you call Bush scary?

[undsputed1]

With the election coming up....some observations. Firstly, the same extreme liberal attitude present in a couple European countries, and evident in some of our posters (no, of course I don't mean you, Mr. Pro) seems to exist in some of our more extreme liberals here. And seeing them in action makes anything Bush does seem very light. I heard on the radio (local station by the way, not national show) as someone mentioned about Bush starting a draft. Although I doubted it anyway, Bush felt the need to have to state specifically that there would be no draft. This is a really sleezy rumor to try to start in order to get voters.

Kerry's disgusting remark about Cheney's daughter in an attempt to pick up votes was also pretty low. He needs to stay out of the business of the Cheney family. If he is willing to do something low like that now, one can only imagine what he'll do when he is in power. If he started doing whatever is popular with the crowd and businesses, he'd just be another Chirac or Schroeder, making foreign policy decisions in favor of businesses and taking advantage of European post war attitude in the process.

Kerry's major supporters include Michale Moore. Do I need to explain this one? The problem is that a major number of voters, probably younger ones more so, take his propaganda as factual truth.

You want to identify a candidate who is more likely to do a sleezy thing and sell out for popularity or money, take note of the candidate already doing it, and the one who possibly married for his wife's money.

[mojojojomo]

What an entirely biased view of Kerry.

Did you know that Bush is the scion of old money from New England, and is out soley to destroy the little man? He promotes the doctrine of neo conservatism, and believes that by westernizing the Middle East he will further the Rapture. Not only that, he took control of Iraq soley for oil, lied about his participation in the Vietnam war, and promotes draft dodgers in his Administration like Cheney. Speaking of which, do you remember how Cheney's former country got no bid contracts. Man, ignoring the context of these things makes it real easy to go out and slander Bush.

His major supporters include Anne Coulter. Do i need to explain this one? There might be some ignorant ****s who take the word of a ranting extremist as truth. Ohh heavens, democracy in action. What a crime!


See, its easy to make this **** into some kind of dirt against the candidate you don't like. Next time, be a little more rational in your spiel.

[Holy Knight]

Did you know that Bush is the scion of old money from New England, and is out soley to destroy the little man?

Wow, good use of "scion". You don't see that word too often.


Kerry's disgusting remark about Cheney's daughter in an attempt to pick up votes was also pretty low. He needs to stay out of the business of the Cheney family.

I agree about this though. That seemed to pretty obviously be a cheap shot intended to garner votes from people who oppose homosexuality. There was no other reason to go out of his way to mention the Cheneys' daughter.

[mojojojomo]

Perhaps, but i don't really see the difference between Kerry doing it, and Cheney reminding the world every 5 minutes about how he has a *** daughter and his family is strong enough to survive it, particuarly since he thanked Edwards for similar comments made in the Veep debate.

[Canadian Tire Money]

i thought this was going to be a thread about the commies running europe.

[SuRReAL OrC]

I was watching a bit, and I agree, the comment about Cheney's daughter wasn't nessicary.(sp) But I like Kerry better than Bush any day.

[TechnoHamster]

I miss Bill Clinton...

[mulratt]

I read an editorial in my local newspaper that today politics are much dirtier than before. They cited the times when Bush Sr was running against Dukakis. At some point, people started questionning Bush's military record, saying he apparently jumped off his plane and left two fellow servicemen to die.
Dukakis and his party said that it shouldn't be looked into, and so the media left that alone.
Now apparently there was much more credentials to that story than to the swiftboat campaign against Kerry. The same guy making the accusations against Kerry was hired back then by the govt to get rid of Kerry as a anti-war demonstrator. We dont know how much the Republicans support this, but when you get dirty, the other side comes along too.

[Pitboss_2000]

Michael Moore does NOT support Kerry, or the democratic party in general. He just will do anything needed to prevent Bush from returning to the White House.

[PervertSama]

indeed, he is currently giving away clean underwear to college students who will register to vote. that damn bastard will do anything...

[SaroDarksbane]

Kerry's major supporters include Michale Moore. Do I need to explain this one?
He still only gets one vote.

What about KKK members? Who do they support? Does this make Bush unfit for the presidency because a few people vote for him that I'm sure all of us find distasteful?

In terms of being scary. this election had given me a fear of middle-aged white men . . .

[Kingcrazygenius]

I wonder who the Black Panthers will vote for...

[Ledge And]

With the election coming up....some observations. Firstly, the same extreme liberal attitude present in a couple European countries, and evident in some of our posters (no, of course I don't mean you, Mr. Pro) seems to exist in some of our more extreme liberals here. And seeing them in action makes anything Bush does seem very light. I heard on the radio (local station by the way, not national show) as someone mentioned about Bush starting a draft. Although I doubted it anyway, Bush felt the need to have to state specifically that there would be no draft. This is a really sleezy rumor to try to start in order to get voters.

Kerry's disgusting remark about Cheney's daughter in an attempt to pick up votes was also pretty low. He needs to stay out of the business of the Cheney family. If he is willing to do something low like that now, one can only imagine what he'll do when he is in power. If he started doing whatever is popular with the crowd and businesses, he'd just be another Chirac or Schroeder, making foreign policy decisions in favor of businesses and taking advantage of European post war attitude in the process.

Kerry's major supporters include Michale Moore. Do I need to explain this one? The problem is that a major number of voters, probably younger ones more so, take his propaganda as factual truth.

You want to identify a candidate who is more likely to do a sleezy thing and sell out for popularity or money, take note of the candidate already doing it, and the one who possibly married for his wife's money.

Just post a pic of his face its scarier than real facts

[undsputed1]

"Perhaps, but i don't really see the difference between Kerry doing it, and Cheney reminding the world every 5 minutes about how he has a *** daughter and his family is strong enough to survive it, particuarly since he thanked Edwards for similar comments made in the Veep debate."

Cheney has not gone on TV and talked about it. The only time it became an issue is when he publicly disagreed with Bush over the issue of *** marriage. Other than that, it has not been an issue. And this last debate is the only time a lot of people heard about it. He effectively outed her in front of a lot of people.....sorta like calling someone a communist in 1958. Nice comparison :)

"What about KKK members? Who do they support? Does this make Bush unfit for the presidency because a few people vote for him that I'm sure all of us find distasteful?"

Yea....well, when the KKK starts producing movies that sell in movie theaters and deceive other voters, then this example would be a good one. But I haven't seen any movies or other material from them in an attempt to spread lies about Kerry.

[undsputed1]

Add the Bush military document lies to the list. Which newsman was that again?

[awpin'scout]

if you support kerry your an ignorant and let me tell you why:

MINIMUM WAGE:
people hear things like about how kerry is gonna raise minimum wage and they say "wow thats great!" but people do not understand what kind of impact that has on the economy. by doing that, employers have to pay more, forcing them to raise product costs, causing a negitive ripple in the economy due to the fact that other wages DO NOT go up with the cost of products.

TAXES:
i think its interesting how kerry plans to provide grade A health care plans, give the troops in Iraq the top of the line body armor and equipment, provide proper funding for hospitals, schools, and boder protection at the same time that hes going to give tax cuts to 99% of the people in this county. programs require money, and money in the government comes from taxes. you cant cut taxes and fund new programs unless you have a surplus.

JOBS AND ECONOMY:
ok look, if you believe that the economic slump is bush's fault you dont know how the economy works. clinton raised taxes tremendously on our indistry, causing businesses to cut jobs in order to stay in business. this is what an "economic cycle" is. it takes about 6-8 years for this cycle to take full effect. this is the reason the economy is bad. since bush is our president, people blame him without really knowing how it works. in case you dont remember, 1999 (still under clinton) the stock market took a shelling, and people lost jobs. was that bushs fault?

i could go on trust me, but i'd like to hear any flames first from this current data.

[Holy Knight]

Perhaps, but i don't really see the difference between Kerry doing it, and Cheney reminding the world every 5 minutes about how he has a *** daughter and his family is strong enough to survive it, particuarly since he thanked Edwards for similar comments made in the Veep debate.

I haven't heard Cheney talk about it other than at the VP debate, but he may have done so more frequently as you say. Still, I don't think the two things are comparable. In the VP debate, Edwards was the one who brought it up, and Cheney thanking him for his kind words was only appropriate. When Kerry brought it up, it wasn't really relevant to the question being asked, nor was it intended to praise the Cheneys for dealing with what can be a difficult issue for some people. It seemed to be just--"let's point out that the Vice-President has a homosexual family member, so that people who are uncomfortable with that will not want to vote for him and Bush".

if you support kerry your an ignorant and let me tell you why:

First of all, it would be "an ignoramus", not "an ignorant". Secondly, it's "you're", not "your". Thirdly, there are plenty of ignorant people supporting both candidates, and the complexity of the issues involved makes it pretty implausible to think that the only possible way to support one of the candidates is to be ignorant.

[mojojojomo]

I haven't heard Cheney talk about it other than at the VP debate, but he may have done so more frequently as you say. Still, I don't think the two things are comparable. In the VP debate, Edwards was the one who brought it up, and Cheney thanking him for his kind words was only appropriate. When Kerry brought it up, it wasn't really relevant to the question being asked, nor was it intended to praise the Cheneys for dealing with what can be a difficult issue for some people. It seemed to be just--"let's point out that the Vice-President has a homosexual family member, so that people who are uncomfortable with that will not want to vote for him and Bush".

Perhaps i have been misinformed. As far as i was aware, Cheney had turned it into a major issue to present a non-homophobic front to the Bush campaign. If this is not correct, forgive me.

[Canadian Tire Money]

while i don't suport kerry, here are some comments:

"TAXES:
i think its interesting how kerry plans to provide grade A health care plans, give the troops in Iraq the top of the line body armor and equipment, provide proper funding for hospitals, schools, and boder protection at the same time that hes going to give tax cuts to 99% of the people in this county. programs require money, and money in the government comes from taxes. you cant cut taxes and fund new programs unless you have a surplus. "

the upper 5% control how much of the money?

"people hear things like about how kerry is gonna raise minimum wage and they say "wow thats great!" but people do not understand what kind of impact that has on the economy. by doing that, employers have to pay more, forcing them to raise product costs, causing a negitive ripple in the economy due to the fact that other wages DO NOT go up with the cost of products"

what type of impact does it have on the economy? lets not talk general, because that is not specific enough. pick a industry that is going to be affected and we can talk from there.


didn't Bush cut taxes and increase spending?

[Gun50000]

Both major candidates seem to have flaws. Bush doesn't think sometimes. And Kerry wants to reduce the amount of money people use for things (like healthcare), increase what people are paid (I haven't heard it, but I see it above...), and then use an insane amount of money that we don't have, even if he didn't do the former two.

Edit: By the way, Kerry also doesn't think sometime, though that applies to the future and consequences. For example, when you deem a war unnecessary, do you expect your soldiers to do as well, have same morale, if you become their leader? But Bush doesn't think on a wider variety of things. Not to say he's stupid, but just simple.

[PLH]

to quote sun tzu:

"3.Victory is the main objective in war. if this is long delayed, weapons will be blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities, their strength will be exhausted.

4. When the army engages in protracted campaigns the resources of the state will not suffice.

5. when your weapons are dulled and ardour damped, your strength exhausted and treasure spent, neighboring rulers will take advantage of your distress to act. And even though you have wise counsellors, none will be able to lay good plans for the future.

6. Thus, while we have heard of blundering swiftness in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged.

7.for there has never been a Protracted war from which a country has benefited. "


maybe the troops will understand that?

[UltraDavid]

Remember, it isn't Europe that's extremist. The European countries on the whole have been doing the same types of things, domestically and foreign-ly and economically, for the past decade and a half or so. If anything, they've gotten more conservative. Europe is becoming more economically liberal (what we in the US call more conservative, that is, favoring more of a market economy), Chirac is a member of the conservative Gaullist party, and even Tony Blair has gotten progressively more conservative. The real extremists are in the Bush administration. Neo-conservativism is a pretty reactionary ideology, man.

I heard on the radio (local station by the way, not national show) as someone mentioned about Bush starting a draft. Although I doubted it anyway, Bush felt the need to have to state specifically that there would be no draft. This is a really sleezy rumor to try to start in order to get voters.

Well, there are draft proposals in Congress. That said, there are always draft proposals in Congress, and the main one right now was brought up Democratic Representative Charles Rangel, who is doing it so people realize just how viciously our military is being used. I'd say it's working. But is the Bush administration down with a draft? Well, sorta. Some people in the administration have floated draft balloons (floating a balloon is where you have a lower-level guy say something, judge the public's reaction, and if it's looked down on you deny it's official policy and if it's accepted you make it real policy), so that shows they were at least considering trying for one, until they found out nobody wants it. Instead, they're making the reserves into more or less permanent soldiers. That isn't technically a draft, but it's also not exactly... nice. Reservists expect to serve for just a few days a year, not for an entire year, so in that sense people are being called to duty who do not expect or really want to be. Some call it a back-door draft.

Kerry's disgusting remark about Cheney's daughter in an attempt to pick up votes was also pretty low. He needs to stay out of the business of the Cheney family. If he is willing to do something low like that now, one can only imagine what he'll do when he is in power. If he started doing whatever is popular with the crowd and businesses, he'd just be another Chirac or Schroeder, making foreign policy decisions in favor of businesses and taking advantage of European post war attitude in the process.

I agree that mentioning Cheney's daughter was less than nice, but Cheney himself has mentioned it and at times she has been used to show that the Bush administration is not anti-***. What Cheney's daughters own feelings on her father's boss's politics are, who knows, and in fact there are some indications that Cheney himself disagrees with the Bush administration's official stance, although he's much too smart to admit it.

But what I don't understand here is why you specifically talk about Chirac and Schroeder making policy decisions in favor of state interests. Dude, European states ARE STATES. Like any states, they follow their interests. That's the same exact thing we do. Think we aren't in Iraq for self-interested reasons? Of course we are. If you believe President Bush, we're there because Iraq represented a security threat to the United States, that bringing democracy to other parts of the world makes the world safer for our (American) children, etc. If you don't believe him, you think we went to increase our power in the region and the world (like I do), or for oil, big business, etc. Either way, it's a self-interested argument. Remember, we've given American businesses some gigantic contracts to help rebuild Iraq, contracts that are extremely lucrative and beneficial to some large American companies. Were Chirac's motives for not wanting war in Iraq self-interested? Who knows, but probably. It's well known that France had contracts with Iraq, from the 80s up until when we invaded. He leads a state; that's what states, including the United States, do. Nothing about that leaves you open to criticize Chirac for making such decisions, especially without acknowledging that Bush did the very same thing.

[undsputed1]

"Reservists expect to serve for just a few days a year, not for an entire year, so in that sense people are being called to duty who do not expect or really want to be. Some call it a back-door draft."

Well...they expect not to have to do anything for that check other than some training. That's a problem as well.

"Neo-conservativism is a pretty reactionary ideology, man."

I know I don't have the political background that you do.. So some terminology help is in order. What does it mean when you add the neo part to the word conservative?

[mulratt]

He effectively outed her in front of a lot of people.....sorta like calling someone a communist in 1958. Nice comparison :)

"What about KKK members? Who do they support? Does this make Bush unfit for the presidency because a few people vote for him that I'm sure all of us find distasteful?"


Well what's wrong with saying that someone is *** if you think that nothing's wrong about it? The problem is with the voters who are homophobic and will change their voting because of such trifle things.
Cheney's daughter should be proud of who she is and I dont think she'd want to hide it. If Kerry mentioned it when debating with Bush, it just shows the Republicans how their anti-*** marriage policy will hurt people, including some close to them.


To address awpin'scout:
MINIMUM WAGE:
" by doing that, employers have to pay more, forcing them to raise product costs, causing a negitive ripple in the economy due to the fact that other wages DO NOT go up with the cost of products"

When you instill a price floor (in this case, labour is the supply), as in any restrictions actually, the burden is shared by both parties, companies and the people. Now it's true that the economy works better without restrictions, but the issue is whether efficiency is worth inequality. You want some justice, so that more money goes to the poorer ppl. What does it matter to them if with economic prosperity, 90% goes to their employers? Rationally, they would take the 10%, but economic studies have shown that ppl would forsake small gains and punish themselves in the process for the sake of what they call fairness. See my equality vs efficiency debate thread with Maximwar.

TAXES:
"i think its interesting how kerry plans to provide grade A health care plans, give the troops in Iraq the top of the line body armor and equipment, provide proper funding for hospitals, schools, and boder protection at the same time that hes going to give tax cuts to 99% of the people in this county. programs require money, and money in the government comes from taxes."

True that, but everyone is criticizing Bush for the same thing, cutting taxes while supporting a war.


JOBS AND ECONOMY:
"ok look, if you believe that the economic slump is bush's fault you dont know how the economy works. clinton raised taxes tremendously on our indistry, causing businesses to cut jobs in order to stay in business. this is what an "economic cycle" is. it takes about 6-8 years for this cycle to take full effect. this is the reason the economy is bad. since bush is our president, people blame him without really knowing how it works. in case you dont remember, 1999 (still under clinton) the stock market took a shelling, and people lost jobs. was that bushs fault?"

every politician with bad records will claim that it was the previous administration's fault. What you want to do is compare with similar cases. Now take Canada, whose economy is normally highly correlated with the USA. We're doing very well, maybe too much since our dollar is appreciating versus the US and it hurts exports (but better for consumers). Despite a raise in interest rates, we expect much higher incoming growth and have reported a huge surplus. Now can you say that we were not affected by the tech plunge? Recall that Nortel was a huge portion of the TSX, and so when it crashed along with other tech companies, Canada was deep in crap.

But the crash of 2000-2001 (since 9/11 also affects a bit) is historically a very minor event, not even amongst the top ten. So why is it taking so long for us to recover? And the US's trade deficit is nearing 6% of its GDP, an alarming number.

[undsputed1]

9/11 affects a bit? :) haha... 9/11 smashed the economy, as was the intention of the terrorists in the first place when they selected that target. No President could have done much more about repairing the economy, in my opinion.

"Well what's wrong with saying that someone is *** if you think that nothing's wrong about it?"

The problem is that it's not fair for you to interfere with someone else's life like that. If someone wishes to share that with other people, then they will. But I have not seen Dick Cheney's daughter on any talk shows or anything like that. The Cheney family has been willing to disagree with Bush over this, and they support their daughter, but for Kerry to try to get votes by playing with someone else's life, well, that's a problem. If that's a sign of what he is willing to do to get votes, then we can only wonder what he'll do once he's in office.

"True that, but everyone is criticizing Bush for the same thing, cutting taxes while supporting a war."

Funny how people want us to switch Presidents when, in fact, Kerry doesn't offer much new. Yea....he has a different opinion on *** marriage, but I don't really care enough about that issue because it won't affect the lives of 95% of America. He seems to have the same problem on the budget that Bush already does. He seems to have the same idea for handling the Iraq situation from here on out. One of the major differences is that he seems more sleezy than the current administration.

[KaySeaGee]

But he's bound to be better than Bush:)

[rexxxar]

You want to identify a candidate who is more likely to do a sleezy thing and sell out for popularity or money, take note of the candidate already doing it, and the one who possibly married for his wife's money.

yeah, this is definitely worse then sending 1000+ of your own people to their death for no reason, and much much worse then killing 10s of thousands of other innocent people.

[BraveLiver]

They're both the same. IMO, politicians are the LAST people that should run a country.

[undsputed1]

"yeah, this is definitely worse then sending 1000+ of your own people to their death for no reason, and much much worse then killing 10s of thousands of other innocent people."

Welcome to the real world. That's been happening in Iraq and the Middle East long before Bush took office though......so I'm sorry to crash your Bush-bashing party. The lives recently lost in the current fighting is with an intent to bring about positive change in Iraq, something that would not have happened before no matter how hard you cross your fingers. Change has a cost. In the long run, it is better for the American military and for the people of Iraq.

Now, if you want to criticize, then start talking about the people who wanted to do nothing when people were suffering there under Saddam.

[mulratt]

9/11 affects a bit? :) haha... 9/11 smashed the economy, as was the intention of the terrorists in the first place when they selected that target. No President could have done much more about repairing the economy, in my opinion.


You're a business student no? 9/11 only made it worse, but it was on a downfall already. Point is still that this crash isnt that big historically, and yet the upswing is not happening after so long.
I dont want to downplay 9/11 of course, since it was on that day that ALL markets went down at the same time, and this never happened before. But they've since recovered brilliantly, compared to the USA, even economies that depend on the US like Canada.



The problem is that it's not fair for you to interfere with someone else's life like that. [...] If that's a sign of what he is willing to do to get votes, then we can only wonder what he'll do once he's in office.


Welcome to politics.
Remember that report of uranium trading in Africa that the Bush admin and Blair were using as evidence? Well the CIA agent behind it saw how ppl misrepresented his findings and wrote an article to discredit that.
They couldnt attack him, so they wrote an article attacking his wife instead, revealing CIA info that was confidential and compromised her whole career.
What's more scandalous?





Funny how people want us to switch Presidents when, in fact, Kerry doesn't offer much new. Yea....he has a different opinion on *** marriage, but I don't really care enough about that issue because it won't affect the lives of 95% of America.


So trample the rights of the minority?

I thought a democrats' stance on civil rights, the environment and foreign policy would differ significantly from a Republican's.

[VirtualKish]

Now, if you want to criticize, then start talking about the people who wanted to do nothing when people were suffering there under Saddam.
I think it's a little too soon to come to a conclusion on Iraq. Both sides should probably wait this out a little, to see how Iraq turns out, before raising arguments like the one you had. Iraq could turn out just as worse as it was before, especially with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism sweeping through areas. And also keep in mind that we destroyed a good deal of their infrastructure. If we were to just pick up and leave now, we would have basically done a great misdeed.

[Pitboss_2000]

Lol, you call Michael Moore worse than the KKK because he makes movies from a POV everybody knows before seeing it?

[UltraDavid]

"Neo-conservativism is a pretty reactionary ideology, man."

I know I don't have the political background that you do.. So some terminology help is in order. What does it mean when you add the neo part to the word conservative?

Sorry, I don't mean it to seem like I'm talking in fancy polisci speak. Neoconservatism is pretty nebulous, but it's pretty much always characterized by an extremely aggressive foreign policy and a conception of government that's larger than that of traditional American conservatives. Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld are some of the most important neocons, so this administration is definitely neoconservative. Neoconservativism in this case is also pretty socially conservative, with all sorts of things like the abstinence dealy, anti-*** marriage, etc, although sometimes it seems like Cheney disagrees with that. Anyway, I call it reactionary because of its foreign policy and view of the world. Some of the fundamental neocon beliefs are that America is inherently good and right and that it represents a beacon of light for the world and should do all it can to remake the rest of the world in its image. It in effect still sees the world through good vs evil, Cold War-style eyes, and for that reason I think it's reactionary. That is, it sees things as if they are as they were, and wants things to be today as they were previously. Reactionary ideologies are usually considered pretty extremist; basically they're the right-wing equivalent of left-wing revolutionaries.

[armis]

In the long run, it is better for the American military and for the people of Iraq.
This is new. How is losing 1000 soldiers better for the American military in the long run ? Unless you're talking in darwinian terms (the weak get killed first, therefore the army is better off without them), which I'd find pretty out of place, I don't understand this part. Not that I really understand either how anyone can make this mess better for the people in the long run, but whatever.

P.S. UltraD, are you still in Paris ? How's your french ? :g wink:

[undsputed1]

Well Armis, the US was the one who was forced to keep thins under control in the Middle East, not France. The US troops are the ones who have been stationed there since the first Gulf War, not France or Russia or anyone else. When the threat is gone, they no longer have to stay there. It makes a lot of sense really.

Besides, are you telling me you doubt that Saddam or his sons would never attack anyone again after launching attacks on three different neighbors? And when that happened, it would have cost the US far more to clean up.

So yea, it's easy for the person standing on the sideline to criticize (like France in this case), but when they are incurring the costs, then they should make more of the decisions.

[KaySeaGee]

There would be nothing needing control if we hadn't ****ed with the place to begin with.

[Pitboss_2000]

Well Armis, the US was the one who was forced to keep thins under control in the Middle East, not France. The US troops are the ones who have been stationed there since the first Gulf War, not France or Russia or anyone else. When the threat is gone, they no longer have to stay there. It makes a lot of sense really.

Besides, are you telling me you doubt that Saddam or his sons would never attack anyone again after launching attacks on three different neighbors? And when that happened, it would have cost the US far more to clean up.

So yea, it's easy for the person standing on the sideline to criticize (like France in this case), but when they are incurring the costs, then they should make more of the decisions.
And the fact that the US is the aggressor in this case, and not France, has NOTHING to do with this ofcourse!

[MrProAmerica]

Also, I don't think I have to remind you that Saddams first two strikes against his neighbours were US sanctioned?

[armis]

Well Armis, the US was the one who was forced to keep thins under control in the Middle East, not France. The US troops are the ones who have been stationed there since the first Gulf War, not France or Russia or anyone else. When the threat is gone, they no longer have to stay there. It makes a lot of sense really.

Besides, are you telling me you doubt that Saddam or his sons would never attack anyone again after launching attacks on three different neighbors? And when that happened, it would have cost the US far more to clean up.

So yea, it's easy for the person standing on the sideline to criticize (like France in this case), but when they are incurring the costs, then they should make more of the decisions.
Ok, ok, we know that good old Yurop is really just a bunch of wankers whining on the other side of the pond while Uncle Sam saves the world again. :y-thumbsu
Whatever.

So what you're saying is that soldiers dying in Iraq is a byproduct of Change. Change means that the country will be pacified (one day...) and that the military can go home. Therefore it's a good thing in the long run for the military. Did I get it right ?

In that case, wouldn't *not sending them in the first place* be good in the short and long term for the military ?


Man, I just don't get it. Iraq is a ****ing mess because of the agression of the US, people (both Americans and Iraqis) are dying left and right for a people that wants them out of there, the administration's pretexts for war (WAR, guys ! The most meaningful act of foreign policy a country can make) have been blown to pieces since it's been proven there were no WMD nor ties to Al-Quaida - hell, Iraq was the ONLY country in the area where there weren't any of those guys - and yet, America is getting ready to reelect the moron ? I'm not even talking about the economy, but this President has no notion whatsoever of what foreign policy is about.

[MrProAmerica]

ties to Al-Quaida - hell, Iraq was the ONLY country in the area where there weren't any of those guys
Lol, I just realized that for the first time! Nice one, armis!

[undsputed1]

"And the fact that the US is the aggressor in this case, and not France, has NOTHING to do with this ofcourse!"

And you think that by taking a passive approach and ignoring it would have caused Saddam and his sons to magically disappear from their position of power? This isn't about WMD only, it's about leaving a man in power who we've constantly had to monitor.

"Also, I don't think I have to remind you that Saddams first two strikes against his neighbours were US sanctioned?"

Iran was, that is correct. I would not say Kuwait was though, unless you are saying the US changed their mind all the sudden and decided to lead the UN against Iraq.

"In that case, wouldn't *not sending them in the first place* be good in the short and long term for the military ?"

Hey....you've stated your country's military policy word per word :) Not sending them in the first place would have meant that Saddam would have eventually attacked someone else or one of his sons would have over the next couple decades. Tell me, straight out, right now, if you don't believe that.......come on.

"Man, I just don't get it. Iraq is a ****ing mess because of the agression of the US, people (both Americans and Iraqis) are dying left and right for a people that wants them out of there, the administration's pretexts for war (WAR, guys ! The most meaningful act of foreign policy a country can make) have been blown to pieces since it's been proven there were no WMD nor ties to Al-Quaida"

So you'd prefer they lived as they did before, with no hope of changing for the better?

And those "pretexts" are only the ones your country heard. I on the other hand heard several more, one of which was the simple track record of Saddam. Most Americans needed only that.

And the only reason it was "proven" was because we removed Saddam. There was no way of knowing with him in power, unless you, as you apparently did, decided to rely on a hunch. Unfortunately for you, Iraq did have missing and unaccounted for WMD, and they had yet co fully comply with UN requirements.

[rexxxar]

And you think that by taking a passive approach and ignoring it would have caused Saddam and his sons to magically disappear from their position of power? This isn't about WMD only, it's about leaving a man in power who we've constantly had to monitor.

So you'd prefer they lived as they did before, with no hope of changing for the better?


dont say that we went to iraq to get rid sadam, because we didnt. if the US was really interested in taking out leaders who actually make a country training grounds for terrorism we'd be in israel and syria right now, not iraq.

this may come as a shock to you, but the peopel of iraq were BETTER before we got there. sure there was the occasional killing, but now people are dying every day! not like 1 or 2 people either, theres days where 100+ "insurgents" die. oh but the iraqs got tourtured right, we sure arnt doing that... wait a minute, what about that huge prison scandle! what about gitmo bay! Those poor people dont even have the right to be tortured in their own country, well, i guess its not their country any more. its the US's.

we turned a nation of 1 terriorist with a population that lived peacefully under him into a nation of all terrorists. how can you think this is a improvement?

listen, if the country was really that bad, where they lived in fear every day of sadam, they would have revolted. how do i know this? THEY ARE REVOLTING NOW.

[armis]

Hey....you've stated your country's military policy word per word Not sending them in the first place would have meant that Saddam would have eventually attacked someone else or one of his sons would have over the next couple decades. Tell me, straight out, right now, if you don't believe that.......come on.
As we've already stated on these boards, if the US started attacking every nation with leaders who would "eventually attack someone else" over the next couple decades, half the world would be afire by now. Since the US doesn't seem to be doing this yet, the conclusion is that there were other reasons to go to war. Namely (officially) WMD and Al-Quaida.
And the only reason it was "proven" was because we removed Saddam. There was no way of knowing with him in power, unless you, as you apparently did, decided to rely on a hunch. Unfortunately for you, Iraq did have missing and unaccounted for WMD, and they had yet co fully comply with UN requirements.
There were unaccounted for, and the UN's "hunch" that they had been destroyed was as valid as Bush's hunch that they were stockpiled and ready to fly. No, actually, it was more valid, since at least the UN sent people over there to check things out. Those guys found there were no production plants - which the US promptly disbelieved. In the meantime, the US told everyone there were missing stocks of 12 year-old WMD - which the inspectors disagreed with from the start - and chem weapons (OMG, sarin !!), which obviously represented an imminent threat (while neglecting to mention that sarin has a shelf life of under three months, and that without any production facilities, the stocks - even if they existed - were mostly harmless).
As for Al-Quaida, your very own CIA analysts knew that Bin Laden hated Saddam's guts, because he was one of the "infidels". If there were any members of Al-Q in Iraq, it was to blow up the place !

Therefore, all three official reasons for the US to go to war were, in fact, pretexts because the US knew at that time that Iraq did NOT pose the threat it was shown to pose. And that, my friend, is what I call a big fat lie.

[undsputed1]

"we turned a nation of 1 terriorist with a population that lived peacefully under him into a nation of all terrorists. how can you think this is a improvement?

listen, if the country was really that bad, where they lived in fear every day of sadam, they would have revolted. how do i know this? THEY ARE REVOLTING NOW."

They did revolt, but they were not supported. Many died.

Perhaps the differences between the way we see this is simply because our country explained to us about the history of Iraq in recent years and yours told you that they were living in a dictating utopia.

[Pitboss_2000]

Thank God, und1 shows once again that he knows exactly what they teach people where.

And not all of the Iraqi people revolted in the past, just the minorities that got openly suppressed by the regime.

[Exar]

Oh yeah, I remember that little revolt, when the CIA told the Kurds that if they revolted, we would support 'em. So much for that.

[mulratt]

At this point, it it raitonal for the average Iraqi to hope that the insurgents can kill enough Americans so that their govt decides to leave.
Point is, Americans can give up because they are not passionate about freeing Iraq. However, Iraqi insurgents are patriots, and you'll always find some of those. In Vietnam, we saw people charge through artillery strikes. That is the power of patriotism.

[undsputed1]

"And not all of the Iraqi people revolted in the past, just the minorities that got openly suppressed by the regime."

Welll.....actually, since the minority was in leadership, it was the majority who was being surpressed. This included the Shiite as well as Kurish people. The Kurish are remembered more so for that gassing that Saddam did.

"Thank God, und1 shows once again that he knows exactly what they teach people where."

Hey....apparently that's what some of you are thinking. So I figure someone either taught you that, or you just pulling it out your.... But I supported what I said with historical fact.

"In Vietnam, we saw people charge through artillery strikes. That is the power of patriotism."

I know this wasn't entirely your point, but drop the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. The two are very different. The only reason people even try to compare them is because it is being done by people who are blindly anti-war.

[mulratt]

I know this wasn't entirely your point, but drop the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. The two are very different. The only reason people even try to compare them is because it is being done by people who are blindly anti-war.

Yeah that's true. It's been overused and any other example would do fine.
Ok well how about the Algerians against France then? France had it better cuz many Algerians were French citizens and others saw the alliance with an European power as necessary for economic wealth. Not to say I agreed that Algeria should've separated in that bloodyt fashion, but point is you cant stop these people with an occupation force

Recall that American generals viewed The Battle of Algiers in preparation for Iraq.

[MrProAmerica]

But I supported what I said with historica fact.
Yeah, you've proven on several occasions that you greatly care about historical correctness, like when you said that the Turks rebuilt Germany after WW2 and that German schools deny the holocaust and such. :y-evil:

[Laff]

i have 2 major problems with kerry: healthcare and his "plan" for iraq.

healthcare. when i first heard that he wants to make a HUGE government healthplan i just started laughing. even before that hilarious diagram of it showed up in commercials. at the time, my sister in law was trying to get HOUSING through the government. immense red tape. that's exactly what we need when we are dying. red tape.

"plan" for iraq. get our allies to share the burden. LOL! both our allies AND our enemies have stated that a new president changes NOTHING. why does kerry suddenly think that our allies are going to come help us? they will give the same "you got yourself into this mess" that they do now. train iraqi's to defend themselves. GENIUS! why hasn't bush done that? oh wait...this sounds like what is happening right now! kerry thinks he can speed it up or something, i dunno.

buahahah kerry doesn't have a leg to stand on, although he owns in debates. not because of "his" views (notice i put "his" in quotes, not views), but because of his speaking ability.

[strathyboy]

I know this wasn't entirely your point, but drop the comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. The two are very different. The only reason people even try to compare them is because it is being done by people who are blindly anti-war.

I'd just like to note that in many ways, comparisons can be made between the two wars. The way most people do it, however, is completely absurd, as you allude to above.

The swing in world opinion against the Americans might be one way. Another is the extreme reaction the war creates domestically. There are others, but I don't want to derail yet another Iraq undsputed vs. the world thread. :g grin: