NationStates Jolt Archive

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?


I voted for President Bush in both elections.

He was clearly the better man for the job both times.

I never voted for him, but alot of people did.

I was 16 in 2000, but in 2004 I voted for Bush. Basically, I thought he'd do a better job protecting the country than Kerry. That and I don't like taxes all that much.

Not me.... I don't even live there

He was clearly the better man for the job both times.
Oh man, drop everything. Forget all other arguments, Bush is president for life now.

I wanted to make sure conservatives were appointed to the SCOTUS and both Roberts and Alito are good picks (I was worried for a moment that I made a mistake when I saw some of his appointments to other positions).

Oh man, drop everything. Forget all other arguments, Bush is president for life now.
No, he's really not. If he tried anything like that the US would end in a massive revolution and civil war.

Oh man, drop everything. Forget all other arguments, Bush is president for life now.
I am truly mystified as to what you are saying. Perhaps you shall illumine your opinion and its purpose with further clarification?

Don't blame me. I voted for Badnarik.

I don't live in America, but if I did I would have voted for someone better than Bush, e.g. one of my dirty socks.

Don't blame me. I voted for Badnarik.
Ditto.

I don't live in America, but if I did I would have voted for someone better than Bush, e.g. one of my dirty socks.
I don't think she was running.

I voted for Bush in 2004 because of National Security and Defense. I also wanted lower taxes and to make those tax cuts permanent.

He believes in the ideals of the United States that you actually have to work to get to where you want to go.

2000
Gore used to be cool but turned into a dork during the 8 years of Clinton indoctrination.... weighed against sympathy vote for Bush Jr., casting vote for Dad vicariously through his Son.


2004
Kerry was always a dork and ninny... Bush was/is better than Kerry.

In 2000 I did not vote. But 2004 I voted for Kerry. I did not like the ninny, but one vote Kerry was one less for Bush.

In 2000 I did not vote. But 2004 I voted for Kerry. I did not like the ninny, but one vote Kerry was one less for Bush.

And here is the reason why Bush won ladies and gentlemen.

I voted twice President Bush 41 and twice for President Bush 43. I would have that man's children if I could (although I don't believe in gay marraige or civil unions). I think Justice Roberts is fantastic and I think Judge Alito is going to be the perfect judge to eliminate the "mainstream" influence of Justice O'Conner. I'm gonna love watching the ACLU going up in flames. And I'm even grinning at the idea of that pile of crap of bad constitutional law called Roe v Wade gets "bleeping" tossed out.

God Bless America!

:sniper:

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?
Yes, because Gore is an idiot and Kerry is ... well ... Kerry! :(

Yes, because Gore is an idiot and Kerry is ... well ... Kerry! :(

I concur.

I voted for him this past election and don't regret it.

I voted for Bush in 2004 because of National Security and Defense. I also wanted lower taxes and to make those tax cuts permanent.



Considering that Bush took the US economy from a surplus to a deficit I decided to vote for the guy who woudn't cut taxes and/or make the 2000 election tax cuts permanant. I will admit that Kerry was not the best candidate that the Democrats could have chosen but it was either him or Bush. So I chose the man who could say big words.

And here is the reason why Bush won ladies and gentlemen.
I think I agree with you.

Considering that Bush took the US economy from a surplus to a deficit I decided to vote for the guy who woudn't cut taxes and/or make the 2000 election tax cuts permanant. I will admit that Kerry was not the best candidate that the Democrats could have chosen but it was either him or Bush. So I chose the man who could say big words.

Considering that Bush has the fastest growing economy since REAGAN, I'll call your BS.

Considering that Bush has the fastest growing economy since REAGAN, I'll call your BS.

Why Bush is not doing a good job (first term):

-Plunged country into debt

-Invaded a country based on lies and without a clear exit plan.

-Don't even get me started on the environment.

-Has alienated the U.S. from it's allies and about every country with UN membership.
--------
Those are just the ones I enjoy bringing up

Why Bush is not doing a good job (first term):

-Plunged country into debt

The nation was already in debt.

-Invaded a country based on lies and without a clear exit plan.

Wrong again. Faulty intel =/= lying. As for the exit plan, that is when the Iraqis achieve democracy and can defend themselves from the terrorists. I'm surprised no one has figured this out since it is oh so simple to comprehend.

-Don't even get me started on the environment.

Goes for the other party too.

-Has alienated the U.S. from it's allies and about every country with UN membership.

Not even close.

--------
Those are just the ones I enjoy bringing up

These are the ones I love to prove wrong and have every time they are broached. Get new material.

I couldn't vote in 2000, but if the Democrats had presented a viable candidate I might have voted for them. As such, Kerry's only position was "I'm not Bush" and, well, we all know how that tactic worked...

Bush is just another greasy politician. Nothing more nothing less.
But reasons to support Him ....
Think of the thriving satirist community, spawning all over the world, filling our TV screens and newspapers with their biting humour (humor) thanks to Him. These people would be unemployable otherwise.
Think of the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists/Labourites who use Him as a diversion away from their total lack of alternative thinking.
Spare a thought for the American bands who now have something to say at British gigs beyond hello thanks and goodbye.
He annoys Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Green Day, Michael Moore, Iran, idealists, environmentalists, Al Gore etc which surely has to be a good thing.
Without His bumbling administration America would never have been introduced to 'Gorgeous' George Galloway - the craziest politician Scotland has to offer
Thank Him for the endless hours of pointless debate on forum threads :) Generally the world would be much safer (ie dull) without Him around.
God bless y'all who voted for him.

Bush is just another greasy politician. Nothing more nothing less.
But reasons to support Him ....
Think of the thriving satirist community, spawning all over the world, filling our TV screens and newspapers with their biting humour (humor) thanks to Him. These people would be unemployable otherwise.
Think of the Democrats/Liberals/Leftists/Labourites who use Him as a diversion away from their total lack of alternative thinking.
Spare a thought for the American bands who now have something to say at British gigs beyond hello thanks and goodbye.
He annoys Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, Green Day, Michael Moore, Iran, idealists, environmentalists, Al Gore etc which surely has to be a good thing.
Without His bumbling administration America would never have been introduced to 'Gorgeous' George Galloway - the craziest politician Scotland has to offer
Thank Him for the endless hours of pointless debate on forum threads :) Generally the world would be much safer (ie dull) without Him around.
God bless y'all who voted for him.

Well said

I never voted for him, but alot of people did.
Hence, the democratic process.;)

I voted for him because, at the time, I hadn't fully decided my feelings on the Iraq War (I am now against it, and I think Bush is doing a lot of things wrong). I am also Catholic and refused to vote for a pro-abort politician, particuarly one who claimed to be Catholic. I also like Rice.

Also, I think Kerry would have been a terrible choice. He is so dedicated to left-wing rhetoric, I couldn't trust him to make any decisions without checking with his liberal buddies (Yes, I know Bush can be pretty rhetorical as well, but he's shown some non-Republican policies in the response to the hurricanes, which I respect). He also claimed to have some grand strategy for getting out of Iraq, but I never saw any evidence of it. If he had given a reasonable strategy, I might have reconsidered my stance on Iraq then and there.

And yes, I do vote anti-abortion on most things, despite my feelings about the economic policies of the right. Find me a pro-life Democrat, and you've got yourself a vote.

Think of the thriving satirist community, spawning all over the world, filling our TV screens and newspapers with their biting humour (humor) thanks to Him. These people would be unemployable otherwise.
Yeah, like there was this one picture of George Bush and then there was a picture of a monkey next to him! And then there was that picture of him where someone wrote something on it that implied that he was gay, which makes no sense in light of his political stance! To think I might have missed all that classic comedy.
The above was sarcasm, FYI

One of the problems with the war in Iraq is that when senators voted for it the only intell they had was based on documents from the White House that claimed time and time again that Saddam had WMD's and/or he was an immediate threat to the U.S.(which we know by now that he did not) So basically the senate was dooped.

I voted for Bush because he's a man of morals, intergrity, honor, faith, intelligence, courage, and love.

I voted for Bush because he's a man of morals, intergrity, honor, faith, intelligence, courage, and love.
Well, at least you're right about one thing. He does love to blow the shit out of random countries and piss people off, but, then, don't we all?

One of the problems with the war in Iraq is that when senators voted for it the only intell they had was based on documents from the White House that claimed time and time again that Saddam had WMD's and/or he was an immediate threat to the U.S.(which we know by now that he did not) So basically the senate was dooped.

Then I guess they were dooped in 1998 since the Senate praised Operation Desert Fox against Saddam Hussein's Chemical and Biological weapons facilities?

One of the problems with the war in Iraq is that when senators voted for it the only intell they had was based on documents from the White House that claimed time and time again that Saddam had WMD's and/or he was an immediate threat to the U.S.(which we know by now that he did not) So basically the senate was dooped.

Umm, yeah dude.... Ms. Albright and the ever beloved President Clinton SAID THE SAME THING IN 1998....................

:sniper:

Then I guess they were dooped in 1998 since the Senate praised Operation Desert Fox against Saddam Hussein's Chemical and Biological weapons facilities?

Thats because he had them in 1998. Not this time around.

Why are people still shocked by the fact their Governments lie on a regular basis ??

Thats because he had them in 1998. Not this time around.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Oh this is so god damn funny. Thanks brotha. I needed a laugh.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

So how do we know he had them then?

*note* I had to put this in my signature. Its funny as hell.

i didnt vote for bush, because i am an australian. on the other hand, i didnt vote for john howard either

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?
#1 - I'm not a fan of Bush, but the Democrats didn't offer a candidate or substantiative platform... only "Anybody but Bush" - which is just vacuous.

#2 - My State was a "safe" state for Bush and would not have thrown the EC anyway, so I voted Libertarian. If I lived in Ohio I probably would have voted Bush.

Well, at least you're right about one thing. He does love to blow the shit out of random countries and piss people off, but, then, don't we all?Random how? Random in the sense that they're lead by dictators who are old enemies of his father? Or random in the sense that they have large oil fields?

Random how? Random in the sense that they're lead by dictators who are old enemies of his father? Or random in the sense that they have large oil fields?

Nah, random like the way they had ten years of taking pot shots at our pilots before we finally began the process of putting a stop to it.

yeah, I voted for him both times he ran. The competition both times scared the crap out of me, in fact in Nov of the last election when the polls showed Kerry ahead I actually broke out in hives. true story.

I voted for President Bush in both elections.

He was clearly the better man for the job both times.

Same here. It wasnt even a close contest for me. Democrats need to field a viable candidate if they ever expect to get my vote again.

Oh man, drop everything. Forget all other arguments, Bush is president for life now.

I wonder what will happen when 2009 comes and Bush leaves office. Will you be like the streetside lunatic predicting the End of the World on June 6, 2006? They just erase and write in a new date when their apocalyptic day comes and goes. Or maybe Bush will just be the shadow president? Which would make Dick Cheney the shadow shadow president, and Karl Rove the shadow shadow shadow president.

I wonder what will happen when 2009 comes and Bush leaves office. Will you be like the streetside lunatic predicting the End of the World on June 6, 2006? They just erase and write in a new date when their apocalyptic day comes and goes. Or maybe Bush will just be the shadow president? Which would make Dick Cheney the shadow shadow president, and Karl Rove the shadow shadow shadow president.
Don't worry. They will still have the Bush Board of Prophecy to help them get by...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/Conspiracy.jpg

Oh Great Bush Board.... Who is to blame for the crisis du' jour? :p

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?
I'm American. I voted for Bush, and against Liberalism and Islam.

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?

Yo! Sure did. Not in 2000, since I was 16.. but I supported him.. voted for him in '04 though.. Also voted for Arnold here in CA (bit the bullet there.. didn't want Davis, etc.). 2/2 so far. :p

Nope. To young to vote the first time, and certanly didn't vote for him the second.

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?

My votes weren't so much FOR Bush, as much as they were AGAINST Gore and Kerry.

I also agree with the poster who said that a conservative SCOTUS pick was a primary reason.

No, went Libertarian in '04. Too young in 2000. If Camejo had been a Presidential candidate instead of Nader, would have voted for him. I try avoiding the two main political machines due to their stranglehold on power. Man, I hate the representation and voting system in the US.

I don't live in America, but if I did I would have voted for someone better than Bush, e.g. one of my dirty socks.

I voted against Bush both times. To be honest, a freakin pet rock could have been the Democratic Rep and I would have voted for the pet rock.

I'll bet he wouldn't have done as much harm as Bush either. :p

I voted against Bush both times. To be honest, a freakin pet rock could have been the Democratic Rep and I would have voted for the pet rock. I'll bet he wouldn't have done as much harm as Bush either. :p
If the Democrats would have put up a candidate with as much class and political savvy as a Pet Rock, I might have voted for it too. Unfortunately they came up with Kerry... who would have been every bit as harmful, or more, as Bush.

I voted twice President Bush 41 and twice for President Bush 43. I would have that man's children if I could (although I don't believe in gay marraige or civil unions). I think Justice Roberts is fantastic and I think Judge Alito is going to be the perfect judge to eliminate the "mainstream" influence of Justice O'Conner. I'm gonna love watching the ACLU going up in flames. And I'm even grinning at the idea of that pile of crap of bad constitutional law called Roe v Wade gets "bleeping" tossed out.

God Bless America!

:sniper:

That's really quite interesting really. I suppose you didn't know that Alito uphelp Roe v Wade in many of his ruling, do you? And not just in one case, but several. He's very conservative... in the sense of the Constitution. Also, it's doubtful that Roe v Wade will get tossed out, really. Anyone who know anything about it would understand why, but I guess you just only hear the stuff that has been spewed forth by the incompetent.

And O'connor was harldy mainstream. She was more "liberal" than some other judges, but she was still very conservative.

Geebus in 06...er...wrong forum.

Even though I could not vote either time, I would never vote for him. Anybody who says nuclar should not be the president. Nuclar. If I saw him on the street, I would see if a two syllabole word is too hard for him. Also, "Rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?" (appreantly not). I was more articulate than that by the time I was eight. Now, I am a Masshole, so I am slightly biased.

Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher! (http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/piehigher.asp)

Not even close.


Indeed. The US has never been closer to it's good Allies of Djibouti, Haiti,Kazakhstan and Estonia.

Yes, because Gore is an idiot and Kerry is ... well ... Kerry! :(

I have high hopes that before 2020 the democrats will nominiate a living breathing candidate. I've seen more charisma from a humminh hard drive than from these too.

And here is the reason why Bush won ladies and gentlemen.
Because he got more votes? There's a novel stratagy for a politican.

2000
Gore used to be cool but turned into a dork during the 8 years of Clinton indoctrination.... weighed against sympathy vote for Bush Jr., casting vote for Dad vicariously through his Son.


2004
Kerry was always a dork and ninny... Bush was/is better than Kerry.

And as you know, voting third party is a terrible, terrible thing.

Also, I think Kerry would have been a terrible choice. He is so dedicated to left-wing rhetoric, I couldn't trust him to make any decisions without checking with his liberal buddies (Yes, I know Bush can be pretty rhetorical as well, but he's shown some non-Republican policies in the response to the hurricanes, which I respect). He also claimed to have some grand strategy for getting out of Iraq, but I never saw any evidence of it. If he had given a reasonable strategy, I might have reconsidered my stance on Iraq then and there.

But see that shows you sometimes people surprise you. So your though that Kerry would only doing left would probably be just as wrong about Bush only doing right.

I vioted for Kerry. But I wanted Dean : but republicans and their control over the press makes me upset sometimes (and yes they control a good amount of it).

Because he got more votes? There's a novel stratagy for a politican.
Well, considering the fact that the Republican political strategy since Reagan has been to lose as quickly and efficiently as possible (can anything else explain Bush Sr or Bob Dole), yes I'd say it was a rather novel rediscovery.

Because he got more votes? There's a novel stratagy for a politican.
One of the times.....

Because he got more votes? There's a novel stratagy for a politican.

Ah, it's not so easy as that. Why did he get more votes is the question. Was it because people support him? Well... no. Problem is, his approval ratings are and were remarkable low. Even the most liberal of which put him in the mid 40 percentile.

The reason he won is the fact that Kerry was a terrible candidate. He truly was. I'm surprised, in hindsight, that Kerry *almost* won. I voted for him and I think this. His only true stance was "Anybody but Bush", which is a terrible, terrible thing to use as a slogan. He was trying to appeal to the populace, but fell short. People were able to see straight through his transparencies and realize exactly what he was- a patsy. How he got just under 50% of the vote astonishes and amazes me. It justp proves how many people are so pissed off at Bush that they would rather vote for a terrible candidate than him.

Note-I am not saying that Bush was any better of a candidate. For an Incumbant to almost lose to an terrible candidate is not a good sign.

Not me.... I don't even live there
Not me and I DO live there!!:rolleyes:

I basically watched the '04 campaign with an open mouth and my palm firmly planted on my forehead.

I would have shat myself if I'd eaten anything, but my appetite had left me the day my dad woke me up one morning saying "They invaded Iraq today. If you still pray, say one for the troops and Iraqi children."

It's been an astounding couple of years. I don't think I ever imagined so many people having such a narrow view of the world in my life. It made me want to cry, strip, and live in the woods of Canada...

It's been an astounding couple of years. I don't think I ever imagined so many people having such a narrow view of the world in my life. It made me want to cry, strip, and live in the woods of Canada...

Between March and August of '03 I did just that. Oh, it was a glorious time. But then I had a craving for chips... aye, they always get ya.

Indeed. The US has never been closer to it's good Allies of Djibouti, Haiti,Kazakhstan and Estonia.

I'd take those four over France, Germany, South Korea, or Russia. They do about as much help, they aren't actively harmful to US interests, and they don't bitch very loudly.

Ah, it's not so easy as that. Why did he get more votes is the question. Was it because people support him? Well... no. Problem is, his approval ratings are and were remarkable low. Even the most liberal of which put him in the mid 40 percentile.

The reason he won is the fact that Kerry was a terrible candidate. He truly was. I'm surprised, in hindsight, that Kerry *almost* won. I voted for him and I think this. His only true stance was "Anybody but Bush", which is a terrible, terrible thing to use as a slogan. He was trying to appeal to the populace, but fell short. People were able to see straight through his transparencies and realize exactly what he was- a patsy. How he got just under 50% of the vote astonishes and amazes me. It justp proves how many people are so pissed off at Bush that they would rather vote for a terrible candidate than him.

Note-I am not saying that Bush was any better of a candidate. For an Incumbant to almost lose to an terrible candidate is not a good sign.

1) Approval ratings almost always go downward in the course of a presidency. Harry Truman had approval ratings in the 30's when he left office, and according to a recent C-SPAN poll is the 6th most successfull president of all time.

2) Kerry was a terrible candidate? Before the election you people were treating him as the Second Coming, sent to free us all from the evil of Chimpy McBu$hitler.

I'd take those four over France, Germany, South Korea, or Russia. They do about as much help, they aren't actively harmful to US interests, and they don't bitch very loudly.
Don't forget Morocco (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21268-2003Mar24?language=printer)!
With luck, Angola can be replaced by Morocco, if a report yesterday by UPI is to be believed. According to the wire service, Morocco's weekly al Usbu' al-Siyassi claimed that Morocco has offered 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines.

An official at the Moroccan Embassy could not confirm the presence of monkeys in the coalition of the willing.

Waaay better than France in the Gulf War! Or Korea.

Because he got more votes? There's a novel stratagy for a politican.

No!

No one wins on the "anyone but" crowd. Its never been successful in the History of the United States.

I vioted for Kerry. But I wanted Dean : but republicans and their control over the press makes me upset sometimes (and yes they control a good amount of it).

If they do then why the hell do most of the TV Networks as well as the Press lean towards the democrats while Radio leans to the republicans? The Dems control far more than the republicans.

1) Approval ratings almost always go downward in the course of a presidency. Harry Truman had approval ratings in the 30's when he left office, and according to a recent C-SPAN poll is the 6th most successfull president of all time.

2) Kerry was a terrible candidate? Before the election you people were treating him as the Second Coming, sent to free us all from the evil of Chimpy McBu$hitler.

1.Yes. However, his low approval rating before the Election indicated people would not want him as a president for a second term. Just before the election, Bush's approval rating was, in most polls, in the 30's, which is not a good sign.

2. I never said Kerry was good. Under my old account(Cleverly named Seangolia), I was usually the first to detest him. I disliked him quite a bit less than I did Bush, which is why I voted for him(However, in hindsight, I would most assuredly vote Bush if there was a "redo" of sorts). Infact, very few people thought of him as any good at all. Just a "lesser of two evils", which is easily why he lost. Had the Democrats put forth a decent candidate, instead of who they thought would have the best chance of winning, I have almost no doubt Bush would be out of office. However, they went for a second rate hack. Also, for most states, who is picked doesn't matter. My homestate of Minnesota, for example, is usually an easy win for Dems, and Texas is an easy win for Reps. Which really makes most people's votes useless. But that's another debate for another time.

I did both times because I considered him to be the lesser of two evils. Or was that the lesser of two weevils?

Oh, its not like we have a choice. We have a two party system, if Hitler was nominated by the GOP, and Stalin by the Dems, the race would have just as close because we essentially throw our votes away by voting for the third party, if its even running in our state. That, and most people are hopelessly uninformed.

Anyhow, I didn't vote Bush, and I know many people who did, so let me count them...1...3...7...14...19...oh, darn, ran out of toes. I'm just a stupid Libertarian, with no education. Don't you know only Republican's are educated? :rolleyes:

Too young in 2000 and voted for Kerry 2004.
See if I'll make that mistake again. Bush has proven to me that we are those imperialist dickheads everyone thinks we are, and that I might as well throw my vote away for a leftist party than vote another conservative into office.

I voted for Bush in 2004 because of National Security and Defense. I also wanted lower taxes and to make those tax cuts permanent.

He believes in the ideals of the United States that you actually have to work to get to where you want to go.

And let me guess, you also woffed down the Straussian lie that the US is a special nation that has been chosen by God to spread freedom and democracy around the world?

Dear god, I can't believe these people are allowed to breed; I swear, if there is ever a downfall of society, it'll be the majority failing to realise that they're as thick as two short planks and that maybe they better leave the running of the country up to those who have a f*cking clue about the world beyound their borders.

I voted for Bush in 2004 because of National Security and Defense. I also wanted lower taxes and to make those tax cuts permanent.

He believes in the ideals of the United States that you actually have to work to get to where you want to go.


Thats right, because Bush worked so hard to get where he is today didn't he?

Or maybe he didn't? An alternative view is that he failed miserably at every job/position/opportunity he was ever handed on a silver platter - only to be rewarded with an even more responsible or lucrative role each time he did so.

Bush doesn't represent the ideals of the United States as you laughably claim - Kerry and Gore didn't either, maybe Clinton did a bit more so (but that didn't make him a good president)

I voted for Bush.

Who was I going to vote for in his stead Kerry?

hahahahahaha, *wipes tears from his eyes*

that guy is a lousy Senator that can't be bothered to vote

Gore......

smart guy that is possibly the worst politician outside of Major Owens

Libetarians? if a libertarian ever got in civilization would need oxygen

I held my nose and voted for Gore and Kerry in '00 and '04. Yes, they weren't Bush, which means they'd have a 99% chance of being better than he was.
It's a shame, though, that there are few left-wing parties in the U.S.

And let me guess, you also woffed down the Straussian lie that the US is a special nation that has been chosen by God to spread freedom and democracy around the world?

And where the hell did you get that?

Dear god, I can't believe these people are allowed to breed; I swear, if there is ever a downfall of society, it'll be the majority failing to realise that they're as thick as two short planks and that maybe they better leave the running of the country up to those who have a f*cking clue about the world beyound their borders.

Grow up.

He believes in the ideals of the United States that you actually have to work to get to where you want to go.
Despite lack of first hand experience of course.

General sentiment on the forum appears to be vehemently anti_Bush, so for all Americans, if you voted, did you vote for Bush, and if so, why?
I voted for him in his re-election. There are two things he did right in his first term. He cut taxes to stimulate the economy. Democrats seem to have a great fear of increased revenues that come through "voodoo economics".

The second thing he did was to carry the fight to the terrorists. All of you whiners over the war in Iraq should remember that there have been no attacks on the U.S. since we responded to their declaration of war.

I voted for Harry Browne in the 2000 elections because it was a different time. His policies were good then and they will be good again. Browne just doesn't understand terrorism and doesn't have the will to fight the terrorists.

Voted for Kerry, last time.'

Bit of a douche, but the obviously better choice.
Sad that he was the best the Dems could dredge up.

What interests me more, is the next presidential election.
When, glory be, we get rid of the slimy fuck in office.

The interesting part, is who wil the Dems come up with, and what unlucky bastard will contest him.
See, the only chance the Republicans really have is to run someone a bit more moderate, and yet, a person who won't be seen as weak on Defense.

The obvious choice seems to be McCain.

I dont agree 100% with this guy, or even 60%, but I can at least say I have some respect for him.
This guy may not be so bad.

The Democrats, on the other hand, MUST pick someone with a set of balls.
One that wont roll over, and refuse to go on the offensive, when being politically assassinated, like Kerry did.

Sadly, they will also have to choose a candidate a bit more right-leaning, to sway the fence-sitters, wich will win an election. These last few elections have been extremely close.

The Dems can't pick anyone that has a reasonable view. The only Dems that vote in the primaries and conventions are hard line left. You're going to get someone similar to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. All the good Democrats are staying home.

Voted for Kerry, last time.'

Bit of a douche, but the obviously better choice.
Sad that he was the best the Dems could dredge up.

What interests me more, is the next presidential election.
When, glory be, we get rid of the slimy fuck in office.

The interesting part, is who wil the Dems come up with, and what unlucky bastard will contest him.
See, the only chance the Republicans really have is to run someone a bit more moderate, and yet, a person who won't be seen as weak on Defense.

The obvious choice seems to be McCain.

I dont agree 100% with this guy, or even 60%, but I can at least say I have some respect for him.
This guy may not be so bad.

The Democrats, on the other hand, MUST pick someone with a set of balls.
One that wont roll over, and refuse to go on the offensive, when being politically assassinated, like Kerry did.

Sadly, they will also have to choose a candidate a bit more right-leaning, to sway the fence-sitters, wich will win an election. These last few elections have been extremely close.

The Dems can't pick anyone that has a reasonable view. The only Dems that vote in the primaries and conventions are hard line left. You're going to get someone similar to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. All the good Democrats are staying home.


Wow...

Thats depressing.

However, Im technically an independant, so Im not altogether sure there are any "good" Democrats.
However, as I sit here, trying to come up with a likely democratic choice...
..nothing comes to mind.

I just hope its someone with a set of balls, and morals.

Despite lack of first hand experience of course.

Doesn't matter if you have first hand experience or not. My family does have 1st hand experience. You cannot rely soley on the Government. You actually have to go out and earn your money.

The second thing he did was to carry the fight to the terrorists. All of you whiners over the war in Iraq should remember that there have been no attacks on the U.S. since we responded to their declaration of war.

...

But an increase in terrorist bombings everywhere else?

Also, please prove that you can link the non-existance of terrorist bombings in the US to the invasion of Iraq.

2000

Bush wins on a technicality/crooked system.
Many people dismayed


2004

Bush wins fairly.
Many people stunned

But an increase in terrorist bombings everywhere else?

Also, please prove that you can link the non-existance of terrorist bombings in the US to the invasion of Iraq.
You're putting words in my mouth. I said that we are fighting the terrorists away from our homes. That has nothing to do with any links between anyone. If the strategy that Bush employed was to go into Iraq, remove a despot from power, and attract terrorists to fight our soldiers, instead of our civilians, I think it was a good strategy.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said that we are fighting the terrorists away from our homes. Yes, how nice of us to bring democracy and terrorists to Iraq. Of course, there's still the fact that it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, that we could be fighting them here and there.

I may be more pessimistic than the situation warrants, but look back at the candidates that survived the primaries. Then look at the moderates that lost. My disillusionment started when Michael Dukakis was nominated.
Wow...

Thats depressing.

However, Im technically an independant, so Im not altogether sure there are any "good" Democrats.
However, as I sit here, trying to come up with a likely democratic choice...
..nothing comes to mind.

I just hope its someone with a set of balls, and morals.

Yes, how nice of us to bring democracy and terrorists to Iraq. Of course, there's still the fact that it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, that we could be fighting them here and there.
I don't know you're reasoning against it, but I'm pretty happy not to have my water poisioned, or my subways and shopping malls bombed.

I may be more pessimistic than the situation warrants, but look back at the candidates that survived the primaries. Then look at the moderates that lost. My disillusionment started when Michael Dukakis was nominated.

former Governor Warner, of Virginia maybe.

But he hardly fits the Democratic mold, even though he is a Democrat.

Slightly to the right of center. Gun friendly. Talks about God (as does his successor Kaine). More fiscally conservative than most Democrats would tolerate. Uses the death penalty.

He would never survive the primary process. But if he did, he would be a viable candidate for President.

First:



The second thing he did was to carry the fight to the terrorists. All of you whiners over the war in Iraq should remember that there have been no attacks on the U.S. since we responded to their declaration of war.

Correlation does not equal causation.


You're putting words in my mouth. I said that we are fighting the terrorists away from our homes. That has nothing to do with any links between anyone. If the strategy that Bush employed was to go into Iraq, remove a despot from power, and attract terrorists to fight our soldiers, instead of our civilians, I think it was a good strategy.

So you're basically saying, that you invaded a country with no links to Al Quaeda to create a playground for terrorists, thus sacrificing Iraqi civilians?

I don't know you're reasoning against it, but I'm pretty happy not to have my water poisioned, or my subways and shopping malls bombed.I can understand about the malls, but considering Bush's policies on clean water when he came into office...

former Governor Warner, of Virginia maybe.

But he hardly fits the Democratic mold, even though he is a Democrat.

Slightly to the right of center. Gun friendly. Talks about God (as does his successor Kaine). More fiscally conservative than most Democrats would tolerate. Uses the death penalty.

He would never survive the primary process. But if he did, he would be a viable candidate for President.For you maybe. But having to choose between two pro death penalty, pro gun people kills the idea of democracy.

For you maybe. But having to choose between two pro death penalty, pro gun people kills the idea of democracy.

Clinton moved to occupy the center in order to win.

The Democrats have to ask themselves - should we compromise all that we stand for, and refuse to be the "loyal opposition" in order to win?

Maybe they should ask themselves what Americans want. Govern by polling, and then making a decision based on the poll, as Clinton did.

Stephanopolous said that's the way Clinton made every decision.

I voted for President Bush in both elections.

He was clearly the better man for the job both times.Yup. Same here (along with some 54 million other Americans). However, Bush being the better choice each time isn't so much an endorsement of Bush, as it is an indictment of the Democratic party - Both times they put forwards an inadequate candidate.

My evidence for that statement? Simple: Two G. W. Bush Presidencies.

Yup. Same here (along with some 54 million other Americans). However, Bush being the better choice each time isn't so much an endorsement of Bush, as it is an indictment of the Democratic party - Both times they put forwards an inadequate candidate.

My evidence for that statement? Simple: Two G. W. Bush Presidencies.

I've begun to wonder if you can predict who will be President, solely by putting photos of each candidate (with no subject or issue material) in front of a group of people, and asking them which one looks more like a wuss than the other.

Kimchi's First Rule Of Presidential Politics - never nominate a candidate who looks like an effete wuss

Clinton moved to occupy the center in order to win.

The Democrats have to ask themselves - should we compromise all that we stand for, and refuse to be the "loyal opposition" in order to win?

Maybe they should ask themselves what Americans want. Govern by polling, and then making a decision based on the poll, as Clinton did.

Stephanopolous said that's the way Clinton made every decision.I've realized that. That's why I'm not voting democrat anymore: Either they won't win or I won't want them to win. Both options prompt me to vote a third party from now on in the hopes that enough leftists jump off the Democrats wagon to form an own, non-fringe left party so there's actually some choice.

I don't know you're reasoning against it, but I'm pretty happy not to have my water poisioned, or my subways and shopping malls bombed.
My point is that fighting the terrorists abroad doesn't preclude this from happening.

I've begun to wonder if you can predict who will be President, solely by putting photos of each candidate (with no subject or issue material) in front of a group of people, and asking them which one looks more like a wuss than the other.

Kimchi's First Rule Of Presidential Politics - never nominate a candidate who looks like an effete wussAs far as I know, the election is decided by which potential First Lady sends the yummier home made recipe to some cooking magazine. I think they proved correct every time so far.

My parents both voted for Bush.

I couldn't stand to vote for Bush. I also couldn't stand to vote for Kerry since I don't live in a swing state, and even if I were in a swing state I would have trouble voting for a guy with a record like that on Senate votes. So I voted Badnarik.

My point is that fighting the terrorists abroad doesn't preclude this from happening.

No, it doesn't.

But it does attract recruits to go to that foreign war - they can walk or drive to Iraq in large numbers.

Getting over here is more difficult to do in substantial numbers.

Europe, on the other hand, has a rather liberal border policy by comparison.

Oh man, drop everything. Forget all other arguments, Bush is president for life now.

A retarded response, but to be expected from a basher.

Actually, no- he will serve out the rest of his second term and we'll vote for someone else. One day, you'll be old enough to take part in the process.

No, it doesn't.

But it does attract recruits to go to that foreign war - they can walk or drive to Iraq in large numbers.

Getting over here is more difficult to do in substantial numbers.
Yes, I know, which is why I find the idea odd - that the only terrorists who would fight us in Iraq would be the ones who don't have the means to come here. Would a terrorist who did have the means to come here fight us in Iraq instead?

Yes, I know, which is why I find the idea odd - that the only terrorists who would fight us in Iraq would be the ones who don't have the means to come here. Would a terrorist who did have the means to come here fight us in Iraq instead?

Evidently (so far) not many have the wherewithal or organization to make the trip and bring a group over to do bad things.

The trip to Europe is shorter, easier, etc.

So they go to Spain and London instead. The trip could be entirely overland by those efficient European trains.

Yup. Same here (along with some 54 million other Americans). However, Bush being the better choice each time isn't so much an endorsement of Bush, as it is an indictment of the Democratic party - Both times they put forwards an inadequate candidate.

My evidence for that statement? Simple: Two G. W. Bush Presidencies.

Thats certainly a reasonable estimation. I still support the President, I dont agree with all of his policy and decisions, but do feel he acts with what he feels to be best for our country.

Evidently (so far) not many have the wherewithal or organization to make the trip and bring a group over to do bad things.

The trip to Europe is shorter, easier, etc.

So they go to Spain and London instead. The trip could be entirely overland by those efficient European trains.The London bombers didn't travel much though. The people that gave them what they needed, but not the bombers...

The London bombers didn't travel much though. The people that gave them what they needed, but not the bombers...

If you figure that in any population of people (let's say 1 million), you're going to have X percent sympathizers and Y percent terrorists...

then let's see which nations have how many Muslims...

I have the suspicion that certain areas of the UK and France and Spain and Germany have much higher populations of Muslims than the US - and we've been doing the Paranoia Act over here, and arresting Muslims who raise money or give flaming speeches.

Think of the odds, then.

Kimchi's First Rule Of Presidential Politics - never nominate a candidate who looks like an effete wussI find your ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter... ;)

My point is that fighting the terrorists abroad doesn't preclude this from happening.

true-it certainly doesnt preclude it from happening, but it is better for us to bring the fight to them and try to keep them busy on their turf, rather than ours.
Look at the trouble France is having with rioters now. The rioters arent well armed and motivated, really just hooligans at this point. but they are very destructive and hard to control amongst innocent people and their property. Imagine now they were more organized and had weapons/explosives.
The crude firebombs they have now are pretty effective so far.

Keep fighting terrorists abroad. Kill them over there, sieze their equipment, compromize their communications and computers, sieze their assets and those of everyone that is found and proven to be dealing with them in any way.
And keep them out of our country, as well as the countries of our allys. Prevent new ones from entering. Put a bounty on all their heads and pay it to anyone that contributes to their capture or killing.
Then, start tracking all the ones that are here on expired visas, etc... Capture them and imprison or expel them, whichever is better for us.

And keep them out of our country, as well as the countries of our allys. Prevent new ones from entering. Put a bounty on all their heads and pay it to anyone that contributes to their capture or killing.
Then, start tracking all the ones that are here on expired visas, etc... Capture them and imprison or expel them, whichever is better for us.
I don't have a huge issue with your method of handling this, but doesn't it make more sense to do this part first, rather than going abroad first?

Thats certainly a reasonable estimation. I still support the President, I dont agree with all of his policy and decisions, but do feel he acts with what he feels to be best for our country.I wore the uniform, and the Oath I swore still stands. However, that doesn't preclude me from wishing for a better President, even as I support the one I currently have.

Yes, how nice of us to bring democracy and terrorists to Iraq. Of course, there's still the fact that it doesn't have to be an either/or proposition, that we could be fighting them here and there.

The average Iraqi citizen on the street seems to be pretty happy about it, considering the turnout to vote.

And while they may not have been reffered to as "terrorists" at the time, I feel tha the actions of sadaams two scumbag sons, as well as the Iraqi secret police through years of "purges"- middle of the night arrests, thousands and thousand of the most brutal tortures and killings-which the perpetrators themselves documented on video tape, no less -all fall under terrorism in my eyes.
Torture and murder was the states national past time. I'm sure you're aware of it. Armed men actually shooting men AND women and children in the back of the head, then bulldozing the bodies over.

That has to be terrorism, no matter how dense the person considering it happens to be.

There is no arguement to refute what I've said, so lets not waste any more time.

I don't have a huge issue with your method of handling this, but doesn't it make more sense to do this part first, rather than going abroad first?

I actually think it should be done immediately and simultaneously. It should be a total blitz. Shock and awe across the board and all that.
hit them high, low and everywhere in between. And never let the pressure off of them.

This will sort out a lot of the ones that are just in it for personal gain. Some arent really as religious as they would have people believe-the ywant cash, power and to stab at the western way of life. They have loads of cash. We have to hit them hard and make it unbearable for anyone to support them in any way.

I wore the uniform, and the Oath I swore still stands. However, that doesn't preclude me from wishing for a better President, even as I support the one I currently have.

You have my respect and thanks- I admire and appreciate all those that have served our country.
I wish for a better President too.

Oh man, drop everything. Forget all other arguments, Bush is president for life now.


don't worry, he can only be president for 2 (got that TWO) terms

There is no arguement to refute what I've said, so lets not waste any more time.Of course there is. How many Iraqis have died since the war began, vs how many died under Saddam?

You have my respect and thanks- I admire and appreciate all those that have served our country.Well, it seemed like the right thing to do. Come to think of it, it still feels that way. But, thank you... It's nice to get a pat on the back for having stood up and put it on the line.

All that said, I've been wishing for a better President for a long, long time now. We've had a dearth of really good ones during my lifetime. My parent's generation had it better.

Of course there is. How many Iraqis have died since the war began, vs how many died under Saddam?Conservative, credible, estimates put Saddam's regime's death toll at about 300000 dead. Some respected international agencies and NGOs put the toll closer to half a million. Either way, it'll be a long, long time before the current contremps get close to those numbers.

Mind you, it still makes Saddam, et al, a bit of an 'also-ran' in the Murderous Despot Sweepstakes. He doesn't even make the top ten, and maybe not even the top 20.

Edit to add:
That's also not considering what he did to his neighbors. If you add the Iranian and Kuwaiti death tolls due to Saddam's actions, the numbers climb quite easily into the multiple millions.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessesary to the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is the primary reason I voted for Bush both times.
I think he could do a better job in several areas, not least of which is securing the borders. I think the Patriot act is a BAD thing under its current setup. I think the REAL ID act is tantamount to Totalitarianism and should not be allowed to be implemented for a number of reasons. I believe that not only should we have gone into Iraq, but that we should have done so as early as 1992 when Saddam showed that he had absolutely ZERO intentions of fully complying with the UN Resolutions and Cease Fire agreements that he made after his removal from Kuwait.

I don't believe that either Bill Clinton (who seemed to do rather ok on domestic issues and had no foreign policy to speak of) nor Al Gore nor John Kerry would have had the courage to "go it alone" in the Middle East and at least make an effort to clean up and stabilize that vitally important area of the world.

I could care less about Same Sex Marriages so long as I don't have to pay for them. I do agree with the Presidents stand on Abortion but not on Stem Cell research.

Had I thought for a moment that Mike Badnarik had a snowballs chance in hell of winning the election I'd have voted for him. In this country however a vote for a 3rd party candidate in a Presidential Election is effectively a vote for the candidate most diametrically opposed to the rights of the individual. (Unless you're talking about a socialist candidate such as Nader of course).

Conservative, credible, estimates put Saddam's regime's death toll at about 300000 dead. Some respected international agencies and NGOs put the toll closer to half a million. Either way, it'll be a long, long time before the current contremps get close to those numbers.Not really, conservative estimates put the number of Iraqi dead at 100,000.

Mind you, it still makes Saddam, et al, a bit of an 'also-ran' in the Murderous Despot Sweepstakes. He doesn't even make the top ten, and maybe not even the top 20.

Edit to add:
That's also not considering what he did to his neighbors. If you add the Iranian and Kuwaiti death tolls due to Saddam's actions, the numbers climb quite easily into the multiple millions.Well, at least the Iranian death tolls couldn't have been what they were without U.S. help, and some of the Iraqis would probably also fall in that area.

I don't believe that either Bill Clinton (who seemed to do rather ok on domestic issues and had no foreign policy to speak of) nor Al Gore nor John Kerry would have had the courage to "go it alone" in the Middle East and at least make an effort to clean up and stabilize that vitally important area of the world.
I wouldn't say that the Middle East has become more stable with the fall of Saddam. I'd say the opposite. I'd consider that a formerly stable government replaced by an occupation beset by an insurgency less stable.

Of course there is. How many Iraqis have died since the war began, vs how many died under Saddam?

I bet its ten to one that more died under sadaam's reign. Likely far more.

I dont have the time or inclination to do the research though.

Here is just a small piece on the mass graves alone:

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html



Maybe you'll understand why I'm biting my tongue. I know many people arent fully aware or may not want to believe how bad things were.

Conservative, credible, estimates put Saddam's regime's death toll at about 300000 dead. Some respected international agencies and NGOs put the toll closer to half a million. Either way, it'll be a long, long time before the current contremps get close to those numbers.

Mind you, it still makes Saddam, et al, a bit of an 'also-ran' in the Murderous Despot Sweepstakes. He doesn't even make the top ten, and maybe not even the top 20.

Edit to add:
That's also not considering what he did to his neighbors. If you add the Iranian and Kuwaiti death tolls due to Saddam's actions, the numbers climb quite easily into the multiple millions.


the last link I posted puts the number of mass grave corpses around 400,000.

This doesnt factor in the ones that were murdered and dumped back on their doorsteps to impress the family and neighbors.

It also doesnt factor in the ones disolved that went still living into vats of acid, which is another documented practice. Or the ones fed feet first, still living into wood chippers.
Probably not the ones that had gasoline funneled down their throats and then sent to run around while soldiers shot at them. most of those were immolated.

I'm not happy about them being killed before or after the US was there, but there is no comparison.
None.

I voted for President Bush in both elections.

He was clearly the better man for the job both times.

Quoted for truth...albeit sadly...

I wouldn't say that the Middle East has become more stable with the fall of Saddam. I'd say the opposite. I'd consider that a formerly stable government replaced by an occupation beset by an insurgency less stable.


Yeah-"stable" with neighbors worrying about scuds laden with chemical or biological agents might start raining on them in the night.
Or that sadaam might decide to roll into Kuwait again for a gangbang, shoot up some zoo animals, loot and set fire to oil wells on the way out.

You didnt think that it would become a stable, strong democracy overnight, right?

It will take more time, more effort and more blood.

I wouldn't say that the Middle East has become more stable with the fall of Saddam. I'd say the opposite. I'd consider that a formerly stable government replaced by an occupation beset by an insurgency less stable.

I would agree that, for the moment, there is more instability than there was say, prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I would submit however that with the elimination of an agressive egomaniacal dictator that started multiple wars with his neighbors threatening the worlds largest supply of oil reserves and killed off hundreds of thousands of his own citizens things will, sooner or later, stabilize to a greater degree than in the past.

Having a strong military presence from several Western nations in the region is more likely to deter future aggression from states such as Iran and Syria than would be the case were we (the Western world) not there.

Iran would like nothing more than to see us pull out of Iraq and leave them in their current weakened condition.....I shudder to think of the consequences to the economy of both Europe and America should such an anti-Western Theocracy gain control of such a large portion of the oil so desperately needed to feed our economies.

Yeah-"stable" with neighbors worrying about scuds laden with chemical or biological agents might start raining on them in the night.
Or that sadaam might decide to roll into Kuwait again for a gangbang, shoot up some zoo animals, loot and set fire to oil wells on the way out.

You didnt think that it would become a stable, strong democracy overnight, right?

It will take more time, more effort and more blood.No. What I'm saying if stability is what Bush was after, it won't happen in his lifetime after deposing a dictator during a "War on Terror." I didn't believe it would become a stable, strong democracy overnight. I thought it would be a destabilizing factor for the whole region, and I turned out to be right. See whom the Iranians voted into "power" to understand what I mean.

I shudder to think of the consequences to the economy of both Europe and America should such an anti-Western Theocracy gain control of such a large portion of the oil so desperately needed to feed our economies.

While I happen to agree with you, it does sound rather paternalistic and colonialist to assert that the oil in the ground is "ours" (the collective property of the West).

While I happen to agree with you, it does sound rather paternalistic and colonialist to assert that the oil in the ground is "ours" (the collective property of the West).

Not at all, I do not believe that it is "ours" so much as I believe that we should have the same access to it as the rest of the world provided we are willing to pay for it as we have in the past. I'm not a fan of OPEC by any stretch of the imagination but, they have it, we want/need it, they can set the prices they wish to charge for it and we can pay it as we have done. To give any one vehemently anti Western nation total control over that region is to seal the fate of our way of life and, like it or not, we would be forced to take even more drastic actions to preserve it.

I would agree that, for the moment, there is more instability than there was say, prior to the 1991 Gulf War, I would submit however that with the elimination of an agressive egomaniacal dictator that started multiple wars with his neighbors threatening the worlds largest supply of oil reserves and killed off hundreds of thousands of his own citizens things will, sooner or later, stabilize to a greater degree than in the past. I agree with that completely. A mad dictator was more stable than what is going on now, but certainly less so than what Iraq could become if the insurgency is defeated. I'd guess on much later than sooner, though...
Having a strong military presence from several Western nations in the region is more likely to deter future aggression from states such as Iran and Syria than would be the case were we (the Western world) not there.True, but those Wester forces will leave eventually, and it's better to figure out a way to get them to cooperate without the threat of force (take a look at what happened to the European colonial empires after independence. At worst, it was only the common oppressor that kept tribal rivalries from erupting.)
Iran would like nothing more than to see us pull out of Iraq and leave them in their current weakened condition.....I shudder to think of the consequences to the economy of both Europe and America should such an anti-Western Theocracy gain control of such a large portion of the oil so desperately needed to feed our economies.To be honest, I think they're quite fine where they are. With American troops committed to Iraq the way they are, any action against Iran will be extremely costly and difficult. And be prepared for Shia uprisings should the US do anything to Iran...:(

What scares the h**l out of me is that most Americans are seemingly oblivious to what happens to other people than Americans!!

I mean, if somebody dropped a nuclear bomb (or nuc-uh-lur as your beloved president says) in downtown Oslo (which is the capital of Norway), CNN probably WOULD go bananas, and some NATO countries would probably rise to defend the poor little country (Norway that is), but most Americans would react by saying: "Norway, huh? Isn't that the capital of Sweden? Man, getting a nuc-UH-lur warhead in your, er... head must really hurt. Oh, well, what's on TV?"

This FREAKS ME OUT...

FYI, ALL the Americans I have met have been nice people, so I have nothing against you guys on a personal basis. :)

I mean, if somebody dropped a nuclear bomb (or nuc-uh-lur as your beloved president says) in downtown Oslo (which is the capital of Norway), CNN probably WOULD go bananas, and some NATO countries would probably rise to defend the poor little country (Norway that is), but most Americans would react by saying: "Norway, huh? Isn't that the capital of Sweden? Man, getting a nuc-UH-lur warhead in your, er... head must really hurt. Oh, well, what's on TV?"

This FREAKS ME OUT...

FYI, ALL the Americans I have met have been nice people, so I have nothing against you guys on a personal basis. :)

According to the UN Statistical division, Norway was the world's sixth biggest weapons exporter in 2003.

I think I'll send an email to Bush, and they'll get right on this...

To be honest, I think they're quite fine where they are. With American troops committed to Iraq the way they are, any action against Iran will be extremely costly and difficult. And be prepared for Shia uprisings should the US do anything to Iran...:(

I'm not advocating any conflict with Iran, merely pointing out that Iran and Iraq have historically been at each others throats, and that an Iraq in its current state without U.S. and other Coalition forces in country and in the regions, would be a rather easy target for Iran to get a little revenge while at the same time securing another deep water port and a whole heck of a lot of Oil producing realestate.

I'm not advocating any conflict with Iran, merely pointing out that Iran and Iraq have historically been at each others throats, and that an Iraq in its current state without U.S. and other Coalition forces in country and in the regions, would be a rather easy target for Iran to get a little revenge while at the same time securing another deep water port and a whole heck of a lot of Oil producing realestate.I wasn't saying you were advocating action. I'm just trying to establish a point that Iran is perhaps in a better position with the US military committed in Iraq than if we were to pull out.

EDIT: I forgot to add that Iran and Iraq are getting along splendidly now that the Sunni aren't running the country. The largest ethnic group in Iraq, the Shia, are related to the Shi'ite Iran. Iran isn't really likely to go for Iraq, now that Iraq will be more friendly towards Shi'ites.

Not really, conservative estimates put the number of Iraqi dead at 100,000.Really? Who's using that number? To be blunt, I suspect an apologist/political agenda from anyone claiming that few. For my cite(s), I claim Human Rights Watch... Hardly a group known for radical counting. They cite "more than 100000" Kurds in the Anfal genocide, alone. That doesn't count the slaughter of the Shi'a Marsh Arabs in the Basra region in '91, or the wholesale, continuous, and ongoing terroristic murders conducted by the regime, seemingly at whim, over its 24 years in power. HRW claims in excess of 250000 (or, if you tend to round up like I sometimes am known to do, roughly 300K) total deaths.

The The Kurds themselves claim more like 180000 dead in the Anfal, and the AP cites a total regime death toll of 500000. Iraqi public officials claim more than a million.

Edit to add:
Whilst fact-checking, I found the HRW numbers that I remembered from before: 290000 presumed dead.

What scares the h**l out of me is that most Americans are seemingly oblivious to what happens to other people than Americans!!

I mean, if somebody dropped a nuclear bomb (or nuc-uh-lur as your beloved president says) in downtown Oslo (which is the capital of Norway), CNN probably WOULD go bananas, and some NATO countries would probably rise to defend the poor little country (Norway that is), but most Americans would react by saying: "Norway, huh? Isn't that the capital of Sweden? Man, getting a nuc-UH-lur warhead in your, er... head must really hurt. Oh, well, what's on TV?"

This FREAKS ME OUT...

FYI, ALL the Americans I have met have been nice people, so I have nothing against you guys on a personal basis. :)

Thats a naive estimation.

We hear about the same amount of news on other counties as you probably hear on ours. Hell- I have one chanel that tells me the weather in other countries.
On top of that, the average American would likely respond immediately with a strong and cpncerted effort to help the victims of the disaster scenario you put forth. We wouldnt sit there pondering and drooling as you tried to depict- many would mobilize to get volunteers and equipment, money, food ,water and medical supplies there. Before most others too.
Tell me I'm wrong. We've already proven otherwise in the very recent past.

Thats a naive estimation.

We hear about the same amount of news on other counties as you probably hear on ours. Hell- I have one chanel that tells me the weather in other countries.
On top of that, the average American would likely respond immediately with a strong and cpncerted effort to help the victims of the disaster scenario you put forth. We wouldnt sit there pondering and drooling as you tried to depict- many would mobilize to get volunteers and equipment, money, food ,water and medical supplies there. Before most others too.
Tell me I'm wrong. We've already proven otherwise in the very recent past.

Can you say, "tsunami"?

The private charity alone from the US outstripped everything else.

And I didn't see any European aircraft carriers down there right away.

Here is just a small piece on the mass graves alone:

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html




I'm guessing this link to the 400,000 estimate wasnt credible enough?

I'm guessing this link to the 400,000 estimate wasnt credible enough?It's a US Government source, and it could be argued (not by me) that it's biased. That's why I use the HRW cites... They have bona fides that preclude such accusations.

It's a US Government source, and it could be argued (not by me) that it's biased. That's why I use the HRW cites... They have bona fides that preclude such accusations.

HRW has its own biases as well.

Can you say, "tsunami"?

The private charity alone from the US outstripped everything else.

And I didn't see any European aircraft carriers down there right away.

Thats one I was hinting at. My wife and I immediately agreed that a week's pay in monetary donation we could live with. Plus the work we did to raise far more than that by particpating with our church, my wife's national "MOM'S" club and the Boy Scouts.

Which we repeated for the Hurricane Katrina disaster.

Now- tell me about some people, other than Americans, that spent so much time effort and $$ in good faith to helping disater victims. In their own countries. And in the US.

No one will compare.

HRW has its own biases as well.True, but they have a very conservative manner in reporting their numbers. They must keep their numbers verifiable, or their credibility goes out the window, along with their ability to move their agenda. Most certainly, their agenda does not include helping justify the Iraq war by inflating the regimes crimes.

It's a US Government source, and it could be argued (not by me) that it's biased. That's why I use the HRW cites... They have bona fides that preclude such accusations.


It is a US Goverment source, however, it is quoting Prime Minister Tony Blair citing the findings of Amnesty International, in addition to the United Nations and the US State department.

Someone claiming it to be biased, and exaggerated by even 50%-lets say.

Still 200,000 people MURDERED deliberately.


No comparison to the fraction of enemy soldiers that were killed in action fighting in combat, or the unfortunate civilians killed by mistake by stray or misdirected ordinance. These people are still dead and that is a terrible tragedy. But they werent deliberately tortured or murdered on a whim.
They werent threatened and raped in front of family members first. they werent videotaped for a personal perverted library.

True, but they have a very conservative manner in reporting their numbers. They must keep their numbers verifiable, or their credibility goes out the window, along with their ability to move their agenda. Most certainly, their agenda does not include helping justify the Iraq war by inflating the regimes crimes.

I haven't seen good figures for them in this war, mostly because there are areas where they have no observers.

The battle of Fallujah, for instance. They had the choice of either taking the word of insurgents, or taking the word of the US military.

I still haven't seen them put up a breakdown of:

1. unarmed civilians killed on purpose by US forces
2. unarmed civilians killed on purpose by insurgents
3. unarmed civilians killed on purpose by the new Iraqi army

same figures for those three groups, except killed by accident or mistake

figures for true dead and wounded in the previous Iraqi Army during the invasion

and

1. number of insurgents killed by US forces
2. number of insurgents killed by private military contractors
3. number of insurgents killed by the new Iraqi army

It would be interesting to know these numbers in detail. Considering that until recently, the US military wasn't even bothering with doing body counts of insurgents, I don't know how anyone who isn't standing there when it happens can get an accurate count.

"We asked the insurgents" or "We asked the US military" doesn't cut it.

Can you say, "tsunami"?

The private charity alone from the US outstripped everything else.

And I didn't see any European aircraft carriers down there right away.There was a German military hospital ship there pretty quickly.

No comparison to the fraction of enemy soldiers that were killed in action fighting in combat, or the unfortunate civilians killed by mistake by stray or misdirected ordinance.Oh, no argument from me - I'm right there along with you. I am, however, bending over backwards to be careful with the numbers. When making claims, if you're too far wrong, your credibility goes away, and I rather like mine.
:p

I haven't seen good figures for them in this war, mostly because there are areas where they have no observers.

<snippage>

It would be interesting to know these numbers in detail.Agreed. This one will be immensely difficult to sort out with any credibility. I suspect that the best we'll get is a ball-park number, plus or minus a few thousand.

Oh, no argument from me - I'm right there along with you. I am, however, bending over backwards to be careful with the numbers. When making claims, if you're too far wrong, your credibility goes away, and I rather like mine.
:p

You have a point. The whole thing boils down to a word game in here anyway.
People arguing with us dont really give a shit about slaughtered Iraqis, just want get their jabs at the US.

I didn;t vote for Bush (not 18 yet), but my family was involved with the reelection campaign in PA. I've lost a lot of support for him though, since he's letting all the illegals in and not carpetbombing the terrorists.

...not carpetbombing the terrorists.How, pray tell, does one "carpet bomb" terrorists? Are you suggesting that there's some place on earth where there's a square mile or two of nothing but terrorists, sitting about waiting to be blown up? Or are you suggesting that anywhere that a terrorist might be should be erased from the map, in the hopes of potting one or two of them, and be-damned to all the innocents around them?

Hmmm...

Methinks you may wish to revisit that thought.

Most of the people I know voted for Bush, but only because they perceived him as the "lesser of two evils." (And most of them have subsequently expressed deep regret over their choice.)

Most of the people I know voted for Bush, but only because they perceived him as the "lesser of two evils." (And most of them have subsequently expressed deep regret over their choice.)That's what I had to say about Kerry...

I mean, if somebody dropped a nuclear bomb (or nuc-uh-lur as your beloved president says) in downtown Oslo (which is the capital of Norway), CNN probably WOULD go bananas, and some NATO countries would probably rise to defend the poor little country (Norway that is), but most Americans would react by saying: "Norway, huh? Isn't that the capital of Sweden? Man, getting a nuc-UH-lur warhead in your, er... head must really hurt. Oh, well, what's on TV?"

technically, bombing olso would result in full NATO response.

when argentina occupied the UK dependencies of the falkland and south sandwich islands, they initiated a NATO response. NATO kept quiet, publically, while this was happening, as the UK chose to deal with the situation themselves. NATO, not so covertly, provided AWACs and positioning information to their ally (the UK) during conflict.

I think most americans would be outraged at such an occurance. of course, there will be some who would not want intervention, but I think the vast majority would be more than sympathetic to the norwegians.

now, if someone bombed, say, indonesia, you'd likely see more apathy.

there is talk of the "war on terrorism" as being a plus for the bush administration. I fail to see this, though. one cannot have a "war on terrorism" because terrorists are not identifiable in the way a country is.

I was in north carolina when the hijacked aircraft were crashed into new york city and washington. I was shocked at how this could have occured. the first thing that came to my mind was: where is NORAD?

kudos are given to bush, in vain, for preventing "further" attacks. well, the first shoul dhave never happened and further attacks are not necessary. the "hightened awareness" resulting in paranoia and acts of (the US) government bordering on totalitarian (patriot act, proposed national ID) show that the terrorists don't really have to do anything.

incidently, al-queda is not as organized or dedicated as is being presented. a dedicated and organized terror group would have little difficulty in continuing operations. a box of handgrenades (choose your explosive, if you can't get your hands on the grenades) and a small collection of small arms would reak havok - any shopping mall being a prefered target. why hasn't this happened? for certain, it has nothing to do with bush.

it bothers me when I hear about iraq. the war in iraq is about oil. in afganistan, one could make the case that is was a strike upon al-queda. continuation of this argument would lead to pakistan as being the next logical target - but that did not happen.

it bothers me when I hear about iraq. the war in iraq is about oil. in afganistan, one could make the case that is was a strike upon al-queda. Not only that, we also went in to restore the rightful government.

i only turned 18 in Jan so i couldn't vote, but if i could there is no way i would have voted for Bush

Really? Who's using that number? To be blunt, I suspect an apologist/political agenda from anyone claiming that few.
I was referring to Iraqi deaths from the war/subsequent occupation.

Olara']I was 16 in 2000, but in 2004 I voted for Bush. Basically, I thought he'd do a better job protecting the country than Kerry. That and I don't like taxes all that much.
You know that all of the ways Bush would protect America would use your tax dollars, right?

Problem with Bush's plan of spending money he doesn't have is that the next president will have to raise taxes to pay for Bush's bills.

You know that all of the ways Bush would protect America would use your tax dollars, right?

Problem with Bush's plan of spending money he doesn't have is that the next president will have to raise taxes to pay for Bush's bills.

mmmm... that's what most Presidents since FDR have done.

We've never been truly in the black, with the national debt paid off, during any Presidency since then...

...it bothers me when I hear about iraq.It becomes immediately obvious that you don't know anything about the costs of war, nor about the amount of oil Iraq can produce. Even before the shooting began, the war costs had already far exceeded any possible profit from the sale of oil from Iraq in any reasonable time-frame. And that was if the Iraqi oil industry had started pumping immediately, at 100% maximum theoretical capacity on the very first day of the war - Which, with a little reasearch, you'd learn was impossible, given the state of the Iraqi infrastructure. Further, that status was expected top last for many months, if not years. This was known to the President and his cronies.

The "war-for-oil" fantasy has gone around unchallenged among a particular subset of people whom don't want to be bothered to learn anything about the world, but it bugs the hell out of me. Whilst some people insist on remaining ignorant about the economics of war and oil, I can assure you, the President (a former CEO), and his buddies with their connections to big business, are not ignorant of economics, not at least when it comes to profit-loss. They can do the math, and I'm sure they did - All the oil in Iraq cannot, could not pay for the war, even if the pipes were flowing fit-to-burst all day long, 365 days a year. And that was before things started to go wrong. As time goes on, the profit-loss ballance tips ever more deeply into the red, but it started in the red to begin. And yet they went to war anyway.

So... If they can't make a profit, and they know this, then why did they go in..? Obviously not for the oil. Maybe... Ideology and hubris? Naaaaah..! No one would ever do that!

It becomes immediately obvious that you don't know anything about the costs of war, nor about the amount of oil Iraq can produce.

...

So... If they can't make a profit, and they know this, then why did they go in..? Obviously not for the oil. Maybe... Ideology and hubris? Naaaaah..! No one would ever do that!

the cost of the war will be borne by the american taxpayer - not the oil companies who wish to pump iraqi oil. the recovery of the iraqi infrastructure will be paid for by the iraqis themselves. there is no way any of those costs will appear on the balance sheet of any oil company. further, traditional crude is a non-renewable resource, as we know. as such, if you wish to retain control and profit over the distribution of said crude, you want to keep as many fields as possible.

why did they go in? for the oil, of course. oh...and also to settle a score with a dictator who had gone too far. america had supported the previous iraqi government for years. intervention also has the effect of reminding iraq's neighbours that they could be next.

my biggest complaint about iraq is that bush sr. should have finished the ba'ath government off the first time.

now, I can accept that there was a significant amount of hubris involved. I'm not sure that this was such a good thing. in any event, I'd like to know what the ideological reasons were. I'm having a hard time trying to remember a recent case where this was the underlying reason for intervention.

I would have to say that I neither hate or love Bush, I agree with some of his ideals, but not all of them. But regardless of my opinion, I think that Bush is the comic relief America needs in times like these. Kerry would have just made us all depressed . . . . he's not exactly . . . . what's the word? . . . . . ALIVE!

My point is that fighting the terrorists abroad doesn't preclude this from happening.
Nah, if you can disrupt someone badly near their base of operations, you will make them spend all their time defending themselves. That's less time attacking us. For my money, it is a good strategy.

I would have to say that I neither hate or love Bush, I agree with some of his ideals, but not all of them. But regardless of my opinion, I think that Bush is the comic relief America needs in times like these. Kerry would have just made us all depressed . . . . he's not exactly . . . . what's the word? . . . . . ALIVE!

*L* Excellent!!