How many of you..

[Zombie]

"Bush bashers" are even old enough to vote or are even registered to vote? Do you vote? 90% this liberal ranting looks like the work of high school kids that should be learning instead of wating time on a subject which they have no say on. Kids dont pay taxes, kids dont vote, and most kids dont know enough about politics to make an informed choice. The others just hate Bush just to hate, and like Kerry just because he isnt Bush. Well, rest assured, kids, that President George Walker Bush WILL be re-elected this November, and he has MY vote. You can go eat at John Kerry's Waffle House if you like. That is, if you DO vote. If you dont vote, you cant complain.

-Z

[Wolffy13]

::high-fives Zombie and tosses a bag of skittles to him::

I believe are few of them are old enough, so yeah, they can keep gritchin' if they want. As for the younger ones, I'm with Zombie. Do they even know what Bush and Kerry represent? These are the people that help run the country, so you don't want just any idiot sitting in the White House.

Not to mention, I think John Kerry has an ominous resemblance to Clinton ::shudders::

[kat]

I'm old enough to vote. I've registered. I follow politics like a hawk (both national and international), so I know what Bush is doing and the outside perspectives. I also sit here and wonder why it is that I frequently have to go to non-US news sites just to get a valid article on something that my government is doing?

Now, as a Bushite, do you know what's going on? I get the impression that neither of you do. Wolffy made a comment about Clinton, but how is that even slightly relative? He's another Democrat. WOOOOO! Big resemblance. What an ignorant comment to make. *shakes her finger*

I know what Bush is about, and it's disgusting that his father's power and money has gotten him to where he is today. Kerry worked his way to where he is. Bush sat on his ass. Fuck that. I want a non-idiot for a President just once.

And Zombie, you can take your false hopes and shove them up your politically ignorant assage.


Edit: Adding links, because no good political post is worth it without a link

http://www.ontheissues.org/Issues.htm
http://factcheck.org/default.aspx

Edit: Besides, Kerry wants John McCain as his Secretary of Defense (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty pe=politicsNews&storyID=5120562). How freaking awesome is that?!

[kaycee]

I don't vote, never have. I just simply don't care who rules the country. It doesn't matter who does. Whoever gets in, is going to change significantly once they're president anyway. The have to, circumstances change and they have to go with the flow.

Besides, no matter who is president, some will love him, some will hate him. Both have their reasons. Then you have people like me who just don't care.

We agree with our presidents on some things, and not other things. That's the way it goes.

[kat]

One Thousand Reasons: (http://www.thousandreasons. org/listB.html) Documenting the failures of the Bush administration

[blueeyes]

Last time I checked, Kat, Kerry married into his money (or at least is kind enough to leave it under his wife's name). And is pretty darn Republican, for someone with a liberal claim to fame. See "political compass".

And I do have to agree with them on one point. Given that Bush's rankings haven't sunk in the polls even with the Iraq situation as it is, he isn't going to lose.

Finally, since stupid will come up again...
Another IQ expert, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute, the co-author of the bestseller "The Bell Curve," came up with a similar result when asked by UPI. Noting that everybody except high school dropouts takes the PSAT when they are sophomores, Murray calculated from PSAT scores that "I think you're safe in saying that Dubya's IQ, based on his SAT score, is in excess of 120, which puts him the top 10 percent of the distribution, but I wouldn't try to be more precise than that."
I couldn't find the SAT score for Kerry.

[kat]

Last time I checked, Kat, Kerry married into his money (or at least is kind enough to leave it under his wife's name). And is pretty darn Republican, for someone with a liberal claim to fame. See "political compass".

And I do have to agree with them on one point. Given that Bush's rankings haven't sunk in the polls even with the Iraq situation as it is, he isn't going to lose.

Finally, since stupid will come up again...

I couldn't find the SAT score for Kerry.
Blueeyes, I was never concerned with a candidate's political orientation. I'm actually neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, and frequently make fun of both parties. Honestly speaking, I feel that it's inept to have a bipartisian system in this day and age.

Also, I'm not concerned with a candidate having money so much as what they do with it.

Bush's rankings have sunk, if you've paid attention, and Kerry has a damn good chance. 6 months is forever in politics (look at Dean). With McCain as Kerry's Defense Secretary, that could boost him even farther.

As for Kerry's SAT score, I tried to find it a while ago too, and came up with nothing. I'll try again tonight. It's worth mentioning that even my SAT score is higher than Bush's, and the SATs were easier back then--and I fell asleep during my reading portion.

[Zombie]

Kerry also offered McCain the VP spot, but McCain turned him down after thinking about it.

Kat,I take it you are a registered Independant (libertarian, right?) Partisanship aside, I dont think that we will have an indie president untill around 2030. And Dems and Reps will still be bithching at each other. (And I liked Mr Graph and Charts himself, Ross Perot.)

I m not basing my vote this november on what a candidate if for, but what he is against. I look at voting records, and frankly, Kerry is about as fake as they come. He likes to brag about hunting, then goes and votes for a whole slew of anti-gun laws. Being a proud Conservative, I am staunchly PRO-gun. (But dont think I am a bible thumping christian conservative - Im not a part of any religion. I dont need a bible to get my point across. A aeithiest canservitive? A rarity, but yes, I am.) I vote for the candidate that has the most in common with my morality and has voted the way I would on issues. (And before anyone jumps on the abortion bandwagon, let it be known that I dont have a position on the arguement. Abort or dont abort, I dont care. Fight amongst yourselves.) Bush has consistently gone with my line of thinking on a whole lot of issues, and against on only a few. Kerry has consistently gone against. This guy is a chameleon! Listen to his speeches change depending on where he happens to be at the time he gives them. He brags about owning SUVs and such on Detroit, and then on Earth Day, saying that his family owns them. I guess they own his private jet and huge yaght too. Oh, and he buys American, what with that Audi that his Family owns. And his hatred twards "Bennidict Arnold" companies, with his wifes buisiness having 80% of its jobs done overseas. (And anyone who thinks he isnt using his wifes money is quite foolish, as he clearly has been and is (still) doing.)

Ive ranted enough but there will always be Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, and the right and the left. Decide what side of the aisle you sit on, and vote the way you see is right.

Like I said earlier, If you dont vote, you cant complain.

-Z

[kat]

Text text text etc etc etc blah blah blah text I never said that I felt we should have a Libertarian president. You people, stop putting words in my mouth, and stop making these baseless assumptions. Just because that I choose not to affialiate myself with either of the main parties doesn't mean that I choose to affiliate myself and my votes with another party. I will make my voting decisions based upon which candidate fits that roll at that period of time.

Furthermore, no one person will ever have my support without rhyme or reason. I want Kerry because Bush is simply the worst President that we may have had since Nixon.

Meanwhile, I think it's funny that you're attacking stupid aspects of Kerry, all of which have little to do with his possible role as President. Even funnier because Bush has either done these same things, or done worse things. Kerry can boast all he wants, I don't really give a damn. I'm more concerned with his actual actions. Bush fucks up our country. Kerry hasn't done that yet. Bush destroys our environment, our educational system, our economy, our position in global society, and --speaking of buying american-- outsources much more than Dell does.

And for the heck of it:
Liberal a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Conservative a. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
b. Traditional or restrained in style.
c. Moderate; cautious.
Yeaaaaah, I'd much rather be considered a liberal than a conservative, though I am neither.

BAM! Let's take it up a notch!

[Klark]

Well, my party is NON. I do have to point out that as much as you say Kerry two faces, what about Bush? The whole State of the Union was a rack of lies, not to mention he stated that he wouldn't help rebuild another country until this one was running at peak efficiency. I know he didn't use those words, he'd stutter too much, but you get my point. I'm not really for any candidate that's running, I'm just looking for the candidate who's done the least amount of damage while holding a political office. I will vote against Bush though, I just have to. I live by the ecomony, literally. I make my living by picking up people at tourist places like casino's. Bad economy, less vacations, less people and now I've pawned a lot of what I worked very hard to get just to keep things going. As far as I'm concerned, that warrants a Bye Bye Bushy in my opinion.

[Darth Cluich]

Bush fucks up our country. Kerry hasn't done that yet.

Only because Kerry hasn't been in the White House...

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Only because Kerry hasn't been in the White House...

Still he can't be worse.

[Darth Cluich]

Still he can't be worse.

It's impossible to know that for certain.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

It's impossible to know that for certain.

For certain no but still he'd have to work pretty hard to do it.

[blueeyes]

Although I find it strange that you say Bush didn't do anything but shrug off Kerry's marrying into money and power, I don't know the whole story.

As for Bush screwing up education... please read over the links you give before you throw stuff around : http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=1 62 . Admittedly, I don't think he's helped it much, but he hasn't screwed it completely, at least no more than previous elections

And when it comes to the liberal conservative debate, I point out that attempting to reform all aspects of a society can be much worse than attempting to keep the society the same. The Dark Ages have good points compared to the absolute alternative. So keep the middle ground open, as well as the medium definitions: things in moderation.

[kaycee]

I shouldn't get involved because I don't vote and really don't follow politics at all. But, is all this Bush hatred because of the war? If so, what do any of you think another president would have done?

Actually, put yourself in the president's seat...what would you have done?

I'm just curious. It'd be kind of cool to see how we would have handled it. Or anything else he's messed up (in your opinion) so much for that matter.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Well I'm sure any other president would have fucked up almost as bad *cough* Clinton *cough* and I'm not sure what I would have done in Iraq but in the "War" on terror I certainly wouldn't have done what he did and go bombing places and making more mad terrorists who hate the west. I would have possibly thought that maybe there's a reason these people hate us enough to die and possibly try fixing the mess I and my country had made so that nobody want's our blood anymore.
But thats just me maybe I'm just to reasonable. Who knows?

[kaycee]

I think I would have done what Bush did. Granted, Osama bin Laden was the culprit in 911 (?) and not Hussein. But, a terrorist is a terrorist. For all I know, they both were. (see, I don't follow this shit)

The main concern is terrorist. Hussein was a serious threat to the world so I would have taken him out too. I would have given warning, just like Bush did. ( We had no damn warning about 911, at least nothing as direct as the warning given to Hussein).
I would have gotten the Iraqi civilians to safety, or given them the chance to get the hell out of dodge, as Bush did.
Then if Hussein did not comply, I would have done anything I could to capture him. As Bush did.
Right now, we have one less extremely dangerous terrorist to worry about.

As far as the weapons of destruction. We know he has them. Just because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they aren't there.

Just because we can't find bin Laden, doesn't mean he isn't there. We know he is.

I just can't fathom the idea that some have of not reacting to 911 the way the U.S. did.

Terrorist flew our planes into our buildings and caused mass destrustion. They did this, not us. There had to be war. There was no other way. Other than to sit back and do nothing. That's just like saying " Shit, that hurt. Oh well...can't do nothing about it".
Fuck that, I for one am glad we faught back. I'm not glad about the casualties, but in war that's the way it goes.

Yeah, terrorist hate us . But, they always did. They were always a threat, so what's the difference now? One less. Which is better than nothing.

This was a war about fear against freedom. Not just for us, but for the world.

[kaycee]

I would have possibly thought that maybe there's a reason these people hate us enough to die

These people (terrorists) are trained from childhood to become suicide terrorist. It's part of their religion.

[Wolffy13]

kat, I respect you. You know what you're talking about and what's going on and you don't fear exercising your right to speak your mind, in politics or anything else for that matter.

I won't ever claim that Bush is a saint. The war on terror is like saying you'll never die, in my opinion and I really wanted a tax break last summer too, dammit! I could of used an extra $400 at the time. I do believe Hussein needed to go, although I will be honest and say that I'm not sure how it came to such. It seemed like it was all about 9/11 and then somehow it shifted to Hussein. Granted I was a brand-spanking new newlywed with a promotion into a stressful job at the time who lived in a home where I could not receivce radio, tv, or internet of any kind. My point is that I feel comfortable with Bush (about as comfortable as you're gonna' get) and when you vote, people generally tend to vote for the guy that represents you more. Problem with Bush is that he has shortcomings, like EVERY person does.

Wolffy made a comment about Clinton, but how is that even slightly relative? He's another Democrat. WOOOOO! Big resemblance. What an ignorant comment to make. *shakes her finger*

Remember how Bush sent our troops to Yugoslavia or Bosnia or whatever that place is called anymore, to help fight maintain peace? Why was it when Clinton sent troops away no one made a peep? When Bush did it there was non-stop bitching three ways from Sunday! I suppose that's the media for you.

I wouldn't give the media a lot of credit either. They're out to make a buck and America likes to see blood and gore. Negativity sells!

[kat]

Actually, I have my doubts that "no one made a peep", but since that was so long ago, there really isn't any easy way for me to look that up.

I do seem to remember a big hullabaloo over the military accidentally bombing a factory that made "WMDs", and afterwards it turned out that they manufactured aspirin.

Mind you, I was a short person when all this happened.

[Darth Cluich]

Remember how Bush sent our troops to Yugoslavia or Bosnia or whatever that place is called anymore, to help fight maintain peace? Why was it when Clinton sent troops away no one made a peep? When Bush did it there was non-stop bitching three ways from Sunday! I suppose that's the media for you.


Um...it was Clinton who sent troops to the Balkans and got NATO to back the bombing campaign in 1998 (Operation Allied Force) that ousted Milosevic, not Bush. Please, if you're going to post, make sure you get your facts straight.

[Note: I was the same height then as I am now. ;) ]

[Wolffy13]

Um...it was Clinton who sent troops to the Balkans and got NATO to back the bombing campaign in 1998 (Operation Allied Force) that ousted Milosevic, not Bush. Please, if you're going to post, make sure you get your facts straight.

Thanks, that's what I meant ;) . You'll have to forgive me,
1) I had a deep political conversation with my dad before I posted that, so I had a lot in my head at the time.
2) If my spelling for any reason has been crappy lately it's because I am wearing mew acrylic nails and had them sculpted to be pretty long. I sometimes slip, but I manage to catch most errors, thankfully :)

People did make a peep about it, it just wasn't nearly the angry roar like it is today. People will always gripe about the current president. I just think if you're going to bitch, then know what you're bitching about (I'm not making direct insinuations to anyone here either)

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

You see the thing with that was Clinton didn't go against the UN or the majority population of his allies. And I was small back too then so I'm not sure what the story with Iraq was with him but Kosovo as far as I can tell was justified (but I'm not sure of the facts so...)
And Kaycee did you expect them to sit back while the US fucked them about. Their not out to get you 'cos they hate freedom their fighting for themselves. If you wan't to solve the issue of terrorism you have to look to the cause and why these people are really doing this.

[kaycee]

And Kaycee did you expect them to sit back while the US fucked them about. Their not out to get you 'cos they hate freedom their fighting for themselves. If you wan't to solve the issue of terrorism you have to look to the cause and why these people are really doing this.


Where did I say I expect them to sit back? I didn't.

Why did 911 have to happen? What was their reason? How does 911 justify them fighting for themselves?

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Where did I say I expect them to sit back? I didn't.

Why did 911 have to happen? What was their reason? How does 911 justify them fighting for themselves?

Sorry didn't mean to put words in your mouth just compairing you not wanting the US to sit back so why would they.

And 9/11 didn't have to happen put it did and you have to think why? These fanatics are Muslim right and who has America been funding the killing of in Isreal/Palastine? Umm...

[Wolffy13]

You see the thing with that was Clinton didn't go against the UN or the majority population of his allies. And I was small back too then so I'm not sure what the story with Iraq was with him but Kosovo as far as I can tell was justified (but I'm not sure of the facts so...)

Sometimes, you have to go against authority, as long as the situation warrants it. I'm not saying anyone should defy their parents or teachers, local authorities, etc., but look at the situation now. No, we never found those weapons of mass destruction, but the Iraqi people no longer have to fear Saddam.

That bastard (and I do mean bastard amongst other derogatory terms I will currently refrain from) was friggin' sick! It's unbelieveable how many of his own people he would slaughter. His sons were also sick bastards. My brother shared a story about one of them, I'm not sure which one exactly, encountered a honeymooning couple, killed the groom, raped the bride and then killed her. Now that's disgustingly inhumane! I tell you what, it kind of gives you a whole new perspective when you view their autopsy photos on rotten.com.

Basically, those people don't have to worry about that anymore. However, if Bush hadn't done what he did, where would the Iraqi people be? I know I would be relieved.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

I know Saddam was sick but the UN who have more accsess than we do to these storys didn't feel it was warrented so...

Also I know that if I were Iraqi I'd be happier without Saddam but look at it now, latest polls show that most of the country would have rathered him so that makes it the UN, the Iraqi people and most of the rest of the world that didn't want it

[Wolffy13]

Also I know that if I were Iraqi I'd be happier without Saddam but look at it now, latest polls show that most of the country would have rathered him so that makes it the UN, the Iraqi people and most of the rest of the world that didn't want it

That statement kind of confused me, I guess I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Although, why would anyone want war? It's no where near civilized, people inevitably die, and it's completely unfair. No one ever wants war. The problem with war is that it's life and it does happen. It's part of the balance. Light & Darkness, Good & Evil, Love & Hate, Peace & War. It sucks, but it happens.

If I hot the nail on the head at all, or completely missed, do enlighten me as to what you happened to have meant.

[Le Bete]

I am old enough to vote, I am registered to vote and I do vote.

[Werewolf91]

Kids dont pay taxes, kids dont vote, and most kids dont know enough about politics to make an informed choice.

Yes, because I don't pay taxes and can't vote yet means I'm completely ignorant of what's going on in my country. :rolleyes:

I look at the news. I read the headlines. I know what's going on. I can make an informed choice.

[LV426]

"Bush bashers" are even old enough to vote or are even registered to vote? Do you vote? 90% this liberal ranting looks like the work of high school kids that should be learning instead of wating time on a subject which they have no say on. Kids dont pay taxes, kids dont vote, and most kids dont know enough about politics to make an informed choice. The others just hate Bush just to hate, and like Kerry just because he isnt Bush. Well, rest assured, kids, that President George Walker Bush WILL be re-elected this November, and he has MY vote. You can go eat at John Kerry's Waffle House if you like. That is, if you DO vote. If you dont vote, you cant complain.

-Z
While there may be people on this forum that are not yet of an age to vote, I see it as a positive movement that they are involved in politics at all. You see those who are under age and can't vote, drink, smoke, or pay taxes, can sometimes see a clearer picture of what is going on. Perhaps you don't like to see people bashing Bush, I am just happy that there are people actually participating in discussions on the boards. More and more young people are taking an avid interest in the world around them. You may not like it because those people don't share your views, but I like it because kids eventually become adults. And adults eventually need to vote. These kids have a head start on beginning a life of decisions.

While there are some that believe that their vote doesn't count that isn't entirely true. True the president is determined by the electoral college, but local legislations are determined by a vote. If even one kid casts a vote that changes a bad into a good, then I am all for having a board where everyone, of every age, and even from different countries, can come and discuss politics.


Now, I am of voting age. I am going to vote. I don't agree with the war. I don't agree with Bush. But at this point to pull out of Iraq would be a mistake so unfortunately we are going to have to finish it. I think it's actually going to take more of a show of power and force than the people and the president want to use. I don't think Kerry will use the force neccesary, and Bush won't until after the elections. Although I don't know if he ever will be able to declare a true war on Iraq. Politics and all.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

That statement kind of confused me, I guess I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Although, why would anyone want war? It's no where near civilized, people inevitably die, and it's completely unfair. No one ever wants war. The problem with war is that it's life and it does happen. It's part of the balance. Light & Darkness, Good & Evil, Love & Hate, Peace & War. It sucks, but it happens.

If I hot the nail on the head at all, or completely missed, do enlighten me as to what you happened to have meant.

Sorry I was saying that if I lived in Iraq I would be happier without Saddam too but according the polls (I'll look for them to post) their not happier so that throws the whole end justifying the means thing out the window.

[Wolffy13]

Sorry, I had been hiding for the past few days, I tend to do that :D

Sorry I was saying that if I lived in Iraq I would be happier without Saddam too but according the polls (I'll look for them to post) their not happier so that throws the whole end justifying the means thing out the window.

You're right, they're not happy. How could you be happy when you don't know what to do next? That's the thing about tyrants, they keep you stupid so they can remain almighty and in power. You certainly wouldn't tell your people how to overthrow you.

Now, they are faced with governing their country themselves and they don't know how to do it. Think of the stress that situation would give you. I can't say I'd be smiling, but at least they don't have to worry about being tortured if they say something derogatory about Saddam. Life sucks, ya' know ? :shrug:

[Blazer]

I can't say I'd be smiling, but at least they don't have to worry about being tortured if they say something derogatory about Saddam. Life sucks, ya' know ? :shrug:
No, they now have to worry about being tortured by the Americans & British if they say something against them (or look like a terrorist).

There's an old quote:
"It doesn't matter who you vote for; the government always get elected."

[kaycee]

Reconstructing their country isn't going to be easy, or happen over night. It will happen in time and they will be happy once they are free from all of Hussein's residue, which is what all of this is.

Right now, it's like getting rid of cancer residue off of one's body. The tumor has been removed, now it's time to clean up and get healthy. It will happen. Problems may occur, but in the end it'll all be worth it.

[Wolffy13]

Reconstructing their country isn't going to be easy, or happen over night. It will happen in time and they will be happy once they are free from all of Hussein's residue, which is what all of this is.

Yeah, I believe that. The air definitely needs to be cleared out, so to speak. I mean, think of how it was when the Berlin wall came down. The east Germans had a lot of catching up to do, epesecially to their technologically advanced counter-part west Germany.



No, they now have to worry about being tortured by the Americans & British if they say something against them (or look like a terrorist).

Aren't you referring to life as an Iraqi soldier, not a civilian? You know, my dad was telling me last week that he felt that some of these middle-eastern countries (although I imagine he means the majority of it being Muslim extremists) had been acting like Japan had been acting before we dropped the atomic bombs on them. Hear me out, here. These people just keep going and going and keep pissing people off and I do believe he's right when he told me that our passiveness had been the green light to keep going.

Now, I don't understand the psychology of a terrorist's mind, but it is obviously pretty damn demented. I don't know how the war has affected their thinking, although somehow, that beheading of an American seems to be a sign of persistance on their part, at least I would think.

Don't get me wrong, these days I have a hard time sqishing spiders, and I hate spiders with a passion, but I guess as time went on, I've grown respect for all life. I am in no way suggesting that we should do something as dramatic as what we did to Hiroshima and Osaka (I'm sure it was Osaka that I'm thinking of), but I had to admit to myself, it does make you think. It did make me wonder if things would actually change like Japan did.



By the way, before anyone gets offended, I'm basically being hypothetical

[Darth Cluich]

Some drastic display is needed, but we will never do it.

(And it was Nagasaki, not Osaka. ;) )

[LV426]

I think bombing the hell out of the Middle East at this point would be a very good idea. Just bomb the ever living shit out of them until they have no more resistance left. We've tried the peaceful shit, we've tried to be nice, but the time for peace is over and it's time to make a fucking statement and leave a mark.

[Darth Cluich]

Zigactly! I've been saying that for years! Problems with the Middle East? What? Ah, screw it! Lob a few nukes their way, turn the whole region into fused glass and make it a giant parking lot for Europe.

[LV426]

I was thinking a desert water park.


You know like mega log flumes, waterslides, typhoon lagoons. I think it could work.

[Wolffy13]

And it was Nagasaki, not Osaka.

Thanks, I was sure Osaka wasn't correct, but I had forgotten exactly. Guess I had an old and senile moment. :p

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Zigactly! I've been saying that for years! Problems with the Middle East? What? Ah, screw it! Lob a few nukes their way, turn the whole region into fused glass and make it a giant parking lot for Europe.

I hope to god you two are kidding.

[Blazer]

Aren't you referring to life as an Iraqi soldier, not a civilian? You know, my dad was telling me last week that he felt that some of these middle-eastern countries (although I imagine he means the majority of it being Muslim extremists) had been acting like Japan had been acting before we dropped the atomic bombs on them. Hear me out, here. These people just keep going and going and keep pissing people off and I do believe he's right when he told me that our passiveness had been the green light to keep going.

No I'm on about the civilians.
Here's a link. (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/tort-m03.shtml) Which comes from a socialist source but seems to have the majority of info in it.

Here for a less biased link. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14195963&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=outrage-at-american-torture-of-iraqi-prisoners-name_page.html)
Here's another. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1208408,00.ht ml)
Amnesty International has made these comments. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1208408,00.ht ml)

The Iraqis in Abu Ghraib are not just soldiers but anyone who has been picked up by the troops for whatever reason.
Remeber, when the US and UK denounce these as a few individual soldiers commiting the attrocites, that the Red Cross and others warned the governments of abuse three months ago. & our governments did nothing.

Also, these people we are denouncing are HUMAN. Just because they are from a different country or worship a different religion doesn't mean they are less human.
Hitler decided one group of humans was better than another. Shall we follow where he led?

[Blazer]

I think bombing the hell out of the Middle East at this point would be a very good idea. Just bomb the ever living shit out of them until they have no more resistance left. We've tried the peaceful shit, we've tried to be nice, but the time for peace is over and it's time to make a fucking statement and leave a mark.

Do you really want to live a world where whoever has the biggest gun wins?

[LV426]

Do you really want to live a world where whoever has the biggest gun wins?

Actually we do live in a world where whomever has the biggest gun wins.

Where have you been?

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Actually we do live in a world where whomever has the biggest gun wins.

Where have you been?

Actually I think she asked do you want to live in a world like that?

[LV426]

Actually I think she asked do you want to live in a world like that?

As long as I live in the country with the biggest gun. :D

[Wolf-Bone]

I'm the type of person that dislikes North America's system of glorified Monarchies, where only those born or married into the upper class have a hope in hell of getting elected into a position of any real power.


I think bombing the hell out of the Middle East at this point would be a very good idea. Just bomb the ever living shit out of them until they have no more resistance left. We've tried the peaceful shit, we've tried to be nice, but the time for peace is over and it's time to make a fucking statement and leave a mark.


....Yeah. On second thought...

[Blazer]

As long as I live in the country with the biggest gun. :D

That's the problem. How do we know those with the biggest guns are those who are best at leading the world?

[blueeyes]

As long as I live in the country with the biggest gun. :D
I dunno. It doesn't take the biggest gun to leave you dead. For example, whether it's the MOAB or a grenade that lands on your head, you're still screwed. I'd rather be in the place with the biggest shield.

[Wolffy13]

Do you really want to live a world where whoever has the biggest gun wins?

I, personally, don't see it as a matter of who has the biggest guns. I see it as a matter of whether or not we want to put up with their bullshit.

When we did drop the bombs on Japan, we did it to show them that enough was enough and no one was going to stand for it anymore. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Japanese soldiers were absolutely down right cruel during World War II. While they were in China, they would do things like fileting the Chinese men alive and raping the women when they felt like it. Just being really mean about it all,...kind of like those terrorists in the middle east.

Basically, it justs seems like history is trying to repeat itself in this particular instance.

[Blazer]

I'd agree that occasionally physical force is necessary to remove someone from power or to stop terrorist activity.

When doing this we must be sure that we don't become as bad as those we are trying to stop.
America has a constitution which it is proud of (and rightly so). Why does it think that this ceases to apply to foreigners whom are suspected of terrorism?

I keep hearing that the war is okay because 'they' are evil.
Who's 'they'?
Are 'they' the Iraqis working all day to earn money to feed their children; who walk their dogs in the park; who happen to disagree with us walking into their country?
Are 'they' the terrorists who we are fighting to protect our very existance?

When you drop a nuke on them how can you tell the difference?

Okay Sadaam needed to be taken from power. But why lie to us for the reasons for doing this? Why ignore basic human rights for prisoners of war?

Just some questions I'm seeking answers to.

[kaycee]

Okay Sadaam needed to be taken from power. But why lie to us for the reasons for doing this?

What's the lie you're refering to?

[Wolffy13]

When you drop a nuke on them how can you tell the difference?

That's the flaw in the plan, the bomb doesn't differentiate. That's why I'm not quick to advocate such an action. Believe me, I'm a Capitol Punishment kinda' gal, but in the case of dropping a bomb, well...saying "sacrifices would have to be made" is an understatement!

That's the problem with war, though. It's grotesquely unfair. Any World War II vet or Vietnam vet could confirm that. I don't think they ever tried to "gentlemanly" in Vietnam or stopped for tea time in World War II.

America has a constitution which it is proud of (and rightly so). Why does it think that this ceases to apply to foreigners whom are suspected of terrorism?

The good ol' eighth amendment, no cruel or unusual punishment. Perhaps in a perfect world, everyone would have such a law, or more appropriately, such a right. I don't know about you, but the world has made itself perfectly clear to me that it is no where near perfect.

Although, maybe if the fight was on our soil, I would imagine that the laws of the land, our land, would apply. However, on the other hand, terrorists, for a reason unknown, especially to myself, wouldn't give any of their prisoners that right. These are people who hijacked four planes on 9/11/01 full of people who had nothing to do with their cause and sentenced to those last horrible moments for what?!? And that's only one example.

[War_Cry]

The following appeared in the Durham, NC local paper as a letter to the
editor.

Please forward to all on your list as this will put things in perspective.
Keep in mind the phrase, "never attacked us" refers to our homeland

Liberals claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war.

They complain about his prosecution of it.

One liberal recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.


Let's clear up one point: President Bush didn't start the war on terror.


Try to remember, it was started by terrorists BEFORE 9/11.

Let's look at the worst president and mismanagement claims.


FDR led us into World War II.

Germany never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,

an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,

an average of 18,333 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. (WRONG) We were
fighting there (as advisors) in 1954 when it was French Indu China?).

Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost,

an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and
did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

Over 2,900 lives lost on 9/11.


In the two years since terrorists attacked us,

President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida,

put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot,

captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year.

Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at
home.

Worst president in history? Come on!


The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...

It took less time to take Iraq

than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51 day operation.


We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time

than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard

than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at
Chappaquiddick.

It took less time to take Iraq

than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Although, maybe if the fight was on our soil, I would imagine that the laws of the land, our land, would apply. However, on the other hand, terrorists, for a reason unknown, especially to myself, wouldn't give any of their prisoners that right. These are people who hijacked four planes on 9/11/01 full of people who had nothing to do with their cause and sentenced to those last horrible moments for what?!? And that's only one example.

And the US inforced sanctions after the gulf war that cut off simple medicine resulting in the loss of over half a million Iraqi childrens lives was for what?

[Darth Cluich]

Medicine wasn't included in the sanctions. Get your facts straight.

[blueeyes]

Iraqi children under the age of 10 at the year 2000 : 3.20 million.
A 1/6 mortality rate isn't lack of medicine, it's a disaster or mismanagement.

[Wolffy13]

Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Clinton didn't have UN consent? I never knew. Very interesting. I guess you learn something new everyday.

[kat]

War on poverty - results: un-won
War on drugs - results: un-won
War on terror - Anticipated result: un-won

You can't go to "war" on a method. You can go after terrorists,
domestic and foreign, with criminal prosecution for their actions and
methods. You can go after the money that funds terrorist activities.
You can do amny things. But you can't go to war against a "method".

[Darth Cluich]

Only shows we throw the word "war" around too easily. Everything we're against is a bloody war. C'mon...

[GarouX]

War,what is it good for?absolutely nothing.

wrong,it shows how dumb the human species really can be.

[kat]

Only shows we throw the word "war" around too easily. Everything we're against is a bloody war. C'mon... I was trying to say that this is a stupid thing to even try. :P And the "why" is every bit as important as the "how".

[Blazer]

What's the lie you're refering to?
The claim that Sadaam could launch weapons of mass destruction against our (British) troops in Cyprus within 45 minutes.
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.c om/wp-dyn/articles/A15697-2004Feb28.html) has an article.

Col. al-Dabbagh was the source of the 45 minute claim.
From the Telegraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/wirq07.xml)
In the build-up to the conflict, Tony Blair was criticised by intelligence officials for giving the impression that Saddam had developed ballistic missiles that could carry WMD warheads and hit targets such as Israel and Britain's military bases in Cyprus.

But Col al-Dabbagh said that he doubted that Iraq under Saddam had this capability. "I know nothing about this. My information was only about what we could do on the battlefield."

So it is either a case of bad comunication between government & intellegence or, worse, a direct lie.
Either way this information was a factor in Britain following the US rather than waiting for a UN resolution.

I think I remember the Hutton Report saying that the intellegence had been 'sexed up'. If anyone wants to find it (an has a few hours spare to look) here's the Hutton Report. (http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/)

[Blazer]

Sorry, still don't know how to multiple quote in one post.

The good ol' eighth amendment, no cruel or unusual punishment. Perhaps in a perfect world, everyone would have such a law, or more appropriately, such a right. I don't know about you, but the world has made itself perfectly clear to me that it is no where near perfect.

Although, maybe if the fight was on our soil, I would imagine that the laws of the land, our land, would apply. However, on the other hand, terrorists, for a reason unknown, especially to myself, wouldn't give any of their prisoners that right. These are people who hijacked four planes on 9/11/01 full of people who had nothing to do with their cause and sentenced to those last horrible moments for what?!? And that's only one example.
How are we going to make a perfect world if we ignore the rules we set out to make it perfect?

I think that it was okay to go after the terrorists from 9/11.
But we must make sure that we don't become as bad as they are, else why are we fighting?

I like my country. We're a bit stuck-up and arrogent but they're just lovable quirks. That's why I'm so passionate that we don't turn into the people we're fighting.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Medicine wasn't included in the sanctions. Get your facts straight.

Sorry typo meant medical supplies. My appologies.

[blueeyes]

Weapons of Mass Destruction, 45 minutes

Blazer, one could claim that the ends justify the means; in a world where the media runs the world, you have to have the reporter's reigns in your hand. Another excuse could be that it's just been misconstrued, or that they didn't mean it the way everyone else has. Although none of those are good reasons, they might be some basic ones.
And I do repeat that, even without specially designed weapons, something like a chemical weapon in an artillery shell shoved in the core of a SCUD missle (range up to 1,000 km) or an Al Abba (over 1,000 km) could probably be quite dangerous, although I can't see the despersal being incredibly successful. Or you could infect someone with a transmitable, such as Ebola, and send them via plane (range worldwide where a major population center exists), or just have them FedEx it around.

Also, to quote multiple people, copy the text you want to quote and wrap it inside a set of {quote="nameofperson}" "{/quote}
No spaces or quotes (these ") outside of where your quoting, and use [ instead of {. You HAVE to have an =name to get multiple quotes, it seems..

War,what is it good for?absolutely nothing.
Thank you for that whitty, echoed repartie, and for being a quote target.

[kaycee]

The claim that Sadaam could launch weapons of mass destruction against our (British) troops in Cyprus within 45 minutes.


"People appear to be implying that the government's case for taking action against Saddam was based on the 45-minute point," he told reporters earlier this month. "That is simply not true. The government's case has been based on the fact that Saddam had posed a threat and had been in breach of U.N. resolutions."


Does 45 minutes matter? The real deal is that WMDs are a factor.
It seems to me that according to that article things were assumed and blown out of proportion.

[Wolffy13]

How are we going to make a perfect world if we ignore the rules we set out to make it perfect?

Who said a perfect world was actually possible. Too many people in the world don't give a crap. We have too many criminals in existence, whether it be your standard religious extremist terrorist or your basic sociopathic murderer and the thought process is clearly unrational. To sum it up, too many people have issues.

I like my country. We're a bit stuck-up and arrogent but they're just lovable quirks. That's why I'm so passionate that we don't turn into the people we're fighting.

I love my country a lot myself. You should see me around Independence Day... "Niagra Falls " :p But that's another story.

Fortunately, I think we have a ways to go before we turn into the people we have put in the crosshairs (and if anyone thinks I'm insinuating civilians, you're sick). The people we have aimed for, at least initially, is these wacky Muslim extremists who even other members of their religion aren't very proud of. Their a bunch of down-with-the-system radicals (although, I honestly don't even know what their problem is, anyone feel free to share with me) who have no problem killing people who never gave much thought, if any, to their existence. I doubt the passengers on the planes during 9/11 obsessed over them. In a nutshell, these people are bullies with deadly weapons.

Or you could infect someone with a transmitable, such as Ebola, and send them via plane (range worldwide where a major population center exists), or just have them FedEx it around.

That's what makes me squeamish, the existence of biological weapons. I'm not saying that's what a particular biological weapon would be, but in one of several discussions with my dad, he assured me they were out there and they scared the piss out of him. He wouldn't divulge details though, almost as if he didn't want to talk about it, which is strange coming from him, he's generally pretty open.

[Druid_Necropolis]

"Bush bashers" are even old enough to vote or are even registered to vote? Do you vote? 90% this liberal ranting looks like the work of high school kids that should be learning instead of wating time on a subject which they have no say on. Kids dont pay taxes, kids dont vote, and most kids dont know enough about politics to make an informed choice. The others just hate Bush just to hate, and like Kerry just because he isnt Bush. Well, rest assured, kids, that President George Walker Bush WILL be re-elected this November, and he has MY vote. You can go eat at John Kerry's Waffle House if you like. That is, if you DO vote. If you dont vote, you cant complain.

-Z


So you`re admitting your entire argument is based around speculation and nothing factual?