still maintain the terrorists want Kerry to win? :confused:

So...why do conservatives still maintain the terrorists want Kerry to win? :confused:

Because they've built up an immunity to iocaine powder. I though we went through this.

Because they've built up an immunity to iocaine powder. I though we went through this.
Nice one. :p

I'm off to sleep now, hopefully I'll get some conservative responses when I wake up.

Wow, off of Fox News?! :eek:

So...why do conservatives still maintain the terrorists want Kerry to win? :confused:

Maybe a conservative should answer that question; I'm voting for Kerry. :D

If you're having trouble following my logic, the terrorists endorse Kerry because they want Bush to win. Let the flamefest commence.

Your logic is valid (for all I can tell). This does not mean, however, that your argument is sound, and thus logical. To be sound, the each premise must be true.

You are assuming that the terrorists are supporting Kerry so everyone else will vote Bush. They could be or they might not have thought of that. Or, the terrorist might have thought through another step and wanted people to think like you, a la the Princess Bride. Or maybe they know that they had it easier when Clinton was President.

So, like I said, your argument is valid but not necessarily logical.

I understand that a lot of you hate Pesident Bush, but that's ok, cause when Kerry is elected and the terrorists still want to kill us and France and Germany still hate us I'm sure all of you squishy headed liberal idiots will feel like...squishy headed liberal idiots.
And no , I'm not going to explain myself because: 1st you morons have too much hate towards Bush to make a rational decision, and 2nd it doesn't matter how little Kerry has told us about ANY of his plans you fools are still gonna vote for him. F**k all of you,
Il Cuzzo

I understand that a lot of you hate Pesident Bush, but that's ok, cause when Kerry is elected and the terrorists still want to kill us and France and Germany still hate us I'm sure all of you squishy headed liberal idiots will feel like...squishy headed liberal idiots.
And no , I'm not going to explain myself because: 1st you morons have too much hate towards Bush to make a rational decision, and 2nd it doesn't matter how little Kerry has told us about ANY of his plans you fools are still gonna vote for him. F**k all of you,
Il Cuzzo


Yes, Pesident Bush is hated but I think whether you vote for Kerry or not doesn't matter. Bush opened the box of Pandora, Kerry would try to close it, Bush would try to close it. Whoever believes that either of these guys would succeed in that is a fool. Cheney you !

I understand that a lot of you hate Pesident Bush, but that's ok, cause when Kerry is elected and the terrorists still want to kill us and France and Germany still hate us I'm sure all of you squishy headed liberal idiots will feel like...squishy headed liberal idiots.
And no , I'm not going to explain myself because: 1st you morons have too much hate towards Bush to make a rational decision, and 2nd it doesn't matter how little Kerry has told us about ANY of his plans you fools are still gonna vote for him. F**k all of you,
Il Cuzzo

Oooh, isn't he cute when he foams at the mouth? Can i keep him? :D

Oooh, isn't he cute when he foams at the mouth? Can i keep him? :D

Has he had his shots? And he doesn't look housetrained...

Jesus wept - half you yanks really do need to get out and check out the international news a bit. Chirst only knows what shit is being pumped into your brains by your media and religious leaders.

You talk about "Al Queda" like they're S.M.E.R.S.H. from the old Bond films. Do you really think that Bin Laden sits in some massive underground bunker full of massive screens and guys in orange jumpsuits riding round on a mono-rail.

Do actually believe the Republican lies that "Al Queda" has come to decision that is would prefer Kerry to win. Duh - of course they're gonna say that - they know that half of America is so thick that they might actually think "Oh well, Praise the Lord, I'm gonna vote for Bush just to piss off Osama".

It is so fucking pathetic that any of you believe that.

You're being brainwashed my Rumsfeld and his neo-christian cronies. They're using everything in their powers to scare the shit out of you just like they did in the 80's using Russia as they "Axis of Evil".

I'm sorry to say the rest of the World is laughing at America at the moment. Recent Polls have shown that nearly every Developed country in the World (except Poland?!?) want Kerry to win.

Whatever happened to the land of the Free??

Yes, Pesident Bush is hated but I think whether you vote for Kerry or not doesn't matter. Bush opened the box of Pandora, Kerry would try to close it, Bush would try to close it. Whoever believes that either of these guys would succeed in that is a fool. Cheney you !

The US should bring all of its troops home from everywhere. Apologize profusely to everyone. Cut its military to a purely defensive force (with Nukes of course) and just let everyone else fight it out. I don't see why its our business and everyone else in the world seems to think so too.

We should also stop immigration too - except from Mexico and Canada-, so people stop bringing their "over there" problems up "over here".

Jesus wept - half you yanks really do need to get out and check out the international news a bit. Chirst only knows what shit is being pumped into your brains by your media and religious leaders.

You talk about "Al Queda" like they're S.M.E.R.S.H. from the old Bond films. Do you really think that Bin Laden sits in some massive underground bunker full of massive screens and guys in orange jumpsuits riding round on a mono-rail.

Do actually believe the Republican lies that "Al Queda" has come to decision that is would prefer Kerry to win. Duh - of course they're gonna say that - they know that half of America is so thick that they might actually think "Oh well, Praise the Lord, I'm gonna vote for Bush just to piss off Osama".

It is so fucking pathetic that any of you believe that.

You're being brainwashed my Rumsfeld and his neo-christian cronies. They're using everything in their powers to scare the shit out of you just like they did in the 80's using Russia as they "Axis of Evil".

I'm sorry to say the rest of the World is laughing at America at the moment. Recent Polls have shown that nearly every Developed country in the World (except Poland?!?) want Kerry to win.

Whatever happened to the land of the Free??

Wait, does this have anything do with the rest of the thread? Rokk, vent on your livejournal.

The US should bring all of its troops home from everywhere. Apologize profusely to everyone. Cut its military to a purely defensive force (with Nukes of course) and just let everyone else fight it out. I don't see why its our business and everyone else in the world seems to think so too.

We should also stop immigration too - except from Mexico and Canada-, so people stop bringing their "over there" problems up "over here".

We tried that. Wilson did not think it would work. Plus, we have to step in every now and then to help protect our trade interests.

Wait, does this have anything do with the rest of the thread? Rokk, vent on your livejournal.

Er.......Read the original thread moron - "Terrorists want Kerry to win right?"

I'm saying that thats what you're being told by the republicans and the media they control.

Er.......Read the original thread moron - "Terrorists want Kerry to win right?"

I'm saying that thats what you're being told by the republicans and the media they control.

And I'm saying that you're just bitching without adding anything real to the discussion.

We tried that. Wilson did not think it would work. Plus, we have to step in every now and then to help protect our trade interests.

Well we should try it again then. And frankly it seemed to be working quite well for US last time we did it: "Damn Roosevelt" (in a Mr. Burns voice). As to trade we should just be calculating SOBs and spread it round so no-one could blackmail us. Whatever we lost would be more than saved by not having to constantly run around after others.

Of course I give Europe about twenty years without an active US to make them pretend they all love each other. But that's their problem.

And I'm saying that you're just bitching without adding anything real to the discussion.

So you believe your media and think that the reports the "Al Queda" want Kerry to win are true.

You don't think the fact that you are being lied to on a daily basis is an issue?

So you believe your media and think that the reports the "Al Queda" want Kerry to win are true.

You don't think the fact that you are being lied to on a daily basis is an issue?

Of course not, but you're directing the blame to everyone.

It is so fucking pathetic that any of you believe that.

You're being brainwashed my Rumsfeld and his neo-christian cronies.

That doesn't accomplish anything, except make it clear that you're mad at something. This thread is clearly not to be taken literally, but it seems like you've taken it fairly seriously.

I know its starting to get a little off topic, but why does america always think that everyone wants there intervention into everything.
If other countries want their input, they will ask.

And i agree with most of what ROKK is saying, but it could've been mellowed down a bit

We tried that. Wilson did not think it would work. Plus, we have to step in every now and then to help protect our trade interests.

Protecting the trade interests sounds fine, fair and honest.
At least you don't have to cover yourself behind expensive lies, and nobody could claim you have a double morale. But it should be exclusively limited to that plus defence of your country and mutual allies.

AlQueda has announced they want Kerry to win.
Source please.

I know its starting to get a little off topic, but why does america always think that everyone wants there intervention into everything.
If other countries want their input, they will ask.

And i agree with most of what ROKK is saying, but it could've been mellowed down a bit

We tried very hard to not intervene for a long time. Americans did not want to be involved. Every now and then, however, one of our ships was attacked or our sailor seized. We were forced to go to war to protect our sovereignty and trade rights.

After entering World War II, our international outlook changed thanks to Roosevelt. We started thinking that as one of the most powerful nations we had the responsibility to help nations in need. England has had the same outlook, too. Also, some nations ask for help. Should we deny them?

If you want to blame anyone, blame Roosevelt, whom some would say was our greatest president.

I know its starting to get a little off topic, but why does america always think that everyone wants there intervention into everything.
If other countries want their input, they will ask.

And i agree with most of what ROKK is saying, but it could've been mellowed down a bit


I'm sorry if coming across like I'm having a rant, but it is so infuriating watching what's happening to your country. Every day we get reports saying "Bush says this" or "you won't believe what Rumsfeld said last night".

Everyone talks about it over here like it's a joke, but unfortunately because of you're position in the world it's not really very funny.

It's just really depressing knowing that one of my favourite countries in the world is being run by evil bastards and half the American public don't seem to give a shit - in fact they seem to be loving it.

They are using religion and fear to turn you into the kind of fundamentalists they claim are your enemy. The rest of the World can see it - yet half of the States are so blinded by it they're gonna vote Bush back in.

All my American friends are frankly embarrassed at the moment and I don't blame them.

I know its starting to get a little off topic, but why does america always think that everyone wants there intervention into everything.
If other countries want their input, they will ask.

And i agree with most of what ROKK is saying, but it could've been mellowed down a bit


I don't. I am quite aware that an interventionist US is not well liked around the globe.

I think up until about 10-15yrs ago people a lot of nations did. (And some didn't but got it anyway because after being a superpower for 60 odd years we can't give up playing the great game.) But now I am fairly convinced the rest of the world would prefer the US to stay home.

As for what I said about Europe, I don't mean it in a bad way, I just mean that having such an interventionist US tends to "paper over" a lot of cracks in certain geo-political blocks. Europe is historically not a continent of friends, I don't see any wars there anymore becuase some many nations have, or easily can have, nukes. But on the other hand I can see major disputes arising that will derail the political union of the EU.

Probably it would be worse for the middle east.

I'm sorry if coming across like I'm having a rant, but it is so infuriating watching what's happening to your country. Every day we get reports saying "Bush says this" or "you won't believe what Rumsfeld said last night".

Everyone talks about it over here like it's a joke, but unfortunately because of you're position in the world it's not really very funny.

It's just really depressing knowing that one of my favourite countries in the world is being run by evil bastards and half the American public don't seem to give a shit - in fact they seem to be loving it.

They are using religion and fear to turn you into the kind of fundamentalists they claim are your enemy. The rest of the World can see it - yet half of the States are so blinded by it they're gonna vote Bush back in.

All my American friends are frankly embarrassed at the moment and I don't blame them.


Well the other thing you have to understand is that there are a lot of domestic issues that probably don't get emphasized as much over there. I am not advocating Bush here, but for a lot of people he is the right candidate because of issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage &ct. And they are going to vote for him even though they don't approve of his foreign policy.

Probably the overseas media just concentrates more on his foreign policy positions, so when you think WTF, your not placing it in the same context as the US electorate.

squishy headed liberal idiots....you morons...F**k all of you,

Yes, the first flame comes from a Republican. As usual. is it just me or do more flames come from the right on this forum than the left?

I think that we all need to work together, America included, so we should all give feedback, but intervention should be the very last resort.
As kerry said, iraq wasnt a threat as long as sanctions where imposed on it.
and it is a bit of a coincidence that bush invade just before the UN inspectors had finished, and it looked as though they wouldnt find anything

Probably it would be worse for the middle east.Worse for Israel anyway. As we know the rulers of the countries that border Israel are bigoted racist bastards, who would try to invade Israel if the US withdrew support, just because they're Jewish. Israel has a very strong military, but they could not defend agaisnt ten countries invading at once.

Well the other thing you have to understand is that there are a lot of domestic issues that probably don't get emphasized as much over there. I am not advocating Bush here, but for a lot of people he is the right candidate because of issues like gun control, abortion, gay marriage &ct. And they are going to vote for him even though they don't approve of his foreign policy.

Probably the overseas media just concentrates more on his foreign policy positions, so when you think WTF, your not placing it in the same context as the US electorate.

I'm afraid to say our media does report as much about your domestic issues as the foreign policies - All are equally embarassing.

I think that we all need to work together, America included, so we should all give feedback, but intervention should be the very last resort.
As kerry said, iraq wasnt a threat as long as sanctions where imposed on it.
and it is a bit of a coincidence that bush invade just before the UN inspectors had finished, and it looked as though they wouldnt find anything

Nah, I don't think at this point the US can be seen overseas as an honest broker. It's a legacy of the cold war and fifty years of badly disguised "self interest."

I think each region should deal with its own problems. After all they know them the best.

From a larger perspective, when there is millitary intervention in S.E. asia for example, is it any more legitimate becuase the EU does it jointly with the US, rather then the US alone. In many respects the most important allies during the first gulf war was the Arab states that joined with the US, not the European. those guys at least gave a sembelance of legitmacy.

I'm afraid to say our media does report as much about your domestic issues as the foreign policies - All are equally embarassing.

Well, then you should know, a lot of people don't care about foreign policy. It's all about the gun control and abortion.

Well, then you should know, a lot of people don't care about foreign policy. It's all about the gun control and abortion.

Depressing isn't it?

Nah, I don't think at this point the US can be seen overseas as an honest broker. It's a legacy of the cold war and fifty years of badly disguised "self interest." .

Its never to late to start changing peoples opinions

I think each region should deal with its own problems. After all they know them the best.

But someone looking from the outside can see things in a more unbiased view, as a moderator when the involved parties have a disagrement

From a larger perspective, when there is millitary intervention in S.E. asia for example, is it any more legitimate becuase the EU does it jointly with the US, rather then the US alone. In many respects the most important allies during the first gulf war was the Arab states that joined with the US, not the European. those guys at least gave a sembelance of legitmacy.

the EU has an advantage of having input from many different nations, so i can debate internally and hopefully come up with a more un-biased opinion than one solo nation.

Depressing isn't it?

Given the relative military strength of the US. Yes.

But look on the bright side, because most of our politicians have been elected over the past twenty years because they or either for, or agianst, gun control and abortion (both sides are very single issue about these things), we basically still have a millitary that is set up to fight the USSR circa 1985.

If we had anyone of intelligence running things for the past two decades Bush would have a far more dangerous toy to play with. :)

I mean, they practically endorsed him! AlQueda has announced they want Kerry to win. So...to my fellow Americans, unless you are a complete fool, you will vote Bush to spite the terrorists, right? It's common knowledge, you vote for the guy who the terrorists DON'T want to win!

In fact, the terrorists would have to be total idiots to endorse Kerry, cause all Americans are just gonna vote for Bush and show them! So if the terrorists had ANY sense, they would just keep their mouths shut and hope Americans vote for Kerry on their own. Or better yet, the terrorists would come out in support of Bush and then Americans vote for Kerry instead! And they'd get what they want!



If you're having trouble following my logic, the terrorists endorse Kerry because they want Bush to win. Let the flamefest commence.

Wow what a statement.

Lets endorse Kerry so everyone votes Bush and we again have that idiot who a) provides countless recruiting material and b) Already proved he is an incompentent war leader (Osama and Iraq trouble).

This is why as bad as it sounds you should heed the terrorists calls and vote Kerry, he might actually do something to stop the terrorists and troubles.

Its never to late to start changing peoples opinions



But someone looking from the outside can see things in a more unbiased view, as a moderator when the involved parties have a disagrement



the EU has an advantage of having input from many different nations, so i can debate internally and hopefully come up with a more un-biased opinion than one solo nation.

I don't disagree that it's better to have the EU than not in any given situation, I just think that in area's outside of the EU locality it is not as important as being invited in by the parties in the region in question.

Imagine the difference in the perception of Iraq if Saudi and Iran had asked the US to come in because they were afraid of the Hussien regime. (Not that that was likely of course, but I'm speaking hypothetically). In that case even if the bulk of EU governments had criticized our actions, probably a lot of europeans themselves would at least be neutral, if not inclined to support the US.

The external moderator idea is a good one, but where in the world is the US now viewed as impartial, (accept maybe some parts of africa, but I doubt it).
Someone else has to play that role for now.

As to improving world opinion, I think the best way to do that is for the US just to be strictly non-interventionist for a good long while, so people start to like it for itself again and not as a "power player" or what it can and can't do abroad.

Anyway, domestically, the US is not really geared for active fighting overseas. Iraq, where the casualities are really fairly minor from a historical perspective, is having a terrible effect upon the domestic scene. It has done no end of damage to our civil discourse. The only time the US can really undertake military operations is when it actually feels threatened itself, like WWII. Otherwise the country goes into meltdown. (Good job the USSR never figured that out.) Read this thread for example.

if you read back, you have pretty much agreed with my earlier post.
I think that america should continue to hav input in the UN's decisions but as you said, stay away from other problems, if it tries to take on Iran (supposedly hiding Bin Laden according to fox) or syria (hiding iraqs wmds according to fox) then that could cause a slow internal collapse america if not angering other countries enough to do anything (but realistically, when has the U.N stepped in and done anything forcefully?)

The U.S. does NOT have Bin Laden! He dyed his beard white and works as Santa Clause at my local department store. You see its the perfect cover.

although, i have heard a rumor that the day before the election he will "mystereously" appear in a cell under the white house

if you read back, you have pretty much agreed with my earlier post.
I think that america should continue to hav input in the UN's decisions but as you said, stay away from other problems, if it tries to take on Iran (supposedly hiding Bin Laden according to fox) or syria (hiding iraqs wmds according to fox) then that could cause a slow internal collapse america if not angering other countries enough to do anything (but realistically, when has the U.N stepped in and done anything forcefully?)

Yeah, I guess I do, but I would limit our involvment in the UN to diplomatic only as far as possible.

I would massively reduce the size of the US millitary and change the force structure to one of defense/regional peace keeping. I think our current millitary is a waste, a holdover for the cold war, and serves no useful purpose other than to intimidate other nations.

I think if we did that, we'd be percieved as less of a threat; and that in of itself would discourage terrorism against the US. I really think that the days of the US being the major force component should be over. (I am aware that nation's like pakistan etc, actually do a lot of peacekeeping). But say gulf war I happened again I would like to see the US contributing no-more that 10-15% of the effort millitarily. That way it would seem more legitimate, and would frankly be more democratic.

In a sense I would like to see the US become a big sort of Japan, if you will.

its odd that america needs to spend so much on its military
(from memory 401b us$ compared to the worlds 2nd biggest spender russia with 42b us$)
and its also good to see an american with a rational view on defence

its odd that america needs to spend so much on its military
(from memory 401b us$ compared to the worlds 2nd biggest spender russia with 42b us$)
and its also good to see an american with a rational view on defence

Actually, if memory serves me correct, I think japan is 2nd at around $43 bn, just ahead of Russia. But that's largely a factor of the local economy and reliance on very expensive weapons.

But, yeah the US defense bill is scary. It made sense (somewhat) during the cold war, but now it's just ridiculous. Sad thing is everyone in the US - at least the leadership of both parties - seem to like it that way.

And what do we get for it, Well we are currently developing the next generation of fighter planes to outclass the last generation of fighter planes (the F-22) that only we have because, probably, we'll sell them all over the world.

We also have a humongous navy to protect our sea lanes in the event of a major conventional conflict. It's just silly.

And what do we need it for. At the end of the day it's really just so we can be the "biggest" dog internationally or something. I think we need to pare back to a realistic level, something along the lines of our own defense plus a little bit. We should stop pretending that we have to defend the rest of the world from itself. And despite what people say, we are not going to get into a war with China. We both have nukes, so they know its foolishness too. (Though if I were china I would be concerned that Taiwan has a secret nuclear program).

bottom line, we need to stop being the only side left in the arms race, and being paranoid that if we can't deliver four carrier battlergroups to some remote part of the world, everything is going to collapse.

Europe has done quite well in the past two decades thinking along those lines, why wouldn't we.

[QUOTE=But, yeah the US defense bill is scary. It made sense (somewhat) during the cold war, but now it's just ridiculous. Sad thing is everyone in the US - at least the leadership of both parties - seem to like it that way.[/QUOTE]

You do know that in the 80's the C.I.A. actually had to admit to making up large chunks of the 'information' on Russia to prevent you going to full scale nuclear war.

In the 80's the Republicans hyped Russias power and claimed they were funding terrorist organisations all over the world. Now it's 'Al Quedia' and the 'Axis of Evil'. Same lies, different 'evil'.

Look into Leo Struass - political philosopher at the university of Chicago in the 50s. He heavily influenced Rumpsfeld and Wolfowitz and a lot of their poloicies are based on his writings.

The only difference between Terrorist and Freedom Fighter is the spelling

Let the flamefest commence.

Do NOT encourage flaming.

You do know that in the 80's the C.I.A. actually had to admit to making up large chunks of the 'information' on Russia to prevent you going to full scale nuclear war.

I've never heard that, but it seems sort of odd. After all there is no doubt they could retaliate.

In the 80's the Republicans hyped Russias power and claimed they were funding terrorist organisations all over the world. Now it's 'Al Quedia' and the 'Axis of Evil'. Same lies, different 'evil'.

Well the US has been doing that since the berlin airlift. Wasn't just the 80's. Carter started the afganistan nonsense trying to destabilize the pro-warswaw pact gov.

Look into Leo Struass - political philosopher at the university of Chicago in the 50s. He heavily influenced Rumpsfeld and Wolfowitz and a lot of their poloicies are based on his writings.

Everyone at U.Chigago is slightly off kilter, you should read their theories on law and economics.


I don't think you can just single out Republicans for the size of the defense budget though. Harry Truman wanted it at 15%GDP, before the onset of the Korean war(about 1.5 trillion dollars today if we'd kept that as our standard). Eisenhower cut it back, Kennedy an Johnson upped it. Nixon wanted to cut back. Ford cut it. Carter Cut. Reagan was as nutty as Truman.
Bush I cut. Clinton cut a bit. Bush II raised it.

Plus you have to consider the crazy congress as well. You might have a congressman who says he thinks like I do, but try and close a defense plant or a base in his district, then he "rediscovers" a strong national defense. (Unless the gun or abortion issue makes him safe).

Actually historically, Republicans were not all that keen on large defense outlays. They seem to have discovered it in the past 25 years.

Do NOT encourage flaming.
I meant it humorously. My apologies.

The only difference between Terrorist and Freedom Fighter is the spelling
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. If America was invaded I'm quite sure us patriots would resort to hit and run, "terrorist" attacks. Doesn't justify targeting civilians however.

I understand that a lot of you hate Pesident Bush, but that's ok, cause when Kerry is elected and the terrorists still want to kill us and France and Germany still hate us I'm sure all of you squishy headed liberal idiots will feel like...squishy headed liberal idiots.
And no , I'm not going to explain myself because: 1st you morons have too much hate towards Bush to make a rational decision, and 2nd it doesn't matter how little Kerry has told us about ANY of his plans you fools are still gonna vote for him. F**k all of you,
Il Cuzzo
Yay, the first conservative to speak up in this thread. :D

Source please.
I actually don't have one. I'm just going on the seemingly common knowledge "fact" that the terrorists want Kerry to win and have made it known. All conservatives say this like it's truth, so I didn't feel a need to actually do any of my own research. :p

Well, Cheney wants to attack the US.
http://www.theonion.com/election2004/news_4041.php

I'm thinking its just a joke but you never know with Cheney. Granted it could be a metaphor when he says he will attack if Kerry wins...but then that leads back to the Princess Bride logic.

But yeah Bush looks like a Crusader. You don't think that helps recruit members for Al-Queda? You bet your bottem dollar it does.

But both people will help due to America always having incompetence.

But I do think Bush would add more.

Jesus wept - half you yanks really do need to get out and check out the international news a bit. Chirst only knows what shit is being pumped into your brains by your media and religious leaders.

You talk about "Al Queda" like they're S.M.E.R.S.H. from the old Bond films. Do you really think that Bin Laden sits in some massive underground bunker full of massive screens and guys in orange jumpsuits riding round on a mono-rail.

Do actually believe the Republican lies that "Al Queda" has come to decision that is would prefer Kerry to win. Duh - of course they're gonna say that - they know that half of America is so thick that they might actually think "Oh well, Praise the Lord, I'm gonna vote for Bush just to piss off Osama".

It is so fucking pathetic that any of you believe that.

You're being brainwashed my Rumsfeld and his neo-christian cronies. They're using everything in their powers to scare the shit out of you just like they did in the 80's using Russia as they "Axis of Evil".

I'm sorry to say the rest of the World is laughing at America at the moment. Recent Polls have shown that nearly every Developed country in the World (except Poland?!?) want Kerry to win.

Whatever happened to the land of the Free??

As an American it is embarasing that Bush is even in this race. I find it hard to believe so many of us are so blind to complete incompetence. It is even more embarasing that the best the dems could come up with as a challenger is Kerry. In all of America this is it? Bush & Kerry. We need a viable third party. (Please nobody say Libertarian, Green, or any of the other fringe groups) :rolleyes:

its odd that america needs to spend so much on its military
(from memory 401b us$ compared to the worlds 2nd biggest spender russia with 42b us$)
and its also good to see an american with a rational view on defence

The United States is a very powerful, very rich nation. Therefore, it needs a powerful military just in case. I hardly support Iraq, but the Gulf War was something that only we had the capability to respond fast enough to deal with the threat. Finally, we spend so much on military because of our huge eonomy but it is still less then 4% of our GDP.

This is what I'm talking about, from an article entitled Why Bush Will Win (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/31249.htm)

"At this writing, the possibility that the alleged al Qaeda tape virtually endorsing Kerry will hit the airwaves makes one even more confident of a Bush victory. A threat to let blood run in the streets of America if Bush wins won't intimidate voters, but rather remind them of the importance of sending a warrior to fight the terrorists — and seal Bush's victory."


THIS is what I was addressing.

I actually don't have one. I'm just going on the seemingly common knowledge "fact" that the terrorists want Kerry to win and have made it known. All conservatives say this like it's truth, so I didn't feel a need to actually do any of my own research. :p

Actually, the terrorists seem to support Bush. I posted sources somewhere on the second page of this thread so you can go back and read up if you wish.:)