Bush

I don't think we exhausted all of our options before we jumped into war mode and sent our troops over there. If nothing else, we know now that our leaders' desicions were based on bad intelligence that was probably not even checked over with any great deal of caution. That alone is enough to make me stand against the desicion to put our soldiers in harm's way. I complain about this war because I don't want to see our soldiers die for what might be an unjust cause. Yes, I am thankful that they are willing to put their lives on the line for me, but that should only happen in a case where national defense like this is necessary. It is a difficult desicion for any president to make that results in our troops being placed into battle, and so such a desicion should weigh very heavily on the entire administration. Saddam posed no proven threat to the US, and I have yet to hear any factual argument about finding WMDs. There are rogue nations out there with a nuclear arsenal that we should probably be more focused on.

But Saddam was a cruel leader, if you can even call him a leader, towards his own people. The question I wrestle with is whether or not the US should make themselves the international police and get involved unilaterally. I lean towards no, although every situation is different. I may be a long-haired lefty liberal, but I'm no pacifist. Certain situations require force. But we need to be sure of what those situations are. Terrorists and dictators operate under the principal "might makes right" - we should be careful not to do the same by acting unilaterally or else we shall have something in common with them.

But in this situation things are obviously different than they have been in the past. There is no clear cut villain here, perhaps with the exception of Saddam, but even in his case there was no clear link between him and Al Qaeda (I don't care what you say about it, if we don't know for certain, then we don't know for certain). For the purposes of argument, I don't place him in relation to world wide terrorist attacks, only those within his country against his own people, of which he committed numerous horrible crimes.

The 'war on terror' is a very strange thing, It's not like going to war with Germany in 1939 or even Vietnam which was messed up enough in its own right. Al Qaeda by itself does not represent ALL terrorism, just a portion of it led by certain people. Fighting terrorism requires more 'behind the veil' work than bullets and bombs, and I don't see that happening here. This will not be a quick fight, and there will be no simple division between the winners and the losers, if it ever ends, where the winners can make demands of the losers and put new laws in place to keep them in check. So when our leader makes it seem otherwise, I know he is not telling me the truth or he is ignorant of the real situation. Who we elect to this position holds an great deal of power, so be careful. Don't make a choice based on petty partisan side shots. The next president is going to have a real, lasting influence in the world during this unprecedented time in history.

ohh so you would rather have a president that changes mind way to much and bases his actions on what the polls say ?? some president we would have
Do you have any other "options" that would have worked to get sadam out of power? He was a dictator and wasnt just going to step down because we told him too...

Weelll, I suspect it would be better than having one that just buggered off (Circa 1973) like good old dubuyu ! First he finds his way into a rich kids regiment that is never ever going to see active duty, and even that proves too tough for him (had to get his hair permed at a republican bash up in MA !). He lets his flight status laps and is never heard from again, despite having signed a document that says...I will serve for another 2 years !!!

It is all in todays paper folks, now go figure !

Didn't you guys just say that the past record doens't mena anything, and just when the past record has something bad to say about a republican it does??? Is kerry rubbing off on you guys??

Not saying you specifically Dr. Simon, I'm just saying.

The point is that we live in a world community. If we are going to ignore our allies and launch a major campaign, then there is no point to the existence of the UN and it might as well be abolished. Its not about 'options'. Yes he needed to be taken out of power, I was all for it. But if there was no direct threat to the US, then it was not up to us to go in there and pluck him out while ignoring the UN. If there was a direct threat to the US, then fine lets do it. But there has to be a participation of nations in the former case.

Secondly, the president does not operate in a vacuum. All this talk about Bush and Kerry seems to be based on the idea that they will be left alone to do what they please. Not so. it would be impossible for one man to do all that work. Hence all the cronies we lovingly refer to as the administration. Kerry may change his mind often as a senator voting on bills and other such things, but as president you have countless people that assist you, get you information, keep you up to date, etc. It's more than voting yes or no on a bill. And even in the case of a senator its not always so simple, you've got to please your state, all kinds of special interest groups, not to mention a personal agenda many politicians carry in their back pocket.

There is a name for people who ignore the past and do not learn from there mistakes, it is a medical name, does anyone know what it is ?

I'll give you a clew, it's not democrat (that was a joke !!) !

To add to ekstasis16's very perceptive comments it is not even as simple as that as voting on bill is not all it appears, what with riders, party whips, people to whom you owe favors etc etc ! It is a complicated business !

hahahaha, thats exactly why i think this page has some funny commentary on politics....
http://maddox.xmission.com/repubs.html

its pretty funy stuff.

I'm not american , so military records and stuff is none of my buisiness, and I don't know or care wether Kerry made mistakes in the past , or Bush used his father's connections to stay off the war in Vietnam ... But what I know quite well is that Bush is one hell of a LIAR nowadays , and I still can't comprehend how he get away with each lie he tells in a speeches or interviews.


Here are some lies for you guys:

1) Told his people to go to war for dangerous WMDs Saddam possessed when he was sure they don't exist.
2) Economy is better . :rolleyes:
3) America and the world are now safer. How's that ? :confused:
4) He'll get out of Iraq if the Iraqi people asked him to (pretending that he never cared for Iraq's oil).
That's why america disposed "Ahmed Chalabi" (their fav guy before war) just as he said he wanted america to get out of Iraq very soon , and put a new government of 100% Iraqi puppets , who are claimed to have full power and independence , which is a very silly joke.
5) He claims that he doesn't have anything to do with the campaign against Kerry's military record , which is hard to believe IMHO.

Originally Posted by: SLYI'm not american , so military records and stuff is none of my buisiness, and I don't know or care wether Kerry made mistakes in the past , or Bush used his father's connections to stay off the war in Vietnam ... But what I know quite well is that Bush is one hell of a LIAR nowadays , and I still can't comprehend how he get away with each lie he tells in a speeches or interviews.


Here are some lies for you guys:

1) Told his people to go to war for dangerous WMDs Saddam possessed when he was sure they don't exist.
2) Economy is better . :rolleyes:
3) America and the world are now safer. How's that ? :confused:
4) He'll get out of Iraq if the Iraqi people asked him to (pretending that he never cared for Iraq's oil).
That's why america disposed "Ahmed Chalabi" (their fav guy before war) just as he said he wanted america to get out of Iraq very soon , and put a new government of 100% Iraqi puppets , who are claimed to have full power and independence , which is a very silly joke.
5) He claims that he doesn't have anything to do with the campaign against Kerry's military record , which is hard to believe IMHO.

WMD's not found!!!!! Saddam used them on his own people. They did find gas lodged in missles for your information. But they did not find nuclear weapons though.

Economy is better, but is not good, you have to listen to his wording. :)

America is safer, saddam is gone, he was a threat to America, he had an army, and he hated us.

Bush is not that dumb where he would wage a war for oil. Im sorry you guys miight diagree, but he's not that dumb.

Saddam was most definitely not a threat to us. Maybe to his neighbors, but not us.

Dreamryche, Hussein isn't the only pesron who killed his own people.

George Bush killed more people in the state of Texas by capital Punishment than any governor in U.S History. What do you say to that, They deserved it?. If you agree to that, than you can argue that the Kurds deserved it too.

~Incidents

I love the Daily Show. They analyze dubya's speeches so I don't have to waste hours of my life reading them. In a speech he gave about a month ago, he actually used the phrase "America is safer" about 18 times. Jon Stewart remarked, "Apparently the Bush administration's newest tactical strategy in the war on terror is......repetition."

That phrase is complete bull. America, or any other nation terrorists choose to target, is not any safer than it was before 9/11. The only difference is that we're now aware of the extent that it exists. In fact, I'd argue that America is less safe now since we've drawn such negative attention to ourselves over the past couple years. There all coming out of the woodwork now, and right or wrong, you can't deny their anger, faith, or conviction.

This week's Newsweek has an article by Fareed Zakaria, one of my favorite Newsweek writers. I'd like to repeat a few quotes from the article:

"Islamic fundamentalists with armed militias - our deepest enemies in the war on terror - now run several cities in Iraq. Moqtada al-Sadr has just emerged from a clash against the United States with his militia unharmed and his reputation enhanced. Support for the United States, which was around 70 percent at the start of the occupation, is now under 5 percent. President Bush mocked press reports detailing the problems in Iraq, comparing them to gloomy accounts of Germany in 1946. If the president really thinks that Iraq today looks like Germany in 1946 - an advanced industrial country with a long liberal tradition, centuries of experience with capitalism, the rule of law and a defeated population that fully cooperated with American occupation—then he's in for a rude surprise."

"The Republican convention had two alternating approaches toward foreigners. On the one hand, it repeatedly ridiculed them. The cheapest applause lines in New York last week were ones that ended in "the French," "Paris," or, worst of all, "the United Nations," which was probably meant to conjure up images of envious Third Worlders plotting against America. On the other hand, Republicans constantly declared they were going to deliver the blessings of liberty to the far corners of the world. This is the party's dilemma—it wishes to spread liberty to people whom it doesn't really like."

Read the whole article here for better context:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5915512/site/newsweek/

If memory saves me, the main issue used to convince people that war is a necessity was the WMDs , nuke and missile capability of Saddam , it was even claimed by Blair (based upon inteligence reports) that Saddam can reach places in europe within 45min !!
Since nothing was found ,these inteligence reports (amercian & british) were either:
a) Fabricated , which means we've got lying adminstrations in both countries that lies even to their own people .
b) These reports resulted from hard working inteligence agents and were supposed to be true , but turned out to be the mess they were... That's even worse , cuz this means that both countries should apoligize & withdraw from Iraq , and never use their goddamn inteligence reports against anybody ever again. (I don't really believe that's the case)


Saddam was never, and could have never ever been a threat to the almighty america ... May be he was a threat to the region in 80's , but that was before invading Kuwait, being defeated, and contained by numerous sanctions.
By the way, I don't think that Saddam really hated america before 1990 ... He was heavily supported by america, which is actually what kept him in power for all these years inspite of all wars he got his people into.

Anyway, how is america safer with all the mess they got themselves into in Iraq (it's gonna be years before this ends, if Bush stays ) , having most of the world against american policies specialy Iraqies like those who do the kidnaping stuff and resistance in their homeland right now ... Possibly, these guys might find their way to carry out operations on american ground someday ... For most global viewers, I don't think it's gonna be a surprise if it happens.

Now, for the first time in history, they were even considering a possible delay in the election day if something came up ... Bush is definately sure that america is safer, yeah ?

I just remembered another lie , while preparing for the war, they even tried to link Saddam to Alqaeda and Bin Laden (which is the most ridiculous joke I've ever heard) , and I think Bush harped on that again few weeks ago or something ... I mean repeating lies that turned out to be lies, and still finds stupid people to believe.

I never said that Bush is dumb to wage a war for oil ... I only said he waged war for oil (& supremacy) , you added "dumb". ;)

Do you honestly believe that

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenDreamryche, Hussein isn't the only pesron who killed his own people.

George Bush killed more people in the state of Texas by capital Punishment than any governor in U.S History. What do you say to that, They deserved it?. If you agree to that, than you can argue that the Kurds deserved it too.

~Incidents

I don't mean to be rude or anything, but I do happen to disagree with your statement that captal punishment administered after due process of the law and Hussein's genocide of the Kurds are really comparable. But go ahead and argue that the Kurds deserved it, I want to see how one would go about doing that. While your at it, argue why the Jews deserved it, and argue why the Rwandans deserved it, and the Armenians, and the American Indians. Go ahead and argue why shameless genocide is in any way comparable to the death of a convicted murderer.

jolly...u read my mind

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI don't mean to be rude or anything, but I do happen to disagree with your statement that captal punishment administered after due process of the law and Hussein's genocide of the Kurds are really comparable. But go ahead and argue that the Kurds deserved it, I want to see how one would go about doing that. While your at it, argue why the Jews deserved it, and argue why the Rwandans deserved it, and the Armenians, and the American Indians. Go ahead and argue why shameless genocide is in any way comparable to the death of a convicted murderer.

You read my mind too.

Anyways, The Jews, and Kurds did nothing wrong... the people in texas murdered others, in the state of texas, it is legal to give the death penalty, and after due-process of law, it is up to the decision of the court wether or not the convicted get the death sentence.

The fact the Bush was governor has very little to do with it.

Thanks Pony for detailing what I very briefly touched on in my previous post. The reason we got into that war "FLIP-FLOPPED" so many damn times (WMD, links to Al Quada, he's a brutal dictator, we must bring democracy to the unfortunates, sellin' nukes, etc..) that it amazes me that they can point a finger and use that term. Again, I must reiterate how powerful Republicans are when it comes to spinning an issue.

Some of my favorite Republican misnomers are "The no child left behind" bill, which is an unfunded mandate that all but ensures that every child will be "left behind". And, of course, my absolute favorite, "The clean skies act", which lowers emissions levels allowing all the special interest groups that pull the strings of the Bush administration to pollute for profit.

Joe Average is like, "hey, I don't want any child left behind, and I like clean skies; conservative sounds better than liberal. Plus I don't have time to actually read up on the issues because Dr. Phil is on. I'll just do what the nice people on Fox News say to do, and then take the kids to Wal-Mart."

Not trying to be excessively mean, but alot is on the line, and I don't think choosing the next president should be taken lightly. This is merely my opinion and observation on how I view "Joe Average". I feel the public is lazy and misinformed.

P.S. Who do you think provides the most unbiased account of the news?

Originally Posted by: Leedogg... P.S. Who do you think provides the most unbiased account of the news?

[font=trebuchet ms]I find it instructive to observe that the CRTC (a Liberal government-appointed comissariat) allows CNN and Al Jazeerah but bars Fox from distribution on Canadian cable. CNN is just as nauseating in it's Lib-left bias as our own unloved CBC. The CBC is Canada'a version of the TASS news agancy in old "Mother Russia". A government-controlled propaganda machine.[/font] :mad: