2004 Election

talk
41

What problem did he actually see? please enlighten me. Cause the only thing he said when the US invaded Iraq was: “Saddam has WMD”. I don’t see WMD’s as a problem when they don’t exist. And please, don’t tell me you’re naive enough to think that Bush didn’t know WMDs where no where in sight. It was a gambling thing. “We give you mustard gas and whatnot in the 80s, perhaps you still have them in 2003”. That’s not how things go…
Now, please care to enlighten me again. What was his plan exactly? Cause no one knows. Not even him. As a proof, the US are so stuck to the neck in Iraq, someone either ****ed up the plan beyond any recognition (and I doubt that…)or they didn’t have any to begin with…
About your allies, mmh, they didn’t back down, they asked for different solutions. Actually, the US are the ones who refused to go with the rest of the international community (yeah, and England, Poland, Italy and Morroco). But out of more than 200 countries in the world, that’s a bit light…

but oh wait even the little country of uzbekistan(sp?) sent troops - the smallest country from the russia aftermath - our allies? who are they anymore? that had nothing to do with what bush did.

Don’t understand what you mean. Uzbekistan sent troops, it’s a geopolitical move. Do you really think it’s to kill Saddam. Lol.

i’m afraid that most people that are voting nowadays were too young back in the gulf war to understand what was going on - saddam hussein needed to be taken out of power for the sake of the iraqi people and we did that -
yup, 13 years ago, Saddam had to be taken out, it’s actually Bush Senior that pushed in the other direction and left him in power. It’s Bush Senior that did not want the coalition to move all the way up to Bahgdad…

he is fully competent, people again mistake a southern accent and a southern vernacular as a weakness, whats that quote from sweet home alabama? “just because I talk slow, doesn’t mean I’m stupid”

That, I fully agree with. Are you going to tell me that most “Bushisms” are just jokes that he made to the public while continuing making a serious face as if he didn’t know he said another dumb-*** thing? Come on…

and in my opinion if you seriously dont think kerry is all that better - then why vote for him? i would rather not vote at all in your situation -

haaaa, I don’t vote in the US… Darn it. But “lesser of 2 evils” still stands I guess…

i hear a lot of talk from a lot of dems - but no reasons or solutions - just saying he’s incompetent - i mean come on - how big is the democratic bandwagon?
Why would one need solutions or reasons to say bush is incompetent (moronically dumb, I mean). The Dem Bandwagon is as big as the GOP’s bandwagon I guess :wink:

bush had the guts no one else had - our boys and girls are fighting a just fight over seas and doing the right thing.

?? you really think global political behavior starts with GUTS? no, sorry. Stating the question again. You think global political behavior even has GUTS in the process? If the economic and military leader of the world (…) uses guts and instincts to decide of matters of geopolitical fairness in the world, let me tell you, this is ****ing up. You don’t decide to kill 10 000 people because your guts tell you so. (9000 Iraqis, 1000 US soldiers and coalition members…).
And please, justify how your boys and girls are fighting a just fight overseas. Please tell me, I’m in the dark…

this post is a little charged, but im tired of hearing democrats not make any sense - at least you have some logic rb

same goes with Reps I guess :wink:

ps: PR, just to be clear. this post is not against you, it’s against bush…

42

From what i hear in the media over here ( Im Australian ) it sounds like Kerry is an absolute tosser!!!

If i were an american id vote Bush all the way…!!!

43

There was British intelligence, Russian Intelligence, and the CIA saying that WMDs were in Iraq. You have a dictator who in the early 1990’s did not hesitate to invade a neighboring country using conventional weapons. The risks of him using WMD weapons against the US or another country were great. Of course, we later found out there were no WMDs, but the initial suspicion of WMD was valid for various heads of intelligence agencies said it existed. In my view, it would have been gut instinct if I had been told by various countries that WMDs exist in a known hostile country, but decided to sit back and do nothing.

Also, I think many of you are forgetting that Pres. Bush is acting in the best interests of the American people. Not those in the countries elsewhere. Kerry, I’m sure, has the best intentions also. I just disagree with his idea of letting the UN have a greater influence on US policy.

RB: I see what you are saying. You make some good points. Besides removing Saddam, if Yeldarb’s Magic 8 ball is true, Iraq is also in a perfect location. Iran, sooner or later, will be the next hotspot - either via their own collapse or through foreign intervention. Right now, Iran is pretty much surrounded on the east and west by US (+friends). I have hunch that if either Kerry or Bush win the election, something will be done with Iran - even if it is surgical strikes to get rid of the supposed nuclear “power plant” sites.

44

There was British intelligence, Russian Intelligence, and the CIA saying that WMDs were in Iraq.

Three Intelligence Agencies, all of them wrong. Coincidence??

You have a dictator who in the early 1990’s did not hesitate to invade a neighboring country using conventional weapons.

Kuwait was Slant Drilling Iraqi Oil - April Glaspie reportedly assured Saddam that we had no interest in Kuwait… oops!

The risks of him using WMD weapons against the US or another country were great.

The risk of Saddam attacking Israel (like he did during the Persian Gulf War) was even greater…

Of course, we later found out there were no WMDs, but the initial suspicion of WMD was valid for various heads of intelligence agencies said it existed.

Fool me once… uh, shame on you… …fool me again… er, can’t get fooled again :slight_smile:

Also, I think many of you are forgetting that Pres. Bush is acting in the best interests of the American people.

…In your opinion. My opinion is that he is acting in the best interest of his business constituates, his Frat brothers :skull:, his Political Donors (Enron, Exxon, Texaco…)

Kerry, I’m sure, has the best intentions also.

The road to Tyranny is paved with good intentions… :slight_smile:

I just disagree with his idea of letting the UN have a greater influence on US policy

Seldom do Kirupa and I see eye to eye, but on this one, I 100% agree! Kerry is an open gloablist, which to me, is eqaul to being a traitor. Anyone who wants to see our national sovereignty sold out to an international organization should be executed as a traitor… for real.

45

Wohoo! :party:

46

not that i can’t form my own thought lol - but I agree whole heartedly with kirupa everyone and it partly answers pomme’s post (i know its not against me :love: )

the words “weapons of mass destruction” were flagged from the get go!

if you say I’m attacking Iraq because we think they have WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and in the same sentence say, because of U.N. resolution such and such delivered and approved by such and such in such and such year…

which part of that statement is going to be jumped on by the media?

exactly what happened - everyone ran with the WMD thing and forgot all of the other reasons - that were said, that were stated, and that were agreed on by the U.N.

and again if I was sitting as President and all of my intelligence sources said they had the wmd’s, my advisors were calling for action, and i had read everything i would have given the same order Bush did. Now it has been found since, that some of that information was wrong…yes BIG OOPS…

at the same time we had plenty of other backing besides the catch phrase “wmd” to go in there. and if you look at the social politics of everything - it is a fact that the Iraqi’s wanted Saddam out of power - a known FACT…now with Saddam’s military strategy and power and control…how exactly would they overthrow him without outside help?

our allies wanted to back down and find a more “sensitive” way - bullcrap - he’s a tyrannical dictator that kills his own people…he needs to get thrown out on his rear.

btw, i was infuriated when i saw that kerry was quoted as saying ( i probably dont have this exact ) " I would find a more sensitive solution to Iraq."

and also was quoted as saying “I would have done almost everything differently than Bush.”

ok Kerry fine words, what is this grand “other sensitive way” you keep talking about??? Let’s hear the plan buddy…oh but wait you don’t have one -

the only flip-flops in this country should be here in Florida…

(or any of the other sunny southern states lol)

47

ok, these two statements were made within 24 hours of each other, to the same group of people:

“I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.”
-Kerry

“Now, in terms of, you know, the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice, obviously we need to be very sensitive on that.”
-Bush

It seems someone sure took a word out of a well-formed thought, mangled it, then held it up to for the world to see without realizing Mr. Bush felt the same way (although GW sure puts things less eloquently). What a bunch of rubbish. Cheney needs to review his boss’s view on foreign policy…heck, he should review his own:

“it’s a sensitive area and we are very much aware of its sensitivity.”
-Cheney, in regards to the siege of the Imam Ali shrin

48

:wink: fun.

Although the resolutions passed in the UN did NOT (under NO circumstances) give the US the right to attack Iraq, the US did so. How come? WHY? What was the reason? Saddam is a ruthless dictator? Yeah. So are many rulers in the world (which, coincidentally, the US helped get into power - yeah, Saddam too).
Don’t tell me the US sent 130k troops over there just to see the world as a better place. There must be a real reason somewhere. Why were 1000 american soldiers killed in Iraq? Just to get rid of Saddam? This is so unrealistic. I thought Bush said no one liked to go to war (or, as a matter of fact, send troops over, not like he’d know what fighting is all about heh), but that it had to be done for the good of the American people sometimes. What has the war in Iraq achieved? Has the world become a better place for the Americans? Don’t tell me you’re all so blind not to see that the only real benefits for the Americans in this war is the seldomely rare persons who do business with Iraq (did I say Halliburton? oops). The only thing that the Americans will probably gain with this war, is a shift of taxes from the education budget towards the military and defense budget (and the international community looking at you with disgust, but that’s another matter)

Now, about Kerry… I don’t know what he’s thinking saying he would have done the war another way. Why can’t he be analytical and say something along the lines: “I wouldn’t have done anything with Iraq, least of all wage a PREVENTIVE war. We can all be humanists and philantropic, but I don’t think our taxes should be put in a war with a country that cannot do us any harm, not like mmmh, say… North Korea.”. Or he could have said “We’re protecting Israel by preventively invading Iraq, but Al Qaeda - whose heads are still free to organize terrorist acts against the US - should be our priority.”

I don’t know… I guess I just don’t understand why all republicans I know/meet/talk to always defend Bush, never accepting that he ****ed up VERY VERY badly.

49

Bush all the way!

50

I don’t know… I guess I just don’t understand why all republicans I know/meet/talk to always defend Bush, never accepting that he ****ed up VERY VERY badly.

I’ve noticed the same thing… Gotta admire that ubreakable loyalty… :wink:

“Bush all the way!”

Compelling arguement, but i still think he’s a war criminal… :cool:

51

LMAO!!! ROFL!!! Great stuf amo =)

52

Wow. Are’nt politics a ball! Geez Pomme you can really jam. Let me retort,

Don’t tell me the US sent 130k troops over there just to see the world as a better place.
If the international community would have done a better job during the last 12 years of the Baath regime we would not have needed to forcefully acertain the truth of their WMD. More over if the international community would have supported the US (like the US supports the international community) with troops, preassure and resources, it would not have been such a burden on the US and perhaps could have been handled with less lives lost (Allied and Iraqi).

Why were 1000 american soldiers killed in Iraq?

Because people die in war. 1000 soldiers or 1, or 100,000. You do not defeat your enemy by counting your losses, you count theirs. Those soldiers died bravley for the US and should not be used as point to make against her decisions.

What has the war in Iraq achieved?

Millions under a brutal dictator are now free. Albeit free to fight against us or them, but free to make decisions on their own. If you really want to know what has been achieved why don’t you ask some of the soldiers over their? They will tell you that they see democracy being implemented, children free to be educated and an oppressed society able to make decisions as a whole and defend them against those who wish to take that away.

did I say Halliburton?

Last I checked this is not a perfect world. If a job needs to be done, the people doing the dirty work need to be compensated. Who else is going to go in and restore the system? Obvioulsy not the international community.

and the international community looking at you with disgust, but that’s another matter

As far as I’m concerned the international community can kiss my butt. They have done nothing for us and we constantly shell out the $$$ and the lives to support them. It’s kinda like the rich kids in school making fun of the poor kids, it is rootless and based in predjudice.
As for Kerry, he’s just as moronic as bush, he just uses bigger words. So if you think North Korea is big threat, why not stop critisising the US, and start critisising the UN and the so called international community about not stoping them? Or the other evil leaders in the world.
Personally I do not support either one, but at least Bush is predictable, and at least he stands by his decisions. I am not defending bush here, but I am defending the soldiers who give their blood so that little girls in Iraq can become doctors instead of becomming punching bags and rape victims of the Baath Party. Anybody remember Uday and Qusay?

53

this business about “Bush uses the word ‘sensitive’ in the same context” is bogus. Bush never uses the word “sensitive.”
-Rush Limbaugh

Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence.
-George W. Bush

lol! I hate politics so much…gah…

Finally, this link is for all you “flip flop” fans…I sure got a kick out of it:
Flip Flop Collection

54

So easy to blame the 2nd gulf war on the international community watch. Should I remind you that most of that international community (airforce included) was American? The No-Fly zones above 38th parallel and under 36th were Americano-English military zones. And about acerting the presence or absence of WMDs, don’t you remember David Kay, don’t you remember all those UN officials coming back from Iraq acerting that there were NO MORE WMDs. So you trust your CIA more than UN inspectors, but now look who was wrong. Anyways… too easy to blame the international community for the 2nd Gulf War.

More over if the international community would have supported the US (like the US supports the international community) with troops, preassure and resources, it would not have been such a burden on the US and perhaps could have been handled with less lives lost (Allied and Iraqi).
Mmmh, so if I get it right… The US say “let’s go to Iraq” and the international community says “mmmh, yeah, ok, let’s not think about the consequences, let’s go”? The international community did not support the US because the US were WRONG. More than 180 countries tell you that what you are going to do is WRONG, and you still do it. Stop blaming the international community for US and Iraqi losses. These are all due to the geopolitical incapacities to think more than 3 months ahead of the actual US government.

Because people die in war. 1000 soldiers or 1, or 100,000. You do not defeat your enemy by counting your losses, you count theirs. Those soldiers died bravley for the US and should not be used as point to make against her decisions.
How did they die for the US? And OF COURSE it should be used as a point to make AGAINST American actions. Dead people are the MAIN reason to point out the inexcusable war waged by Bush. And, hey, you know what? About counting your losses or theirs? Funny to see that you had an amazing US/enemy death ratio during Vietnam… Who won? You defeat your enemy when you have none left to defeat (and nuking the whole place isn’t the solution), so you’ll have to have the WHOLE of the iraqi population to be in accord with the USA. And we all know that won’t happen. So you’re going to lose this war…

Millions under a brutal dictator are now free. Albeit free to fight against us or them, but free to make decisions on their own. If you really want to know what has been achieved why don’t you ask some of the soldiers over their? They will tell you that they see democracy being implemented, children free to be educated and an oppressed society able to make decisions as a whole and defend them against those who wish to take that away.

The way I see it, actually, it’s like someone saying (and forgive me the analogy, it’s probably not a really good one, I’ve been working too much on the Olympics…) “I didn’t get the Gold, not the Silver, not even the Bronze, but hey, I went to the finals and finished last, it’s not that bad”. What I mean is, retrospectivly, yeah, now, millions are free to fight the US where they couldn’t fight Saddam before. Ok. But that’s IS CERTAINLY NOT the reason the US put their troops on Iraqi soil.

Last I checked this is not a perfect world. If a job needs to be done, the people doing the dirty work need to be compensated. Who else is going to go in and restore the system? Obvioulsy not the international community. As far as I’m concerned the international community can kiss my butt.

Don’t let the “unperfect world” be an excuse for your mistakes. Going into Iraq was not a job that had to be done in priority.

55

Howz about lets not have either? Lets have one guy be the president of the world! Sooo much better. The more I think about it, the more pro’s i see…

56

Good luck in trying to get the world to agree on one person :stuck_out_tongue:

Haha - so true! I’m glad that new developments around the world such as the India/Pakistan talks are progressing without relying heavily on the UN! The UN defense program is more like a place where a few has-been countries think the world’s problems can be solved by sitting around complaining about inaction. Either the UN is reformed, or it should be replaced with something more useful :ninja:

57

Don’t let the “unperfect world” be an excuse for your mistakes. Going into Iraq was not a job that had to be done in priority.

Pomme: Though you are far left, you have a way with logic. Perhaps there are many choices that are possible, and your perspective can be correct and is deffinetley noble, but I believe in the way it is as I see it. That is to say the UN and international community lack action, they are all a bunch of talkers who have perspective to benifit the world but do not act on their authority and where is the world? Is it in good shape? (forgive me, another analogy…) It’s like the story of the good samaritan: Do you just walk by or do you help a person in need? To me it is now regardless the “intent” of going into Iraq, but the big picture of NOW. I think our times are an OPPORTUNITY to continue the war against opression and I say come one come all and come International Community, Iraq is free, let’s finish our job there and move on to the next one…
I am happy to debate with you, I have much respect for your opinion, and if my country see’s it your way we will find out in November. But please do not speak for me, when you say YOU as in relating me to ALL of the decisions the US has made, it’s not true, I am refering to the political debate, me personally, I’d S*** my pants if it was up to me.

Kirupa:

Haha - so true! I’m glad that new developments around the world such as the India/Pakistan talks are progressing without relying heavily on the UN! The UN defense program is more like a place where has-been countries think the world’s problems can be solved by sitting around complaining about inaction
thanks big K in the sky

58

Pomme - forgive me for saying this - but take off your French-colored glasses for a second - you are looking at this so biased its unreal…

all i can say is that what we did was right and just - a handful of countries disagreed - big deal - the UN is a social club and that’s pretty much it -

as far as the soldiers dying for their country - they did - you won’t understand that unless you live over here - over here our men and women volunteer to go into the military…they volunteer to do whatever their leaders tell them, they volunteer to lay their lives down for their country and the cause of their country…

some people will just never understand the way it is over here in the US -

we did have the right to invade btw, don’t know where you got the contrary from - and just because your country (who I believe owes us big) doesn’t like us going to war doesn’t really mean much to most americans…

it’s like international peer pressure…

and to be quite honest, I don’t see how it’s much of the “world’s” business.

59

it’s like international peer pressure

That was the analogy I was looking for :thumb:

60

India/Pakistan talks

Hehe, right on, did you see that movie, Mei Hoon Nah? Perfect example of what the governments of India and Pakistan should be doing…