The 2004 Election

[Natsu]

The reason why the troops don't support him, and me being a military brat I know this, is because the war in Iraq is a "political" war.

The reason why the troops doesn't like clinton is how he nutered the military. Cutting back funds, closing 1 out of 3 military places (he had it planned at least), and he seriously over worked the men on the navy. Having 1 person doing the job of 3.

Bush would win more favor with the troops if he stopped playing a political view and let the military do their job. Yes, it would be more gruesome, more "innocent" people would die. But the job would get done cleaner and more efficiantly. But then you have to worry about people like Sadaam and Osama becomming a martar to their people. A reason why I believe Osama is dead, but we'll never know. Also why they didn't shoot Sadaam on sight as well, because the grunt wanted to drop a grenade down the hole and say, " He has a gun."

Kerry on the other hand scares me. For the military, when you have people who you served with saying not to vote for you, it says something about your character. People you served with on the battlefield who are your brothers in blood, and they won't back you up in your presidential campaign? Something's wrong with that.

The way I look at it, it's picking the lesser of two evils. One looks stupid, but isn't. And the other bold face lies to you, but says he's firm in his beliefs.

 

[Kryptonite]

Ok, I didn't read anything in this thread, and I am not even sure if I replied to this thread already, but I'm going to post this.

I'm going to be voting for Kerry. What Bush is doing is completely insane. We had two wars in 4yrs, and one war was a complete waste. Now the troops are there and we need to finish the job as quickly as possible. Kerry wants to train the Iraqis, setup a stable government, and get out of there as fast as possible. Bush just wants to jerk around.

As for Bush and Kerry with large businesses- Kerry has his wife's ketchup company for financial support. Bush has Halliburton. Think of it this way, what could Kerry possibly do so his wife could profit more from her large business? Raise prices, go global, or make the company a monopoly? And what could Bush do with Halliburton? Declare war and know that the company is the only one big enough to handle the quantity of troops. Halliburton supposedly reported a huge loss of around $60 million. They've tripled what they normally make since Bush has been in office. They haven't lost shit.

Although, Kerry scared me to hell and back when he mentioned "God" so much in the third debate I think it was, but I got over it. Bush is just a dense moron. His intelligence was wrong, but he still went out with the war even when no proof of these WMD were found. Since this war, Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous than ever. And if Israel bombs the facility like they did to Iraq, I am more than positive that another 6 day war would errupt and the outcome would be much different than the first unless India gets involved in which case we have WWIII on our hands.

Law must never be enforced based on someone's morals. It should be based for the protection and benefit of the people living in the country. Stem cells and abortions Bush is against no matter what. Kerry is against abortions too, but he'll make them legal just because it's the woman's right to choose *cough*bullshit*cough*. But stem cells have the potential to cure many diseases, yet Bush still will not lift the restrictions on it.

Kerry also has more of a national priority. He talks about Healthcare, education, and taxes while Bush just talks about Iraq, Al Queda, and bin Laden.

 

[Natsu]

Uhm, for as long as I can remember, Deomcrats and Republicans have been promising better healthcare, education and lower taxes. Yet they seem to always deliver the same thing. They let healthcare rot, they only do something for education to get their picture in the paper, and kerry is a typical tax and spend liberal.

And there is no way in hell we can "finish" the job quickly. I don't know what hell Kerry is talking about in finishing the job quickly. They're using gorrila tactics to fight the war. They're not "fighting fair," so to speak. They're using civies to cause damage and it's a very effective way to fight. Until the Iraqi government gets stabalized and t heir leaders can go outside without an immidiate threat of being shot, we can't pull out or it would be a waste for everything we've lost so many lives over this, and not just the selfish views of American boys. More than just American's are dying. Although the television stations, which seem to all be pro-kerry. ( I wonder why that is.) Are also using very biasts tactics.

Bush has actually done more for education in the past four years than clinton did in his 8 in office. School vouchers are a good start, the FCAT, is used to make money to go back into the school system. Though, I'm not a fan of standardized tests. There have been more grants and other monies becomming available to students as well.

And Bush is against stem cell research, but if he's such a biast, stupid man as you say, why did he put out funding for it? And stupid people don't surround themselves with intelligent people.

As for Haliburton, Bush was born into wealth, he'll die wealthy. Kerry is a wealthy man, he married into wealth. These politicians who get up there and had feed us all this politically correct bull shit are so chocked full of bull shit them there how can you believe anything they say?

And what is wrong with some one's Reference to God? Are you prejudice against people who have faith?

 

[raidenfighter]

You know what? It's like choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.

 

[Natsu]

You know what? It's like choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.

Which one has the worste aftertaste?

 

[Kryptonite]

I'm not a Democrat nor Republican. I'm a National Socialist. I'm not going to explain the government's framework, but it's mainly Socialism with a huge amount of Nationalism. Although, Germany took the Nationalism part a little too far during WWII.

Anyways, with that said, I feel that we should pay at least 65% of what we make to the government and have everything covered- education, healthcare (government ran), insurance (government ran), prescription drugs (again, government ran), and public transportation. People say "I'll have no money to buy ANYTHING if I give the government 65% of what I make." That is totally absurd. If everyone is doing it, there will be less circulation of currency, causing deflation and falling of prices. It's basic economics and math.

Anyways, looking at what we are handed as of now, I feel Kerry is the better choice. $100+ billion has been spent in Iraq already. That is taking away from education, medicare, prescription drugs, and a really long list of what the government should provide to its citizens. Over 6 million children were dumped out of schools because of lack of tax money. We need to be taxed more, and more, and more! The more we are taxed, the more money the government has, and the more services the people get from the government. A government receiving 65% of all its citizens pay would not be prone to siding with large businesses since the government is technically the largest business.

I heard you mention the FCAT, and we both live in Florida. I don't know how long you have been in Florida, but do you know WHY the FCAT is in place? So students that cannot add 2+2 or spell like a kindergartener do not go off to college and flood the community college (since universities would not accept them since they'll fail the entrance tests) and the other students suffer that did do well in high school. We have an abundance of ignorant twats not because of the mass immigration from Cuba, Latin America, and Haiti. That's what the idiot Republicans want you to believe such as Jeb Bush. It is because of the lack of money that the schools receive. I graduated high school last year, and that last year teachers weren't allowed to use more than 100 copies of paper per week. We were on block scheduling, but the teachers still had 20-30 students per class x 4. That's around 1.2-1.5 papers per student per week. Now the hell do you teach like that? We spent more time writing down assignments that could have been given to us on a copied paper than we did actually learning anything.

And you're saying what about the education being the best? I'm not even touching the education systems in other states, which some are far worse than Florida. There was a recent teacher strike somewhere because their pay was cut, and teacher benefits are also being cut as well nationally.

So, no. I must dissent with you there.

I see you mentioned that we cannot finish this job quickly. I must disagree with you once again. We cannot and will not do the job quickly and effectively with an idiot like Bush in office who wants only the US, Britain, Australia, and Poland (Lol) to be the "gigantic coalition of nations." We need someone like Kerry that can get support of other nations such as France, Germany, Russia, and the United Nations (something Bush despises since he hates following anything except his own beliefs). If we have the support of more nations and the UN, I will guarantee you that we will be totally out of Iraq in 1 and a half years or less with the country being a safe place to go out in public. Hell, there are still cities controlled by these guerrillas! As I said, Bush is just jerking around in there.

Also, I read a slur about American Boys or something. Well, all I see Japan during is providing medical aid. If there is such a 'high' terror threat in Iraq, they would most certainly be fighting there with the US regardless of their strict use of military. So, who's selfish now?

The media is mostly partisan. Even the newspapers that endorse candidates represent both sides of the table. The only one that does not is Fox new, and no one in their right mind would take that news station seriously.

About stem cells, Bush has been the president to give the most money to this research because he has been the only president to be in office while we have a great understanding of how stem cells work. So again, Clinton could not fund something that wasn't even started.

As for Haliburton, Bush was born into wealth, he'll die wealthy. Kerry is a wealthy man, he married into wealth. These politicians who get up there and had feed us all this politically correct bull shit are so chocked full of bull shit them there how can you believe anything they say?

I don't really believe anything either of them say, but because Bush has really kicked the bucket during his presidency, I am going to trust the new guy and see where it goes from there. If we don't like the new guy, we vote someone else in next term.

And what is wrong with some one's Reference to God? Are you prejudice against people who have faith?

I do not have any problem with it, but when a president or someone in power forces their religion/faith on other citizens that do not believe it, it is a problem. Kerry is not forcing his faith on anyone, but Bush blatantly is.

 

[Natsu]

Well the American education system itself is a huge pile of garbage stuffed inside a burning bag of dog poo.

That's why I'm thinking about going to Japan to teach. Getting paid 35 dollars an hour to teach other japanese people to speak and write english seems very lucrative. Hehe, and I can get paid even more if I know slang.

 

[jgreenwo]

The media is mostly partisan. Even the newspapers that endorse candidates represent both sides of the table. The only one that does not is Fox new, and no one in their right mind would take that news station seriously.

The hell it is. The media will bash Bush any chance they get. For example, when it came out that all those explosives were missing in Iraq, the media instantly blamed Bush. Every article and asshole on CNN and other news channels didn't even consider the possibility that all the explosives could have been missing before our troops even got there. All you here is that Bush is leading an unorganized and unplanned war in Iraq. It seems like it's no big deal to the media that there actually were all these explosives there, but the bigger deal is that Bush screwed up and let them get lost! Some of the weapons might even be classified as WMD's; doesn't anyone care about that? Saddam may actually have had a lot of WMD's that could still be out there!

We weren't wrong going into Iraq. The countries in the UN that were against us have been exposed for accepting bribes from Saddam and their motivation was obviously self-interest. They were also selling weapons to Iraq up until 3 weeks before we went in, which was against UN resolutions by the way.


If this war is so wrong, then why are these countries supporting it?

Western Europe:
*United Kingdom
*Spain
*Portugal
*Denmark
*Norway
*Netherlands
Iceland
*Italy

Baltic States:
*Estonia #
* Latvia #
*Lithuania #

Central Europe:
*Poland
*Czech Republic
*Slovakia #
*Hungary

Balkans:
*Albania #
*Macedonia #
*Romania #
*Bulgaria #
Turkey
Croatia #
Slovenia #

Eastern Europe
*Ukraine
*Moldova

*Japan
South Korea
Singapore
*Philippines
Afghanistan
*Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan
*Azerbaijan
*Georgia
*Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Solomon Islands
*Mongolia
*Palau
Tonga
*Thailand

North America:
*United States of America

South and Central America:
*El Salvador
Colombia
Nicaragua
Costa Rica
*Dominican Republic
*Honduras

ANZ:
*Australia
*New Zealand

Middle East:
Kuwait

Africa:
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Uganda
Rwanda
Angola

* = States with personnel in Iraq as part of the Coalition.


Hey, where's France? haha

 

[jmills]

Well Jgreen I believe that those countries you just listed have only a few hundred on the ground some even less. Thats not a coalition, and the fact that our U.S. troops are suffering some where around 80 % of the casualties or even more I think.

 

[jgreenwo]

Well Jgreen I believe that those countries you just listed have only a few hundred on the ground some even less. Thats not a coalition, and the fact that our U.S. troops are suffering some where around 80 % of the casualties or even more I think.

You are right that some of those have very few there, but at least they are supporting us and trying to help. Some of the countries that don't have many troops there are still contributing big time though, because they don't have that many troops to begin with. Look at this:

Top ten by proportion of military
Country Troops Proportion

1 USA 130,000 94.8 %
2 Honduras 368 44.3 %
3 United Kingdom 9,000 42.4 %
4 Latvia 120 20.9 %
5 Netherlands 1,100 19.5 %
6 Mongolia 160 17.6 %
7 Denmark 420 17.3 %
8 El Salvador 361 14.7 %
9 Australia 800 14.5 %
10 Dominican Republic 302 12.3 %

 

[Kryptonite]

The hell it is. The media will bash Bush any chance they get. For example, when it came out that all those explosives were missing in Iraq, the media instantly blamed Bush. Every article and asshole on CNN and other news channels didn't even consider the possibility that all the explosives could have been missing before our troops even got there. All you here is that Bush is leading an unorganized and unplanned war in Iraq. It seems like it's no big deal to the media that there actually were all these explosives there, but the bigger deal is that Bush screwed up and let them get lost! Some of the weapons might even be classified as WMD's; doesn't anyone care about that? Saddam may actually have had a lot of WMD's that could still be out there!

Oh, cry me a river and an ocean at that, too. The media did nothing but support Bush when he "won" the election in 2000. Did you forget Fox changing their Florida vote to Bush and all the other stations blindly following? I bet you were really bitching about the news being biased towards Bush there... :roll:

The news isn't biased, it is what is actually happening over there. Do you deny that militants still control certains areas of Iraq and Afghanistan? Hell, they were thinking about cancelling the election in Afghanistan in a few districts due to the violence. Opium is still heavily being produced in Afghanistan. We had a duty to do the job in Afghanistan before going head first into the shallow end of the pool and heading to Iraq.

As for your so-called coalition, where are all the bigger countries?

-France
-Germany
-Russia
-Italy (majority of the nation opposes war)
-Spain (Are you aware that they pulled out of Iraq with their new Prime Minister? Wow, they really supported us there.)
-China
-No Middle-Eastern countries except Israel (which doesn't have troops there) and Kuwait (Gee, I wonder why- oil monger in office)
-Canada (a neighbor doesn't even agree!)
-Mexico (and another)

All the other countries you listed are all 3rd world and only 'helping' out with a few hundred troops just to keep good relations with the US. Hell, Japan doesn't even have actual troops over there. They only have medical aids and other non-combative soldiers. And if you poll the people yourself, you will see that the majority of Europeans oppose this foolish war. It has done nothing to protect us. A man with a suitcase can still cross the Mexican border with ease and head over to NY city. Great security, eh?

Also, I take it that you do not look into polls/surveys seeing as how you think the media around the world now is in some big conspiracy against Bush. Anyway, most of Europe and America feel that they are more unsafe now than before the war. That $100 billion we threw away in Iraq could have been used for homeland security! Let's just say Bush was right with invading Iraq. These "WMD" are gone, the explosives are gone, and the high level terrorists are more than gone now. So, what good did it even do since everyone and everything we are after is gone???

In reality, we should be worried about the 100 or so suitcase bombs that can kill 100,000+ people a piece, which are reportedly "lost" or "missing" from former Soviet Russia! You can thank your right-winged moron of an actor, Reagan, for bankrupting a nation that kept bin Ladens, Saddams, and Kims under control, in which we unwisely chose the side of these terrorists rather than a nation that had absolutely no immediate threat to us besides being Communist. Go figure.

We weren't wrong going into Iraq. The countries in the UN that were against us have been exposed for accepting bribes from Saddam and their motivation was obviously self-interest. They were also selling weapons to Iraq up until 3 weeks before we went in, which was against UN resolutions by the way.

And Bush and Cheney accepted no bribes from Halliburton, correct? I'm sure Dick Cheney won't become CEO of Halliburton again once he's out of the White House, either. What a load of hypocritical, Conservative drivel.

Hey, where's France? haha

I don't know, but I'm still looking for this massive coalition of nations, seeing as though the US takes up 90-95% of the troops there.

 

[jgreenwo]

As for your so-called coalition, where are all the bigger countries?

-France
-Germany
-Russia
-Italy (majority of the nation opposes war)
-Spain (Are you aware that they pulled out of Iraq with their new Prime Minister? Wow, they really supported us there.)
-China
-No Middle-Eastern countries except Israel (which doesn't have troops there) and Kuwait (Gee, I wonder why- oil monger in office)
-Canada (a neighbor doesn't even agree!)
-Mexico (and another)

Well, if had read the Duelfer Report you would know the answer to your question.

All the other countries you listed are all 3rd world and only 'helping' out with a few hundred troops just to keep good relations with the US. Hell, Japan doesn't even have actual troops over there. They only have medical aids and other non-combative soldiers. And if you poll the people yourself, you will see that the majority of Europeans oppose this foolish war. It has done nothing to protect us. A man with a suitcase can still cross the Mexican border with ease and head over to NY city. Great security, eh?

I just don't think you look at the big picture. Saddam was a known mass-murderer, he has continuously broken UN regulations, he abused the oil for food program and pocketed half the money, has tried a hostile takeover of another country to gain oil, kicked UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq like he doesn't even care, harbored terrorists, etc... For one, I don't care if he never did anything at all to us, he deserved to be taken out of power. We can't let someone like that think they can get away with those type of things. It's time someone put their foot down, because eventually he or others who might view the UN as weak, will just do whatever they want without the fear of international repercussions.

Also, according to all of the intelligence we had, it was the RIGHT decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Even Kerry voted for it at the time. Just because we know the situation is different now doesn't mean we can just change our minds and say "sorrry. Saddam, you're free to go. Sorry about your sons; we made a mistake." We have to follow through with this war, we owe that much to the Iraqi people at this point.

Are we the world police? You bet your ass we are! Who else is going to do it? If we sit around and let dictatorships run rampant, we will suffer the consequences unless we stop it while we can.

 

[Kryptonite]

All you pro-Bushitters say the same pile of nonsense all the time- Saddam was a mass murder and needed to be taken out. We were not originally after him for being a mass murderer; we were after him for WMD. And when North Korea and Iran are mentioned, you dodge that completely. If we were after mass murders, we would be taking care of the Darfur massacres by use of military, overthrown Kim, overthrown Castro, and overthrown Iran's government. Why haven't we did it? North Korea is a very hostile state and has even threatened nuclear retaliation against the US! A country with ballistic missles as advanced as North Korea's which could hit anywhere in the west coast of the US, shouldn't be taken lightly especially when they could attach a warhead onto one of those missles. Saddam wasn't taken lightly, and he even complied with the UN. Kim isn't complying with anyone and keeps on threatening. You point the fingers at the countries that refuse to help with Iraq, and all you're left with is three fingers pointing back at you. You're drowning in your own hypocracy and digging yourself deeper and deeper into the ground.

Kerry along with the whole nation of the US was convinced that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The whole Iraq buying enriched uranium from Africa was a total fib along with Iraq being involved with Al Queda. Now all of a sudden because nothing you were looking for was found in Iraq, it must be in another country- possibly Syria, Yemen, or even Iran. This is not how you run a military. You have real evidence, real facts, and real missions. I bet I could find some bum off the streets more capable of running the CIA than who we have now.

And yes, since we are in Iraq already we must finish the job. But Bush needs to leave office before we do get into war with Syria or another country that "might" possess these weapons and leave Iran and NK to get more dangerous. You don't use the military because you feel that it needs to be used. You need to have convincing evidence first, which Bush never had from the start so that whole uranium from Africa was probably just a lie on Tenet's part.

Since Saddam, most of his followers, and sons were all found in Iraq, it should tell you that no one is helping Saddam in any way. So, what country could these Weapons of Mass Disappearance possibly be in?

Are we the world police? You bet your ass we are! Who else is going to do it? If we sit around and let dictatorships run rampant, we will suffer the consequences unless we stop it while we can.

Well, I must disagree. One nation should not rule over every other nation. This is why the United Nations has been founded and why most countries have joined it. The United Nations sets rules and regulations and acts like the world police ran by countries and not country. Do you think one country policing every other country is going to be better off than if a majority of the countries policed each other? I guess this is why you conservatives decided to say the hell with the UN and invade Iraq with your massive coalition of US troops.

-Thinks about the 100+ suitcase bombs (potential of killing over 1 million people) missing from the former Soviet Union and Bush's concern over that Vs. Iraq.

 

[g0d]

As for your so-called coalition, where are all the bigger countries?

-France
-Germany
-Russia
-Italy (majority of the nation opposes war)
-Spain (Are you aware that they pulled out of Iraq with their new Prime Minister? Wow, they really supported us there.)
-China
-No Middle-Eastern countries except Israel (which doesn't have troops there) and Kuwait (Gee, I wonder why- oil monger in office)
-Canada (a neighbor doesn't even agree!)
-Mexico (and another)

Well, if had read the Duelfer Report you would know the answer to your question.

All the other countries you listed are all 3rd world and only 'helping' out with a few hundred troops just to keep good relations with the US. Hell, Japan doesn't even have actual troops over there. They only have medical aids and other non-combative soldiers. And if you poll the people yourself, you will see that the majority of Europeans oppose this foolish war. It has done nothing to protect us. A man with a suitcase can still cross the Mexican border with ease and head over to NY city. Great security, eh?

I just don't think you look at the big picture. Saddam was a known mass-murderer, he has continuously broken UN regulations, he abused the oil for food program and pocketed half the money, has tried a hostile takeover of another country to gain oil, kicked UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq like he doesn't even care, harbored terrorists, etc... For one, I don't care if he never did anything at all to us, he deserved to be taken out of power. We can't let someone like that think they can get away with those type of things. It's time someone put their foot down, because eventually he or others who might view the UN as weak, will just do whatever they want without the fear of international repercussions.

Also, according to all of the intelligence we had, it was the RIGHT decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. Even Kerry voted for it at the time. Just because we know the situation is different now doesn't mean we can just change our minds and say "sorrry. Saddam, you're free to go. Sorry about your sons; we made a mistake." We have to follow through with this war, we owe that much to the Iraqi people at this point.

Are we the world police? You bet your ass we are! Who else is going to do it? If we sit around and let dictatorships run rampant, we will suffer the consequences unless we stop it while we can.

Everything you said about Saddam is true, J Green, yet you're failing to understand that America is not in great enough shape to go around starting wars with other countries, just because we find their dictators to be harmful to nations besides our own. The fact is, I don't recall America being designated the "World Police" by a good majority of nations, let alone the United Nations, who doesn't agree with our attack, either.

I think America's sacrifice in giving up the hope that most or all of our former allies will come to our side ever again was not worth the so-called terrorist threat Saddam posed to, who? His own country?

Bad move, USA.

 

[jgreenwo]

All you pro-Bushitters say the same pile of nonsense all the time- Saddam was a mass murder and needed to be taken out. We were not originally after him for being a mass murderer; we were after him for WMD. And when North Korea and Iran are mentioned, you dodge that completely. If we were after mass murders, we would be taking care of the Darfur massacres by use of military, overthrown Kim, overthrown Castro, and overthrown Iran's government. Why haven't we did it? North Korea is a very hostile state and has even threatened nuclear retaliation against the US! A country with ballistic missles as advanced as North Korea's which could hit anywhere in the west coast of the US, shouldn't be taken lightly especially when they could attach a warhead onto one of those missles. Saddam wasn't taken lightly, and he even complied with the UN. Kim isn't complying with anyone and keeps on threatening. You point the fingers at the countries that refuse to help with Iraq, and all you're left with is three fingers pointing back at you. You're drowning in your own hypocracy and digging yourself deeper and deeper into the ground.

Well, for one, North Korea, which everyone likes to mention, doesn't have the history that Iraq does. Iraq's track record is much worse. Also, we were already in the vicinity of Iraq, so proximity is another important factor here. Also, Saddam did NOT comply with the UN at all. He ignored UN resolutions and cheated and abused the UN. Take the oil for food program for instance? Tell me how you think Saddam complied with the UN on that one? I'm not saying North Korea isn't a nation we should worry about, but they weren't the immediate threat that Iraq was. You try to make it seem like we are doing nothing about North Korea also. That is not true. The US, Russia, China, Japan, and South Korea have been putting a lot of pressure on North Korea to curb its nuclear program. North Korea says it is willing to freeze its nuclear program in exchange for a security guarantee from Washington that the United States will not attack. I wonder why all of a sudden they want to comply? It's because they know that we attacked Iraq and they don't want us to do the same thing to them.

Kerry along with the whole nation of the US was convinced that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. The whole Iraq buying enriched uranium from Africa was a total fib along with Iraq being involved with Al Queda. Now all of a sudden because nothing you were looking for was found in Iraq, it must be in another country- possibly Syria, Yemen, or even Iran. This is not how you run a military. You have real evidence, real facts, and real missions. I bet I could find some bum off the streets more capable of running the CIA than who we have now.

Oh, and I suppose you know how to run a military? Bush and Congress disagreed with you when they voted FOR the war, but I'm sure you know much more than them. It wasn't just a single source of internal intelligence either. We got word from Russia stating that Iraq did, in fact, have WMD's. The information that we had at the time seemed legitimate and it was obviously enough, even for Kerry. It's pretty easy for him to turn around now and say it was wrong, because he isn't in the same position as the President. If it was Kerry who had been President at the time and he invaded Iraq instead of Bush, he would be in the same position right now. Nothing leads me to believe that he wouldn't have done it either. He voted for it. I'm sure intelligence officials and a lot of top advisors were pushing for it too.

And yes, since we are in Iraq already we must finish the job. But Bush needs to leave office before we do get into war with Syria or another country that "might" possess these weapons and leave Iran and NK to get more dangerous. You don't use the military because you feel that it needs to be used. You need to have convincing evidence first, which Bush never had from the start so that whole uranium from Africa was probably just a lie on Tenet's part.

Yeah, and don't forget about Russia. It wasn't just Tenet who was at fault here. I'm sure that Iran and North Korea will be dealt with the best way that we can manage. For now, our goal is to finish in Iraq. No, you don't use the military when you feel that it needs to be used, you use the military when you feel that it needs to be used and the President of the United States and Congress vote to approve the use of it. I just don't see how you can argue against that. It wasn't just Bush who wanted to go to war. A lot of other people voted for this war, and a lot of people in the US were for it at the time we went in.

Since Saddam, most of his followers, and sons were all found in Iraq, it should tell you that no one is helping Saddam in any way. So, what country could these Weapons of Mass Disappearance possibly be in?

That doesn't tell me anything. Just because they never made it out of Iraq doesn't mean anything except they didn't escape. The fact is, we don't have WMD's, and no one knows if they were ever there or if they are still hidden somewhere. We are there though, and pretty much everyone can agree that we just need to finish what we started over there, WMD's or not. We all know that the reason for invading was to remove Saddam and get rid of WMD's. We haven't been successful in finding any WMD's, but it's a little too late to sit around and keep saying how we were wrong.

Are we the world police? You bet your ass we are! Who else is going to do it? If we sit around and let dictatorships run rampant, we will suffer the consequences unless we stop it while we can.

Well, I must disagree. One nation should not rule over every other nation. This is why the United Nations has been founded and why most countries have joined it. The United Nations sets rules and regulations and acts like the world police ran by countries and not country. Do you think one country policing every other country is going to be better off than if a majority of the countries policed each other? I guess this is why you conservatives decided to say the hell with the UN and invade Iraq with your massive coalition of US troops.

The UN has proven to be ineffective. The countries that were adamantly opposed to the war have been exposed for being corrupt and acting against UN regulations. To answer your question, yes, I do think the US alone is doing a better job than the UN. I personally, don't give a damn what the UN thinks if US interests are at stake. If we, as a nation, feel like there is something that must be done, that is our number one priority, not what a bunch of assholes who are selling weapons to Saddam and accepting bribes think. You think I trust the UN now? Not is the least. If you read the Duelfer Report, it will explain how Saddam used certain strategies to persaude key officials in the UN into doing what he wanted. The UN is a joke to me.

-Thinks about the 100+ suitcase bombs (potential of killing over 1 million people) missing from the former Soviet Union and Bush's concern over that Vs. Iraq.

You think these are the only missing weapons out there? There's been shitloads of missing weapons throughout the years which have never been recovered. I'm sure that Bush knows about it, but you'd be naive to think that we can go after every stockpile of weapons that turns up missing. It's not realistic.

 

[jgreenwo]

Everything you said about Saddam is true, J Green, yet you're failing to understand that America is not in great enough shape to go around starting wars with other countries, just because we find their dictators to be harmful to nations besides our own. The fact is, I don't recall America being designated the "World Police" by a good majority of nations, let alone the United Nations, who doesn't agree with our attack, either.

I think America's sacrifice in giving up the hope that most or all of our former allies will come to our side ever again was not worth the so-called terrorist threat Saddam posed to, who? His own country?

Bad move, USA.

Well, I think it's just something you have to look at and decide which is going to cause the most harm down the road. There are always going to be problems within the US, no matter what we do or how much money we spend to try to fix them. That sucks, but it's a reality. If we ignore international threats for too long, then it may cause us much more harm in the future than any internal problems would.

As for the UN, I have already pointed out in some other posts as to why a few of UN members were against the war. Self-interest was their motivation. As for our allies, I don't ever really expect any help anyway. We've done so much for other nations ever since the Revolutionary War, and haven't gotten much in return, probably never will.

It wasn't just Saddam. It has to be known that this type of behavior cannot and will not be accepted. If Saddam does that kind of stuff and gets away with it, what's going to stop other nations from acting in the same fashion? The longer that it's tolerated, the more the world community becames an unsafe place.

 

[jgreenwo]

I saw this a couple of months ago, and I just watched it again and it's hilarious!

http://www.jibjab.com

There are two funny movies on there, but the best one is "This Land."

 

[Anguish]

You know what? It's like choosing between a douche and a turd sandwich.

Lol at the South Park reference.

 

[JSOOGZ]

If Kerry wins the whole country is going to hell

 

[jmills]

Bush won but, never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. I present to you 4 more years of lies, unprovoked wars with the wrong countries, and a soaring national deficit. Diplomacy is dead, long live the king.



BUllSHit '04