Why not vote Bush?

[Crash]

The best part about liberalism is the fact that the media has the "less informed" community convinced they shouldn't vote for Bush, but they dont know why. Most say "I'll just vote for whoever is not Bush"

why?

"well, bush lies and the economy is bad"

we've had one of the best economies in 20 years, millions of jobs have just been created.

"well, he lied about the WMD"

kerry said we needed to go after Saddam and stop his WMD, so kerry thought the same thing, probably would have done the same thing if had to choose.

so, lets start with that basis, then choose who you'd vote for. dont vote kerry just because you dont like bush, that's not the way to do it. know your facts and make a smart choice. I personally will vote Bush because it's the last person the terrorists want to see in office.

[Jonbo298]

I'm voting Kerry because I have never liked Bush. I couldn't vote in the 2000 election but I already knew if I could, Gore would've been my choice.

And in '04, now that I can vote, I'm going for Kerry because I can't stand Bush. He's running the country's debt deeper because we had to go after Sadaam using basically only our money. I'm not trying to say Sadaam is good or anything, but I hate the fact that Bush basically said "F*ck you UN, we're going alone" and then afterwards expects countries to just show their undying support to us.

I don't like people who think War is everything. Unless its of absolute importance, there's no need for it.

And if Kerry would've gone alone in the war, I wouldn't vote for him (I think what I've said above says enough)

[Professor S]

The best part about liberalism is the fact that the media has the "less informed" community convinced they shouldn't vote for Bush, but they dont know why. Most say "I'll just vote for whoever is not Bush"

why?

"well, bush lies and the economy is bad"

we've had one of the best economies in 20 years, millions of jobs have just been created.

It is true that the economy is good and that about 300,000 (not millions) jobs have been created under Bush's plans for economic recovery after the bottom fell out of the "Tech Bubble". The problem comes with a couple of areas: 1)The economy is not as good as it was under Clinton, which doesn't really mean anything since it was a false economy based on inflated stocks and had little to do with Clinton's presidency, but it is viewed that Bush ruined the economy since it dropped under his watch.

I will also agree that Bush has done a good job with creating better paying jobs, unlike what the democrats have been saying.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=208

The real numbers say that under his administration the US has created better paying jobs and not just minimum wage ones, like Kerry has been saying.

"well, he lied about the WMD"

kerry said we needed to go after Saddam and stop his WMD, so kerry thought the same thing, probably would have done the same thing if had to choose.

It goes a lot deeper than that. The UN thought that he had them, Clinton thought that he had them and pretty much everyone thought that he had them. The argument about going to war was never about whther or not he had them, but how to go about enforcing the regulations and whether violence was the appropriate course. Why did no one doubt that he had them? In 1998 the UN found 10,000 pounds of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, but they were not loaded into delivery systems so Iraq did not technically violate the UN regulations. The UN changed the regulations, Iraq shut down inspections by the UN, and then claimed that they destroyed the weapons without providing any proof. I could go on, but sufficed to say, Iraq had them and led the world to believe that still had them with the charade he led the UN down before the war. The question is, where are these weapons now if they're not in Iraq?

I personally will vote Bush because it's the last person the terrorists want to see in office.

Believe it or not thats actually a string selling point for me. The fact that the terrorists want Kerry to win is more of a sign I should vote Bush than anything, but I still have my reservations about Bush:

1) Trampling of the 1st amendment. His abuse of Howard Stern is unconsionable (sp?). Its not only that he made up new standards for broadcasting without telling anyone, but that it seems like these standards are selectively enforced against those that speak out against him. This smacks of fascism.

2) Spending. Since when do Republicans spend like money is going out of style??? Good lord, the budget is enormous.

3) Education. No Child Left Behind is a lot like communism in that it sounds great on paper, but no one figured out the correct way to implement it without screwing up the schools completely. This isn't just against Bush, though, as it was a bipartisan bill, with the other big proponent being Ted Kennedy. Why anyone would pass anything that fat drunken murderer supports is beyond me.

[Neo]

Let's see...

Bush is an idiot, possibly legally retarded.

He lied about WMD, those like Kerry who agreed we should go after Saddam on the basis of WMD were being fed false information from the aforementioned idiot.

The conservatives want to control your personal life by imposing their own misguided notions of morality.

The voting fraud in Florida still pisses me off.

Bush ran several companies into the ground.

The only reason he got into a good school was because of his name.

Fahrenheit 9/11.

He ignored the ballistic missile treaty.

He lets corporations run free, allowing them to break or easily work around environmental laws.

The christian right.

He has imposed restrictions on the sharing of information within the scientific community, retarding progress.

His administration threatened to shelf certain scientific reports if they did not remove results which challenged policy.

He wasn't legitimately elected. Republican-controlled Florida supreme court ignored prior precedent in stopping the recount.

[Dylflon]

I like Kerry. Pretty much every non American in the entire world wants to see Kerry in the White House. That says something.

The rest of the world sees Bush differently than Americans. The reason we view him differently is because he actually scares us. He makes us nervous. As Americans are afraid of terror attacks, everyone else is nervous that he'll invade places or lead us into a world war. It isn't likely that he would but it's not impossible.

Things he's done to scare me:

1) Backed out of the ballistic missile treaty.
2) Flipped off the U.N.
3) Endorsed shoddy information as good work and then fed it to the public.
4) He has strong ties with the Saudi Royal family.
5) Declared a war on terror giving him the grounds to attack any country that has terrorists and possibly even some that don't. He could easily make up terror threats.
6) Once accused Canada of housing terrorists.
7) Tried to ban Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men". You can't ban literature. That screams Nazi book burning to me.
8) Completely stomped on the first amendment.
9) Endorsed the Patriot Act which could potentially eliminate privacy, bringing America much closer to a world not unlike the one in the book "1984".
10) The fact that he's barely literate and runs the country with the biggest military in the entire world.

[Jonbo298]

Oh yeah, and I'm not voting for Bush because he wants a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. That pisses me off like you wouldn't believe because this is seriously becoming the 1960's/70's all over again except with one variation. I'm not gay but I feel everyone is treated equal. It's said in the constitution we are but yet Republicans think they can ban it because its "immoral". Leave it to the states to decide.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but he's completely against abortion. I agree with the partial abortion ban but I don't want a full abortion ban. the first 3 months are fine becuase its the mother's child, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS CHILD.

And another reason. He doesn't want stem cell research. That pisses me off just as much as the same sex ban. Stem cell research is gonna bring promising things in the future but when you have an asshole who wants to block research that could one day lead to a cure for many diseases/forms of cancer, thats when I draw the line.

And I also agree that the Patriot Act is making the US look more and more like 1984. Bush took advantage of 9/11 by rushing this bill through congress within months after 9/11 which at that time all but one (black female I believe..can't remember name) voted for it without even reading the bill completely (thats my opinion but its basically true). If they took the time to read it, they would've said no to quite a few things in it but back then they were brainwashed, IMO.

[Professor S]

Neo, I think if you tried a little harder you could come up with even more simplistic arguments against Bush. Better luck next time.

I like Kerry. Pretty much every non American in the entire world wants to see Kerry in the White House. That says something.

We love to generalize, don't we?

The rest of the world sees Bush differently than Americans. The reason we view him differently is because he actually scares us. He makes us nervous. As Americans are afraid of terror attacks, everyone else is nervous that he'll invade places or lead us into a world war. It isn't likely that he would but it's not impossible.

That I can see and its a valid point, even if a little paranoid.

Things he's done to scare me:

1) Backed out of the ballistic missile treaty.

I don't know the details of this, I'll look it up though.

2) Flipped off the U.N.

And rightfully so. The UN is still under investigation for abuse of the Iraqi oil for food program and IMO is basically an organization of former world powers that has abused its position over the last 15 years to keep influence (and profits) and has used America as its 800 pound gorilla for too long.

3) Endorsed shoddy information as good work and then fed it to the public.

Hindsight is 20/20. See my arguments in my first post.

4) He has strong ties with the Saudi Royal family.

Which has had absolutely no proven affect on his administration beyond the misleading ramblings of Michael Moore. He went against the Saudi's in going into Iraq and the whole "flights out of the country" thing has already been debunked by every major news source in the world.

5) Declared a war on terror giving him the grounds to attack any country that has terrorists and possibly even some that don't. He could easily make up terror threats.

This is true, but yet again very far fetched. I do not agree with Bush's seeming abuse of the terror alert system to take attention away from democratic poltical news, but I don't see any evidence of Bush going into any country he sees fit without reason, and yes there was plenty of reason to go into Iraq and Afghanistan.

6) Once accused Canada of housing terrorists.

I doubt he accused the Canadian government of openly harboring terrorists. Having terrorists living on your soil and having a government supporting them are two different things. If you believe Bush openly accused the government of Canada of housing terrorists, please provide a link.

7) Tried to ban Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men". You can't ban literature. That screams Nazi book burning to me.

I am the last one to agree with Bush's policies regarding the first amedment, but I have heard nothing of this, please provide a link.

8) Completely stomped on the first amendment.

I agree completely and thats enough grounds not to vote for him.

9) Endorsed the Patriot Act which could potentially eliminate privacy, bringing America much closer to a world not unlike the one in the book "1984".

I find the left's attack of the Patriot Act to be very humorous. It does not give the government to right to just violate peoples rights and search whatever they like. They still need just cause and/or and warrant, just like before the Patriot Act.

10) The fact that he's barely literate and runs the country with the biggest military in the entire world.

Ha ha ha... :rolleyes: That argument has no validity and gets less funny the 10,000th time I've heard it. Find a new joke that doesn't take credibility away from your argument by dipping into sophmoric humor.

[Seth]

Neo and Dylflon pretty much summed up my views.

How can people reelect Bush after what he did in Florida? I can't believe it.

[Jonbo298]

Yes, the Patriot Act's attack by people is so humourous that over 200 cities (correct me if I'm wrong but thats what I remembered from the last time I head) have banned it from being used in their city

[Typhoid]

I dont think he (Bush) was even legally elected, wasnt he appointed?


Like Dylflon, Bush scares me too, his "Were America, so we can do what we want" attitude is a little threatening.

I will look for a link to it, but i remember him accusing Canada of housing terrorists.

He said he wouldnt raise minimum wage in the US. Ever. He opposes it. Kerry on the other hand said by the year 2007 ( i think) minimum wage will be somewhere around $8.

Plus he tries to change our laws. Back when Cretien was PM, he was ( as the media said) trying to "influence" more American law changes. I dont exactly know what the things he was trying to change are though.

Bush just does seem a little too stupid to be president, either he will lead the world to a world war, or he will end up invadeing a country that has no right to be invaded, thus, also leading to a world war.

And wait, who has all the WMD? America does. Why not disarm them, im more scared of the American WMD than the middle east WMD. Because i know if it comes down to it, Bush would use them.

[Jason1]

I dislike Bush greatly. Why keep him in office? He hasnt really dont anything good while hes been here, its just been bad times all around. The war in Iraq was a mistake, gas prices suck, and Bush speaks better spanish than he does english. Why not give someone else a shot? Nuff said, IMO.

[Dylflon]

We love to generalize, don't we?

Yeah. It does seem that most non americans aren't pro bush though.


I found something for you on the ballistic missile treaty.

http://www.missilethreat.com/news/20011213095800.html

The website has everything you'd want to know about the treaty and other missile related things.


And about the Saudis, my problem with it is that the Saudi Royals are even more shady than Saddam and have killed many of their own people and nobody is even trying to do anything about it. I'll look for sources later.



And as for the U.S. accusing Canada of harbouring terrorists, here's a link. I can't find the better one so this will have to do for now.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040215.wterr0215/BNStory/National/ (http://http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040215.wterr0215/BNStory/National/)

Can't find the Moore link. I'll look again later.

And as for the joke, I hear it's always good to end with a joke :p .

But you must admit, he isn't the brightest crayon in the box.

[Bond]

Let's see...

Bush is an idiot, possibly legally retarded.
He went to Yale and Harvard.
He lied about WMD, those like Kerry who agreed we should go after Saddam on the basis of WMD were being fed false information from the aforementioned idiot.
They were being fed incorrect intelligence from the CIA.
The conservatives want to control your personal life by imposing their own misguided notions of morality.
Is that why conservatives favor smaller government and liberals favor larger government?
The voting fraud in Florida still pisses me off.
The Supreme Court decided that, you can go complain to them.
Bush ran several companies into the ground.
Which?
The only reason he got into a good school was because of his name.
That's part of the reason, but that's the same for any wealthy family.
Fahrenheit 9/11.
Is filled of distorted facts.
He ignored the ballistic missile treaty.
Has he fired any ballistic missiles? And would terrorists agree to the ballistic missile treaty?
He lets corporations run free, allowing them to break or easily work around environmental laws.
Do you have any examples of the environment being harmed?
The christian right.
Is as worse as the liberal left.
He has imposed restrictions on the sharing of information within the scientific community, retarding progress.
Which?
His administration threatened to shelf certain scientific reports if they did not remove results which challenged policy.
Which?
He wasn't legitimately elected. Republican-controlled Florida supreme court ignored prior precedent in stopping the recount.
Would you like to challenge our legal system?

---------

Maybe this forum was a bad idea...

[Jason1]

No, this forum isnt a bad Idea. This debate is good, makes for good discussion, just because your in the minority Bond doesnt mean this board wasnt a good idea.

[Bond]

I'm not in the minority, this is a 50/50 country.

Although this board is extremely liberal, you are getting a skewed view of average politics.

[Jonbo298]

I know how it feels to be in a Minority when everyone calls me a Ninty fanboy over the stupidest little comments. At least for once I'm in what seems to be a majority but both sides giving their opinion is good. Makes for interesting debates

[Typhoid]

Has he fired any ballistic missiles? And would terrorists agree to the ballistic missile treaty?




Are you comparing your president to terrorists to gain leverage in an argument?

And this isnt a bad idea for a forum.
And Bond, Jason meant your in the minority on this forum, nobody really backs Bush here.

And about it being a 50/50 country i find that laughable.

The only thing that makes this board Liberal is that ther are Liberal people here. There are Republicans here too, so isnt it also a Republican board? No. Why? Because your outnumbered? Oh, so you are in the minority then.

:p

[Bond]

Are you comparing your president to terrorists to gain leverage in an argument?
Possibly.
nobody really backs Bush here.
I've noticed.
And about it being a 50/50 country i find that laughable.
Talk to Stonecutter about it.
The only thing that makes this board Liberal is that ther are Liberal people here. There are Republicans here too, so isnt it also a Republican board? No. Why? Because your outnumbered? Oh, so you are in the minority then.

:p
What?

[Neo]

Things I do like about Bush's politics over Kerry's - his anti-immigration, increased border patrol policies - opposes gay adoptions - mostly anti-affirmative action - patriot act.

If you go to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/president/issues/index.html you can find a brief run-down of Bush and Kerry's stances on various issues.

[Jason1]

After looking at how bush and kerry view different topics, its even more apparent why I like Kerry better.

Especailly in 2 key topics: Abortion and Guns

Kerry is pro abortion, and anti-guns, and so am I.

Also, Kerry wants to repeal the tax cuts that were given to the wealthy. Thats A ok in my book.

[Dylflon]

What's the problem with gay people adopting children?

[Crash]

I'm not in the minority, this is a 50/50 country.

Although this board is extremely liberal, you are getting a skewed view of average politics.

aren't most people on this board canadian?

[Dylflon]

aren't most people on this board canadian?

Nah. Not even half.

Just me, Dyne, Typhoid, Fox 6, Deejzguy, Happydude, Bouncer, Darkmaster, Crono, Joeiss, Perfect Stu and Gimpy.

Did I miss anyone?

[ZebraRampage]

Nah. Not even half.

Just me, Dyne, Typhoid, Fox 6, Deejzguy, Happydude, Bouncer, Darkmaster, Crono, Joeiss, Perfect Stu and Gimpy.

Did I miss anyone?

You missed all of the invisible people on this board that nobody ever sees, which gives Canada the majority.

[Typhoid]

You missed all of the invisible people on this board that nobody ever sees, which gives Canada the majority.


There are invisable people here!?!?!?


*wets pants*





*Runs away*

[gekko]

Kerry is pro abortion, and anti-guns, and so am I.

You need to be shot.

As for the whole WMD thing, was it exaggerated? Yes. Did it need to be? Yes, because Americans are so ****ing dense. False intel was a result of pulling CIA agents out of the middle east in 1994. Wait a second, who was in office in 2004? Was that fellow Democrat Bill Clinton? Thank him.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for Bush, but even you liberals haven't named any of the good reasons not to vote for him. But since there's not a better candidate than Bush, I will vote for him. The last thing I would do is try to ruin a country by voting for an anti-military **** during a time when the country is fighting a war on two fronts, and facing increased security threats. Voting for Kerry just because he's not Bush is just ****ing stupid. Vote for the better candidate, and Kerry is a dumb ****.

[Jonbo298]

I named my reasons. I guess people overlook my replies

[Typhoid]

Gekko, i was under the impression that acording to CNN and all the other "credible" news sources that the war was over, so i doubt a war is still being fought.


And Gekko, why should Jason be shot?

Because hes pro-abortion and anti-guns?

Thats a good reason to shoot somebody.

Well, Gekko ae you anti-abortion and pro-guns?

Man, you should be shot.

And of course you only quoted half of what he said.

He also said hes voting for Kerry because he wants to repeal the tax cuts that were given to the wealthy.

He never said he was voting for him because he wasnt Bush.

[thatmariolover]

You need to be shot.

Comments like that only fuel the desire for anti-gun laws. :rolleyes:

[Neo]

As long as we're talking about shooting people, there's a guy by the name of Ralph Nader who could use a good slug embedded in the brain.

[Dylflon]

As long as we're talking about shooting people, there's a guy by the name of Ralph Nader who could use a good slug embedded in the brain.

Agreed. He pulls votes away from the democratic candidate.

[Bond]

And of course you only quoted half of what he said.

You quoted 1/13th of what I said in a previous post. Not that I care, but it's not something to bring up in an argument.

[gekko]

Gekko, i was under the impression that acording to CNN and all the other "credible" news sources that the war was over, so i doubt a war is still being fought.

You doubt it? Maybe you should ask the casualties.

And Gekko, why should Jason be shot?

Because he's anti-guns, and an anti-gun guy getting shot would be hilarious. It's like when Ghandi got shot, that was awesome.

Well, Gekko ae you anti-abortion and pro-guns?

I could care less about abortion, and guns are awesome.

And of course you only quoted half of what he said.

Only the first line of the reply was directed at him. The rest were just general comments.

[Dylflon]

Gekko, you frighten me.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

I think I like this Strangler guy.

And yes, I drive on the right side of the road.

Agreed. He pulls votes away from the democratic candidate.

It almost sounds as if you're passing Democrats off as stupid... That the type of person who would vote for Nader would vote for Kerry. I would feel uneasy if Nader-voters decided my President by voting for Kerry if Nader didn't run.

Then again, Nader voters who would also vote for Kerry are just the "don't vote Bush" people... who I also wouldn't want to decide my president, as they are far too influenced by a force similar to Peer Pressure.

[Crono]

Hmmm.

I swear, if I had a dollar for every time I saw the same few people argue back and forth, I'd be a millionaire by now.

[Typhoid]

Hmmm.

I swear, if I had a dollar for every time I saw the same few people argue back and forth, I'd be a millionaire by now.


If i had a dollar for every time ive heard an analogy similar to that, i would be a millionaire by now.


Oh....wait...I already am. :p



And the same people argue, because all the arguments are basically the same, except worded differently.

[Seth]

If i had a dollar for every time ive heard an analogy similar to that, i would be a millionaire by now.


Oh....wait...I already am. :p
.
I'm going to piss on your car's windshield if I'm ever in your area. Rich dick:)

what's your address?

[Fox 6]

I'm going to piss on your car's windshield if I'm ever in your area. Rich dick:)

what's your address?
hahahaha. He doesn't have a car. lol

[Ace195]

You need to be shot.

As for the whole WMD thing, was it exaggerated? Yes. Did it need to be? Yes, because Americans are so ****ing dense. False intel was a result of pulling CIA agents out of the middle east in 1994. Wait a second, who was in office in 2004? Was that fellow Democrat Bill Clinton? Thank him.

Personally, I wouldn't vote for Bush, but even you liberals haven't named any of the good reasons not to vote for him. But since there's not a better candidate than Bush, I will vote for him. The last thing I would do is try to ruin a country by voting for an anti-military **** during a time when the country is fighting a war on two fronts, and facing increased security threats. Voting for Kerry just because he's not Bush is just ****ing stupid. Vote for the better candidate, and Kerry is a dumb ****.
I agree whole heartedly anyone who is willing to put a country in peril by decreasing the people that keep it free in my book is a complete and utter Idiot. I'm a republican by trade and bush didn't do that bad from what he recieved from the clinton administration. So if you vote kerry you're voting for osama himself.





{Edit} Hey if your going to -rep me for my opinion.. Atleast have the balls to put your name and a rebuttle ... Asinine doesn't cut it as a good enough rebuttle for me..

[Neo]

Kerry is not anti-military. He actually wants to increase military pay (which Bush cut) and invest in modern weaponry. He also wants to increase reservest presence and possibly create an entirely new infantry division. He's against NMD but that system is at best barely functional. The only successful tests involved conditions which were hardly typical.

[Neo]

What's the problem with gay people adopting children?

In an ideal society nothing, but children of gay parents would be ridiculed to no end by their classmates. Kids can be very cruel. Children of gay parents would probably end up needing intense psychotherapy with heavy medications.

[Ace195]

John Kerry voted against TRICARE health coverage and health benefits for reservists

(Incase your wondering TRICARE is the health provider for the entire military) Adding this to the military ticket would get so many more supporters and then they would never have to bring the draft back.


John Kerry has voted against pay raises for our troops at least 21 different times

So saying that he's going to do it and actually doing it are 2 diffrent things


John Kerry voted against the $87 billion to support our men and women in uniform. The $87 billion included funds for body armor, meal allowance, and hazard pay among others

If you see the IBA then you'll know it neets better shoulder protection and side protection.. and he voted against it :WTF:


This was on john kerry's website..
“The Bush Administration decided to put politics above public health by withholding tens of millions of dollars that could help prevent needless deaths of mothers, infants and children. Presidential leadership is necessary to stabilize and rebuild troubled regions of the developing world, and to promote the rights and well-being of parents, children and families around the globe. As President, I will restore U.S. funding to the United Nations Population Fund and reassert America's leadership in the fight for women’s health both at home and around the world.”



And in '04, now that I can vote, I'm going for Kerry because I can't stand Bush. He's running the country's debt deeper because we had to go after Sadaam using basically only our money. I'm not trying to say Sadaam is good or anything, but I hate the fact that Bush basically said "F*ck you UN, we're going alone" and then afterwards expects countries to just show their undying support to us.


Wow just running the debt deeper like kerry wanted... Notice a Trend. But insted of just giving money to the UN Bush took a dictator out of power..

[Professor S]

I'm not going to quote everything here, but I'll put down some points that jumped out at me:

1) Kerry will increase the number of troops and increase their pay and benefits. If you believe this, you're a complete friggin' moron. Sorry, but you are. Kerry's voting record contradicts this in every way imaginable. He's voted to cut spending in every area of national defense he had the opportunity to. There is no way that a Kerry presidency will increase troops in the middle east or increase benefits and salaries WITHOUT cutting the number of personnel. Remember I said this when Kerry wins, and yes, he will win unless Bush gets Osama.

2) Cutting tax breaks for the rich. Man, its a damn shame that we have let liberals program our nation for class warfare. Listen to me very cafrefully here... RICH PEOPLE ARE GOOD FOR THE NATION. THEY PAY YOUR, MINE AND YOU PARENTS SALARIES. WITHOUT RICH PEOPLE, YOU WOULD STARVE IN A CAPATALIST SOCIETY. We demonize Enron, and rightfully so, and then apply that stereotype on every corporation, no matter how many SUV's they put in our driveways. Wake up.

3) People love to say we should have let the UN help. Please explain to me exactly what the UN hasn't botched in the last 10 years. Oil for Food? LOL. Rwanda? LOL. Bosnia? LOL. Yeah, lets trust them.

[Jonbo298]

I think by now we know Strangler that you hate the UN. I know that somethings didn't go as planned or something along those lines. But when you tell a "league of nations" the UN (that your on) F*ck you, we are going alone, it rings a bell to the other countries. They start thinking differently about the US. If any other country in the UN told them "Screw you, we are gonna fight that country without your support" other countries would look at that country, laugh, and never give support because they never requested support. But with Bush ya know, he goes alone and then says "Please send us troops even though we basically gave you all the finger back then"

[Bond]

I know that somethings didn't go as planned or something along those lines.
What are you talking about?
F*ck you, we are going alone
No, there is and was a coalition of thirity-two countries.

Let's find a new issue other than Iraq to mindlessly argue about, ok?

[Neo]

No, there is and was a coalition of thirity-two countries.


Each of which was indespensible to the war effort. Especially Albania - Or some country that sounds like it.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

I think by now we know Strangler that you hate the UN. I know that somethings didn't go as planned or something along those lines. But when you tell a "league of nations" the UN (that your on) F*ck you, we are going alone, it rings a bell to the other countries. They start thinking differently about the US. If any other country in the UN told them "Screw you, we are gonna fight that country without your support" other countries would look at that country, laugh, and never give support because they never requested support. But with Bush ya know, he goes alone and then says "Please send us troops even though we basically gave you all the finger back then"

There's a closed-minded person. You're looking at the issue from one perspective. Might I suggest you take a second to see the other perspective?

- "We're going to do what the UN was designed to do, and actually aim to help the condition of the world. Who's with us?"
- "Go **** yourself, US. We're not interested. We like the condition of the Middle East... it was good ever since World War I, when we screwed it up in the first place."
- "That's not right at all... somebody's gotta do it, and I'm not going to let the inadequacy of my shipmates keep me from docking on this plan to refurbish the East in the Middle."


There's a fine line between knowing whether it was the UN that betrayed the United States, or the United States that betrayed the UN.
That line, sadly and apparently, is Conservative or Liberal. And by God, we did "Liberate" Iraq.

[Bond]

Each of which was indespensible to the war effort. Especially Albania - Or some country that sounds like it.
So we're allowed to say the coalition was indespensible, but the UN isn't indespensible? I see...

[Ace195]

Jonbo I'm gonna have to say the UN didn't want us to go in there because FOOD for OIL I mean if you look at what they were doing to the middle east they wouldn't want us to go there because they were ass raping those people

[Dylflon]

Okay. For once i'll be the one asking for a source. Somebody give me a link the proves this U.N.'s ass raping of middle eastern people.

[Ace195]

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2618260
And This (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0715/p06s01-wogn.html)

And This... (http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm)


Between 1996 and 2003, the program generated over $63 billion in revenues for the Iraqi regime. With little oversight from the U.N., the Iraqi dictatorship was able both to circumvent and to exploit the oil-for-food program. It is suspected of selling its oil at bargain basement prices that benefited numerous middlemen while overpaying for various imports, which allowed it to reward suppliers. The program was officially brought to an end in November 2003.[3]


http://rictoons.topcities.com/hair051304.jpg



Read that..

[Jonbo298]

Let's find a new issue other than Iraq to mindlessly argue about, ok?

Ok. Something besides Iraq. How about this post I made on the first page.

Oh yeah, and I'm not voting for Bush because he wants a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. That pisses me off like you wouldn't believe because this is seriously becoming the 1960's/70's all over again except with one variation. I'm not gay but I feel everyone is treated equal. It's said in the constitution we are but yet Republicans think they can ban it because its "immoral". Leave it to the states to decide.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but he's completely against abortion. I agree with the partial abortion ban but I don't want a full abortion ban. the first 3 months are fine becuase its the mother's child, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS CHILD.

And another reason. He doesn't want stem cell research. That pisses me off just as much as the same sex ban. Stem cell research is gonna bring promising things in the future but when you have an asshole who wants to block research that could one day lead to a cure for many diseases/forms of cancer, thats when I draw the line.

And I also agree that the Patriot Act is making the US look more and more like 1984. Bush took advantage of 9/11 by rushing this bill through congress within months after 9/11 which at that time all but one (black female I believe..can't remember name) voted for it without even reading the bill completely (thats my opinion but its basically true). If they took the time to read it, they would've said no to quite a few things in it but back then they were brainwashed, IMO.

and btw..I'm no political expert or anything. I skew some things by accident. Its human nature. Tear me apart

[Professor S]

And I do believe that I have been saying this about Oil for Food for well over a year. I don't want to say "I told you so", but well, when the shoe fits...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004801

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/oil_for_food_ripoff_040420-1.html

A few more links for you Oil for Food pleasure.

[Rumpelstilzchen]

Tear me apart

I'll remember your proposal for another date. May I take a rain check?

[Jonbo298]

I'll remember your proposal for another date. May I take a rain check?

Ok

[Ace195]

"Please send us troops even though we basically gave you all the finger back then"

Just noticed this.. tired now about to go to bed but I have to say first. We never once asked for troops we simply said if you want to help in the rebuilding of this country and want to have anything here you will send troops to the region to support the effort.. If you notice there are no UN troops there there aren't any wearing the UN brand on their uniform there is strictly countries there that are supporting the US war effort and since they jumped in the UN has been saving face for lack of a better term by saying well lets support the ones already there.. :)

[Stonecutter]

Why not?

Why is the better question.

http://www.exile.ru/195/war_nerd.html

Fallujah 2: Bush Bushwhacks the Marines

By Gary Brecher

Last time I took you on a nostalgia tour of our first year in Fallujah, from April 2003, when we blasted 20-odd demonstrators outside the local schoolhouse to March 2004.

Today I'll bring the story up to date by tracking our last four months in F-Town -- the wildest four months since Napoleon decided he was bored with Elba and hijacked a boat for the mainland.

On March 24, 2004, the US command in Baghdad announced that the 82nd Airborne, which had been in charge of Fallujah since we got there, would be replaced with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), which was basically the 1st Marine division with attached air support. The 82nd had tried to play good cop; the Marines were going to crack some heads, convince the locals to stop messing with us.

The folks in Fallujah were just as eager for action as the Marines. One week after the Marines moved in, four "security contractors" driving through Fallujah were ambushed.

You probably remember what happened next. The four American corpses were kicked, beaten and finally hung up on a bridge. That wasn't just high spirits, that was strategy. The Fallujah insurgents wanted to get the Marines angry enough to come in blasting. The first ambush was just a way of setting up a way bigger ambush -- an old, old guerrilla tactic. Rumsfeld was on TV next day promising we'd "find and punish" the killers.

The Marines hit Fallujah hard on April 4.

It was a tough fight. The Fallujah insurgents have played it smart all the way, daring us to fight them on their own terms, in the crowded little dirty alleys they know by heart. It was a messy fight. Urban combat is just naturally gory and sloppy, and one thing this war's shown is that we're going to have to think hard about how to do it next time. War planners would rather not think about urban warfare. Their plans work much better in places like Utah or the Kuwait border: nice clean deserts.

Cities are like forests, and forest fighting is a mess. Commanders always hated it, tried to stay on open ground if they could.

Think about the Wilderness and Spotsylvania in the Civil War. Units get lost, cavalry (horse or mech) is useless, locals have a huge advantage.

In an urban war landscape, every window is a fighting position. When the Russians tried to take Grozny from the Chechen insurgents, they found out about the "vertical warfare" problem in city fighting. Most of Grozny was apartment buildings, big hulks nine or ten stories high. Advancing down the streets was like entering a canyon, where the enemy controls the high ground. Chechens on the roofs with RPGs blasted the first and last APCs, then finished off the stalled column without even working up a sweat.

The Marines were fighting well in Fallujah, but losing men for every street they advanced. And things were going even worse in the rest of Iraq. On April 6, we lost 12 Marines in a classic urban ambush in Ramadi, next door to Fallujah.

Then Bremer shut down al Sadr's newspaper -- now there was a smart move! -- and every Shiite slum in Baghdad, Karbala and Najaf turned on our troops. We were involved in urban combat on two fronts, a commander's nightmare. In two days, April 11 and 12, we lost 23 men.

The Iraqis who weren't shooting at us directly started kidnapping foreigners to take the pressure off the besieged cities. By April 12, they'd kidnapped a total of 40 foreigners: Japanese, Koreans, and even a Canadian. Imagine this liberal Canadian peacenik blogger trying to explain himself to the Jihadis who have him posing on his knees in some back room, with a big scimitar against his skinny throat: "I am NOT an American! I mean, I'm an 'American,' because like we always say, the US isn't the only 'America,' Canada is also American-" At this point they start sawing at his neck and he gets desperate, "Wait! You misunderstood! I'm Canadian! Lookit the big red maple leaf on my backpack! Listen to my accent, here: 'Get me OOT of here, Mommy!' -- you hear that 'oot'? Instead of 'out'? Aaagh!"

Bush decided to cave under the pressure. On April 11, Marines were ordered to accept a "truce" in Fallujah. The next week, Bush's people were desperately looking around for somebody they could make a deal with. On April 19, Bush's people announced that we had an agreement in Fallujah. The US would call off the Marine snipers (who were doing a great job picking off insurgents -- like I said, city fighting is a sniper's dream), and in return the people of Fallujah would turn in all "heavy weapons": surface-to-air missiles, mortars and machineguns.

Makes you kind of wonder what the garages look like in that town. Kids must get ashamed when they bring their friends over and there's nothing but a couple of RPGs: "Gee, Rashid, MY daddy has a brand-new SA-7 and a BMP-76 in OUR garage!"

The "heavy weapons" deal didn't work all that well. Gen. Kimmitt -- you know, the skinny guy who gets paid to tell Saigon lies at Baghdad press conferences -- said: "There's been some intangible progress, even though we did not see a tremendous number of weapons turned in."

I like that bit about "intangible progress." How do you get "intangible progress" with machineguns? A machinegun is pretty tangible. Love may be just a state of mind, but a machinegun -- that's pretty tangible. Another great line of Kimmitt's: "...we did not see a tremendous number of weapons turned in." Turns out that was kind of an understatement: "On Wednesday, [April 21],police officers [in Fallujah] delivered a pickup truck filled with rusty and largely inoperative weapons, not the modern equipment military officers had wanted."

One lousy pickup bed of stuff! That's worse than those ghetto "handgun buyback" programs where they try to get paid for a piece of pipe taped to a saw handle.

I can just see the scene: a bunch of disgusted, angry USMC officers watching this pickup pull up and getting a peek at the big haul: two British shotguns and some granddad's rhino-horn dagger. "So you're telling us THIS is what's been killing our men for a week?" "Oh yes yes! This is all! Fallujah now peaceloving unarmed city! Yes yes!"

It was so ludicrous even Bush's people had to face the fact that the only way to pacify Fallujah was to let the Marines do their job and take the city by storm. Even Rumsfeld admitted that the old men we'd made this phony truce with had no power over the insurgents.

On the April 24-25 weekend, Bush and Rumsfeld flew to Camp David for a videoconference with the Brass in Iraq on what to do with Fallujah. The Marines were psyched, finally sure they'd get the chance to do what they were trained to do.

This is the key moment in the battle for Fallujah, and I suspect for the whole war. And in the end, it came down to one simple fact: Bush chickened out. He or his handlers decided they couldn't risk casualties on the scale this battle would take while they were going for reelection. Sometime that weekend, they decided the Marines weren't going to get the chance to win the battle. They were going to be called off in favor of some cheap PR face-saving strategy. Monday, April 26 -- and as far as I'm concerned, this goes down in history as Black Monday -- the announcement came from Bush that "the US has opted to delay the Fallujah offensive...in favor of joint patrols" of Marines and local Iraqi security forces.

"Joint patrols"! That was it! Bush went on TV to tell the suckers that, "the situation in Fallujah is returning to normal." Well, if "normal" is leaving the enemy in possession of the city, letting them ambush any Marine patrol they want, then Hell yeah, Fallujah was as normal as it gets. He also said the joint patrols would make the city "secure." But to be fair, he did admit there were, and I quote, "pockets of resistance" still operating in Fallujah. Yeah. Like there are pockets of gambling in Vegas.

I wanted to spit on the TV screen.

So the battle of Fallujah was over, and we lost. The Marines were ordered to withdraw from the city. From now on they went in only as part of these ridiculous "joint patrols." Since then we've only attacked the city from the air, because that way we don't risk any casualties. Of course we also don't have a chance of dislodging the enemy, and we leave them in possession of the field, and we make our brave soldiers look ridiculous -- but I guess none of that is as important as PR for the election campaign.

Bush didn't even have the decency to mention the four dead contractors whose killers he and Rumsfeld promised we'd find and punish. Like all his big talk and promises to get tough, the dead were just plain forgotten. "Bring it on" -- yeah, sure. Until it might cost votes. Then he's all, "Call it off! Call it off!"

I thought that was the ultimate humiliation for American arms. But I was wrong. There was worse to come: these miserable ex-Saddam soldiers we stuffed into uniform and sent to patrol Fallujah under the command of an ex-Republican Guard general started to whine about having to patrol with the Marines. They said the Marines would draw fire, and that affected their safety. Poor babies.

This defeat -- this disgrace, more like it! -- has got our enemies all excited. "Fallujah" is a rallying cry now for Muslim crazies all over the world. It's like their Bastogne, their Alamo. It will go down in their histories as the turning point in the war, the moment when we faced off against them and we flinched first. And I'm not talking just about the war in Iraq, I mean the bigger, longer war we're supposed to be fighting.

The worst of it is, our troops fought brilliantly, damn it. No matter how ridiculous and contradictory their orders were, our Marines never flinched, never backed off, never showed fear.

It was our leader, our President, who chickened out, just like he did when it was his time to face combat in Nam 30 years ago. Once a chicken, always a chicken -- that's the lesson, I guess.

You know, in a lot of countries, politicians betraying an army fighting for its life in the field...a lot of times that sets off a military coup. Actually that might not be a bad idea.


Going to war in the first place: Bad
Not having the balls to clean up the mess he created: Deplorable.

[Bond]

1. You would still criticize George Bush if he went into Fallujah and hundreds of Marines died.

2. Should you really be talking about war, since you said it yourself you would never go?

3. That is the worst signature I have ever seen. It's David Ortiz anyway.

4. You used that website again... please read my previous post in relation to the last article you posted from that "newspaper":
This is from a guy whose e-mail address is war_nerd@exile.ru, who writes for "The eXile," a Moscow-based alternative newspaper, from a country that introduced the world to the wonderful KGB.

And look at this tasteless article:


Introducing the Iraqi Interim Government Ghoul Pool! (http://www.exile.ru/193/give_them_liberty_and_give_them_death.html)

Choose which interim minister will die and win the pool!...


This newspaper, and the morons that run it are http://www.math.washington.edu/~reu/papers/1995/denied.gif.

[Crono]

Bond, I don't see your connection between that newspaper and Russia/the KGB. Sounds like you have some kind of hatred for mother Russia.

If the newspaper was German, would you make the same "connection" with the Nazis and Hitler?

[Bond]

Bond, I don't see your connection between that newspaper and Russia/the KGB. Sounds like you have some kind of hatred for mother Russia.

If the newspaper was German, would you make the same "connection" with the Nazis and Hitler?
Nope. I love both Russia and Germany.

Russia for their flat tax, literature, and history. Germany for my ancestry and the language.

[Crono]

Nope. I love both Russia and Germany.

Russia for their flat tax, literature, and history. Germany for my ancestory and the language.

Good to know... but why did you make the reference then? It boggles the mind I tell you.

[Stonecutter]

1. You would still criticize George Bush if he went into Fallujah and hundreds of Marines died.

2. Should you really be talking about war, since you said it yourself you would never go?

3. That is the worst signature I have ever seen. It's David Ortiz anyway.

4. You used that website again... please read my previous post in relation to the last article you posted from that "newspaper":
1) Yes, I would. I criticized the war before it started, so I'm entitled to. There is no good solution left and it all falls on Bush's shoulders for going in the first place. At this point, if we're not going to pull out completely, we should finish this the right way.

2) Don't ever post in any thread discussing professional sports, you've never played professionally, and you never will. Don't ever post in any thread discussing a game that hasn't been released yet, because you haven't played it. Don't ever poke your head into any democratic political thread.

That's a bull**** argument and you know it is, put it back in the closet where it belongs.

3) Read up on that speaking gaff, he corrected himself, something which your signature conveniently ignores.

4a) I let you slide last time, not again.

Yeah, he's the "war nerd" big deal, read enough of his articles and you'd realize that's a pretty accurate title.

4b) "who writes for "The eXile," a Moscow-based alternative newspaper, from a country that introduced the world to the wonderful KGB."

He's just published in "The eXile" he lives in Fresno, CA from a country that introduced the world to the wonderful KKK."

4c) He didn't write that other article you linked to. I suppose the rest of the Green Bay Packers should all be placed under suspect because Mark Chumura was a suspected rapist, right?

[Professor S]

Stonecutter, if you're going to post a link, make sure that link doesn't need another link to back it up. His articles are so out of hand left wing that he needs a source to back up his information. Something I notice he didn't do and never does.

A little advice: If you're going to cite an underground, obviously biased website 1) Make sure it has sources to back up its claims or 2) Provide sources that back up its selective choice of information and spin on that information.

[Bond]

1) Yes, I would. I criticized the war before it started, so I'm entitled to. There is no good solution left and it all falls on Bush's shoulders for going in the first place. At this point, if we're not going to pull out completely, we should finish this the right way.
Thank you for admitting you would criticize President Bush either way.
2) Don't ever post in any thread discussing professional sports, you've never played professionally, and you never will. Don't ever post in any thread discussing a game that hasn't been released yet, because you haven't played it. Don't ever poke your head into any democratic political thread.

That's a bull**** argument and you know it is, put it back in the closet where it belongs.
I agree. I simply said that just to get you riled up.
3) Read up on that speaking gaff, he corrected himself, something which your signature conveniently ignores.
I'm sorry, the website where I found the quote did not inform me of that, although I hardly think it is damaging to Kerry. If you have huge problem with it - I will kindly remove it.
4a) I let you slide last time, not again.

Yeah, he's the "war nerd" big deal, read enough of his articles and you'd realize that's a pretty accurate title.
How many respected journalists do you know that are referred to as such titles as "war nerd?"
4b) "who writes for "The eXile," a Moscow-based alternative newspaper, from a country that introduced the world to the wonderful KGB."

He's just published in "The eXile" he lives in Fresno, CA from a country that introduced the world to the wonderful KKK."
The KGB was run by the Soviet Union. The KKK was/is a privately funded organization that originally started out as a fraternity.
4c) He didn't write that other article you linked to. I suppose the rest of the Green Bay Packers should all be placed under suspect because Mark Chumura was a suspected rapist, right?
I realize he did not write the other article, but it further proves that the "newspaper" he is published in is not a reputable source.

[Crono]

Again I ask you, Bond.... what does the KGB have to do with the people who wrote the article?

[Professor S]

Again I ask you, Bond.... what does the KGB have to do with the people who wrote the article?

He made a sarcastic remark pointing out that the same country that created the KGB is home to that underground newspaper. Thats the connection he mentioned, and I do believe he made that quite clear.

[Crono]

He made a sarcastic remark pointing out that the same country that created the KGB is home to that underground newspaper. Thats the connection he mentioned, and I do believe he made that quite clear.

He had explained it to me on AIM shortly after I posted it, I see what he means.