Harley,
There is nothing to argue with about Eon's post, W did change his mind about those issues. However, since changing his mind, he hasn't changed it back and forth.
However, as much as I try not to read tone into someones words, I find yours deliberately insulting no matter how I read it.
As for the oil issue, we have already covered production/speculation price issues.
I will vote for Bush. Anyone but Kerry.
Jimro
I can't say it wasn't fun to read the Republican hand-wringing in the aftermath of George Bush's pathetic "performance" in the first Presidential debate. But the pundits seem to have missed the fundamental story here.
A "performance" is what an actor gives. It is how meat puppets with high school diplomas convince TV audiences they are doctors or lawyers. But when the President of the United States is placed out of reach of his stage handlers, speech writers and suck-ups and asked to think on his feet, what you get isn't a performance. What you get is reality.
And as America hopefully learned (the rest of the world having known this for some time now), the reality is that the most powerful person in the world is a dolt.
Polling shows that Americans are finally beginning to see that a President needs to be capable of more than rote repetition, that being able to distinguish between Saddam and Osama might be important, and that absolute certainty is a luxury purchased only at the cost of the truth and many lives.
Bush has been the boy in the bubble for years - perhaps his whole life. When insulated from inconvenient facts, probing questions and the consequences of actions, the inability to think is easy to hide. Limited grasp can be spun as plain speaking; limited reach spun as focus on the big picture and rejection of evil nuance.
The mainstream press, too intimidated and lazy to challenge, agreed to treat subtlety as a negative, and became co-conspirators in a massive fraud. And so America lived in the comfortable illusion that the scripted, orchestrated and insulated images of their swaggering cowboy-in-chief had some basis in fact.
Bush's refusal to hold press conferences or give unscripted interviews (and his doddering testiness when he is even slightly stressed) were glossed over. But now, after Bush revealed himself to be a petulant 6th-grader trying to match wits with an intelligent adult, the American public is finally catching on to the obvious: the stuff Karl Rove packages is the performance; the dim bulb we saw in the Florida debate is the reality.
The press is still far too timid to point out that the emperor is naked as a jaybird. (To paraphrase Bill Maher, the networks should all be fined for showing that much nudity in prime time.) The fact that the polls turned on a dime shows that the media's ability to control through spin is not absolute, and that their comical even-handedness was unsuccessful in painting the debate as a war of equals.
Many conservatives are still in denial, but from what I can tell of the high-profile ones, the wind has fallen from their sails. I get the sense they are having a lot of "Bridge on the River Kwai" moments - realizing, like Alec Guinness, that their efforts in building the Bush edifice have only made America's enemies stronger.
Kerry has to be careful about how he plays this, of course. He can't call Bush a moron. He was able to walk a fine line in the first debate, challenging without condescension or ridicule. He can't move far from that line.
The rest of us, however, need to pressure the media to stop ignoring the intellectually challenged elephant in the room - the fact that the President is dumber than a fencepost.
Most folks who say Kerry totally won the debate focus on how he handled himself, not what he said.
www.wnd.com/news/article....E_ID=40800
Jimro
The article you link assumes that the war in Iraq was in self-defense. That argument was shot down back when it turned out there were no WMDs. It also encourages war with North Korea, another war. One with a country that can actually fight back, thus endangering not only innocent Korean civilians, but American ones as well. You know my position on war.
Cycle,
I thought there were WMD's, the intelligence community thought there were WMD's, Saddam threatened to use WMD's against invading troops.
We were wrong.
Had Saddam not tried to throw off the inspection process, had Iraq taken the steps necessary to prove to the international community that they didn't possess WMD's then I could agree with your opinion that the war was/is wrong.
We didn't know Saddam was bluffing and we called his bluff.
Oops. I'll make sure to add foretelling to my list of things to learn.
Jimro
I thought there were WMD's, the intelligence community thought there were WMD's, Saddam threatened to use WMD's against invading troops. We were wrong.
I don't care.
You can't kill thousands of innocent civilians for a reason that turns out to be false and just say "Oops, sorry guys, we f--ked up." You just can't. It's immoral. It's criminal. No justificiation, no excuse, no apology, can change this fact. At least thirteen thousand people have died. Each one had a personality and hopes and dreams and interests and friends and family and a job and memories and skills and loves and everything else about life that we take for granted, safe in our nice bubble out here in the West.
Think about all the things in your life. The relationships and connections, the things that Buddhists believe makes you what you are. Think about your body, one of the greatest and most beautiful miracles of nature (or God, whichever you prefer). Think about all of it wiped out in a heartbeat to feed some senseless, pointless, stupid war. What happened was wrong, and the people who orchestrated it deserve to be punished.
Cycle,
You are an intelligent individual who could assemble a WMD with proper supplies. If you sought out suppliers, sought out the expertise, and showed the necessary mindset to use such a device, used such a device in the past, then I would take you out in a heartbeat without remorse.
Wars are not fought to kill. Wars are fought to keep others alive and free.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. When it is your family dieing because someone failed to act, oh well, I don't care.
The terrorists continue to pad the numbers of iraqbodycount.net by attacking Iraqi police and ING recruiting stations, checkpoints, and government buildings.
Yet you have no problem laying their deaths on the hands of those who did not do them harm.
When you have the intelligence communities saying the same thing then it is credible, to not act on credible intelligence is criminal. Like the acts of Bill Clinton who did not have Bin Laden assassinated when he had the chance.
Jimro
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
-- John Stewart Mill
Historically wars are fought over territory, resources or jealousy Jimro. Notably there are a few exceptions like the American Revolution but those are the few.
You are an intelligent individual who could assemble a WMD with proper supplies. If you sought out suppliers, sought out the expertise, and showed the necessary mindset to use such a device, used such a device in the past, then I would take you out in a heartbeat without remorse.
Need I remind you that that description fits the United States of America like a glove?
The terrorists continue to pad the numbers of iraqbodycount.net by attacking Iraqi police and ING recruiting stations, checkpoints, and government buildings. Yet you have no problem laying their deaths on the hands of those who did not do them harm.
Look at the second-to-latest entry: "Target: area where US suspected militiamen operated. Weapons: US airstrikes, houses demolished. Reported minimum: 84." In fact, six of the last ten entries, 109 of 116 deaths, are listed as "US airstrikes". The terrorists are doing some of the killing. So what? "Oh, we didn't kill all of them, so it's not as wrong." No. One murder or a million murders, it's all the same.
Quite frankly, I'm growing tired of your attempts to minimize the body count. You can blame it on the terrorists, but the cold hard fact is, at least 13086 people, not counting American soldiers, have died because Bush and Cheney had itchy trigger fingers. Had the war not been started, they would be alive today.
Under the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations, the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent all deaths.
When you have the intelligence communities saying the same thing then it is credible, to not act on credible intelligence is criminal.
But that's the thing. The "intelligence" was credible in name only, and the benefit of the doubt simply cannot be given in this kind of a situation.
Quote:
However, as much as I try not to read tone into someones words, I find yours deliberately insulting no matter how I read it.
Of course it's deliberately insulting. But only two sentences of it are insulting you, and the rest is insulting Bush. And it's true, anyway. And thanks for still totally ignoring the point I made.
That Bush is wasting precious oil on a pointless war.
(Cycle, I'm not saying that oil is more important than human lives. I'm just saying that Bush seems to think so.)
He didn't even wait for the UN, who had security clearance, to finish searching. And whether or not there were WOMD in Iraq, and whether or not Saddam wanted to make them, the point is, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND EVER. And they ARE NOT THERE NOW.
Why can't America accept the UN's decision?
Saddam and his sons are out, there's a decent government in charge, and yet there is still a war in Iraq. True, the government needs a little backup at the moment, but America isn't providing backup. It's out there, on the front lines, spraying bullets into every crowd of people who stand around on street corners, often killing women and children as well as Iraqi reporters and the elderly.
In my opinion, if Iraq had WOMD, they'd have declared war on the USA by now, and they'd have every right to, with 13,000+ civilian casualties.
That sort of thing should have stopped with WW2.
"Well gosh, they're shooting at us too. So they're just as bad."
The pursuit of peace is never an excuse for war.
Cycle,
US WMD's are in accordance with international law and UN regulations of which you are so fond.
WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afganistan, and Iraq were/are not being fought over territory for the US. We didn't gain an inch of ground.
There is a huge difference between classical and modern warfare.
How many people would have died in Iraq if there weren't insurgents? As long as the terrorists hide behind civilians there will be collateral deaths. That is the reality of conflict. Deal with it.
Jimro
US WMD's are in accordance with international law and UN regulations of which you are so fond.
So? All I'm saying is that the description of "an intelligent individual who could assemble a WMD with proper supplies", who "sought out suppliers, sought out the expertise, showed the necessary mindset to use such a device, and used such a device in the past" fits the United States. You never said anything about international law.
How many people would have died in Iraq if there weren't insurgents? As long as the terrorists hide behind civilians there will be collateral deaths.
How many times must I repeat myself? I don't care. I don't give a God damn who killed who. I. Don't. Care. These people would not be dead if this war, this illegal, immoral, illegitimate, criminal war, had not been started.
Cycle,
You don't care who did the killing yet you blame the US.
Not very logical.
Why not blame Saddam for not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors? If he'd done that then the US wouldn't have had fears of WMD's being passed to terrorists.
Why not blame the UN for failing to strictly enforce the oil for food program? Lots of dual use technologies got into Iraq through that program.
The problem isn't Bush, or the US, we are trying to rebuild Iraq and leave it better than we found it.
Remember, everyone dies.
Jimro
You don't care who did the killing yet you blame the US.
Basically. Again, it wouldn't have happened had it not been for the US.
Why not blame Saddam for not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors? If he'd done that then the US wouldn't have had fears of WMD's being passed to terrorists.
Excuses excuses. Bush never said anything at the time about Saddam's lack of cooperation with the weapons inspectors when he was giving his reasons for war. I believe his wording was, "He's got 'em."
Why not blame the UN for failing to strictly enforce the oil for food program? Lots of dual use technologies got into Iraq through that program.
Since when does that have to do with anything?
Cycle,
You're personal thirst to see punishment dished out is clouding your higher reasoning. You blame president Bush for 13000 "civilian" deaths without looking through the historical context of an occupying force.
The UN was not charged with any "war crimes" for failure completely stop the lawlessness and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo right away. Neither were the Allies after WWII.
The coalition has done everything humanely possible to ensure civilian safety. If you ask for more than that you are being unreasonable.
We went to war because the most credible intelligence sources on two sides of the Atlantic said Iraq had WMD's. They were wrong. We are doing what is necessary to put Iraq back together.
Personally I hope that congress passes legislation to allow Medicare to function like the VA, that Castro dies so Americans don't have to go to Canada to get stogies, and Iraq gets an elected government in January.
Jimro
Quote:
Remember, everyone dies.
Ah well then, that justifies making yourself the cause of 13000 of those deaths, does it?
By your logic you might just as well take a gun to your head and blow your brains out right now because, hey! you're going to die one day anyway! Why not today?
That logic is f***ed on a royal scale.
Quote:
You're personal thirst to see punishment dished out is clouding your higher reasoning.
Translation: "anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot."
Wouldn't be the first time a certain individual who shall remain nameless has made claimed that people who don't agree with them are either 'uneducated', 'too emotional', or 'unhinged'.
If I killed someone, just one person, in cold blood then I'd expect punishment and probably get it, irrespective of my reasons for murder. In some parts of the world I'd be brutally executed for such a crime. Yet somehow, when a guy in a suit behind a desk in a big white house on the other side of the Atlantic does the same on a massive scale, with even less reason than many murderers, he gets away with it scott free.
If an attack on the USA was imminent, I could understand an attack to defend itself, but we all know it wasn't. Whether Saddam had WMD's or not, he enjoyed living a luxurious life of power and wealth. He wasn't suicidal; he wouldn't have done anything as stupid as attack the USA if there was any chance of retaliation.
Quote:
WWI, WWII , Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Afganistan, and Iraq were/are not being fought over territory for the US. We didn't gain an inch of ground.
World War II was started by Hitler for territory, all those who opposed were defending the territories to the death.
Anyway, Jimro, why do you not realize what has happened, 1000 American troops are dead, 13000 Iraqi are dead, Now I have to ask you; forget where they came from, forget whether they were soldiers, terrorists, combatants, civilians, adults or children. Over 14000 are dead because George W. Bush lied, jumped the gun and invaded Iraq just to be proven wrong. Do you honestly think it was worth 14000 lives just because of that?!
Ugh, why does everything have to be Republican or democrat? Bush or Kerry! Bah! BAH I SAY! I refuse to join a political party, there's just too much confrontation. Why can't a third party president go into office? 
Easy, Mau.
There is right & wrong. There is good & evil. There is yin & yang. Anyway, I could go on. People tend to believe that there are two choices and things are in black & white. As a result, two seemingly opposing sides will normally garner the biggest support.
I'm not suggesting that people don't see the "gray"-side of everything, I'm saying that people prefer to see the black or white sides of everything. As a result, unless there is a major change in the thinking, there will only be two major parties. They may change names or positions over time, but it'll stay only two people with a shot and everyone else just being considered a "spoiler" for one of the so-called main two contenders (examples: Perot and Nader in recent elections).
One thing that could help in the thinking is if there were actually real Presidential debates. They should allow all the potential Presidential candidates be involved in the debate, not the just the ones from the big two (occassionally three) political parties.
Eon,
If you shot yourself right now I'd feel....nothing. But wait, you don't have access to a gun because you and your government feel that you aren't responsible enough to own one. (technically an exageration, since UK allows ownership of shotguns, and may issue permits for rifles)
There is a difference between killing and murder. If you refuse to see a difference then that's your own problem. 13000 Iraqi's were not murdered, they were killed. 1000 Soldiers were not murdered, they were killed.
Nick Berg was murdered. Ken Bigley, Anwar Wali, Jack Hensley, Eugene Armstrong, and other hostages yet unnamed who were beheaded were murdered.
The US is not a nation of murderers, and President Bush wouldn't have called for war if he didn't believe that Iraq posed a serious threat to the security of the US.
Cycle,
In 2002, John Edwards told CNNs Late Edition:
I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.
January 23, 2003 at Georgetown University, Sen. John Kerry stated, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Kerry went on to say that the threat of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is not new, but that "it had been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War."
The fact of the matter is that we had an intelligence failure. We know it and are dealing with the problem, both at home and in Iraq.
Bush is not a murderer, US Servicemen and coalition forces are not murderers. We are just doing the best job we can with the best intel we can get. Deal with it.
Jimro
There is a difference between killing and murder. If you refuse to see a difference then that's your own problem. 13000 Iraqi's were not murdered, they were killed. 1000 Soldiers were not murdered, they were killed.
Killing, murder, whatever. As far as I'm concerned, willfully ending the life of another human being, or willfully doing something that leads to the end of another human being's life, is murder. That kid from Richmond who went streetracing back in June, ran a red light, and T-boned the cop car at 170kph, murdered the cop. He didn't kill him, he murdered him. Fully aware of the danger and gravity of his actions, he irresponsibly chose to engage himself in a dangerous and illegal activity that resulted in the death of an innocent person. He is a murderer.
The fact of the matter is that we had an intelligence failure. We know it and are dealing with the problem, both at home and in Iraq.
Oh, they had an intelligence failure? Well f*ck-a-doodle-doo! I guess it's all okay, then, isn't it? I DON'T CARE about your Goddamned intelligence failure. Fourteen thousand people are dead because of the Iraq war. Do you not understand this? Fourteen thousand people are dead because of George W. Bush. DEAD. Imagine your family being killed in a carpet bombing, the immense emotional pain it would inflict on you. Would you accept it and forgive your family's killers, because they admitted they had an intelligence failure? Your rationalizations are completely absurd.
Do not try to make it sound as though the Bush administration was forced to do what it did. It acted of its own accord. Like our friend Turbo up there, it had a choice and it made the wrong one.
Bush is not a murderer, US Servicemen and coalition forces are not murderers.
Alright, I'll humour you. Bush is not a murderer. He's a killer.
I need a drink.
Ech. The facts escape me, unfortunatly.. x_x; If I remember rightly didn't he poison-bomb his own people, or something?
This is clearly a heated argument. From what I can tell, Jimro's trying to explain the differences between killing and murder. As far as I'm concerned it's 'killing' if it was by complete accident. I have a slight doubt that the military strike was entirly accidental, even if civilians weren't the target as their casualty rate can be somewhat estimated. Now they knew that civilians would die, and attacked anyway. That makes it murder in my eyes. It's like you randomly decide to shoot a door, say. There's a chance someone may be behind the door and you realise this, and then take the risk anyway. A pretty far out example, maybe..
Soldiers however. Hm. That's a tricky one, really. I'm aware that some were killed by accident, mind.
Cycle seems to pretty well understand the differences between murder and killing, there, from what I can see. Though Cycle I have to wonder if the streetcar-racer was a might ignorant. I still think it's murder, not killing, but that case is for me approaching the borderline between the two. However, I guess you can't exactly let the guy claim ignorance on that part, so I'd class it as unintentional-murder rather than killing. Still murder, though, just he didn't get in a car and say "Buahah. I feel like murdering a cop today so I'll go streetracing". ;P
Intelligence failure.. I think the trouble is the whole war stank of "lets just find any old excuse to go to war to protect my rich buddies".. And personally, considering oil is such a limited resource right now, I don't see why it's worth spending thousands of lives over it, when you could be seriously researching into "Whadda we do when the oil's no longer there?". Granted though, Saddam was a man that needed to be removed from power, it's just so damned unfortunate that he had to go in under information that later turned out to be false. I mean, what do you do, turn round to the families of the dead and say "Whoops!". >_> It's a hell of an image, isn't it?
Still.. Still. Maybe if Saddam hadn't been so secretive about his weapons facilities. Then again that whole incident stunk for me as well, personally. I just can't believe Saddam would be quite that stupid, personally, but then again I don't know the guy. It's just, if the police search your home for drugs, you don't then cunningly and yet blatantly steer them away from the cupboard, for example. >_> "You can look anywhere in the house, so long as you don't look in etc etc.."
Quote:
January 23, 2003 at Georgetown University, Sen. John Kerry stated, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation.
Then again, maybe he was an idiot. o_O Oh well.
Stands to reason still that the guy had to be booted out of power, definatly.
Anyways, Jimro, don't talk down to people. Especially when they're not idiots.
Iraqi man weeps after US bomb kills wife & children
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
Howard Zinn
Cycle,
A father weeps for the death of his children. Touching.
www.krg.org/reference/halabja/index.asp#
About halfway down on the right is a slideshow link, click it.
Jimro
Jimro
Your cold, callous answer to that post makes me feel physically sick.
I suppose therefore that it doesn't matter that that man's wife and children were killed. I suppose it's fine to say, "Okay, he's crying, so what?"
You could at least have the decency to maintain discretion. You manage to be very selective about what questions you normally answer. Why couldn't you do that with this statement?
The point is that innocent people are dying. Haven't you noticed? That was the sort of thing the Axis (and unfortunately, the Allies) did in WWII.
I suppose that if his family doesn't matter, the families of the many, many people who died on 9/11 don't matter either. Neither does anybody's familys. In fact, lets all pick up .45s and go home and shoot our families now. There's a special prize for the person who does it fastest!
The one Saddam pulled off. >_<; You cannot deny that Saddam had to be taken out alright, but in many ways we seemed to be the bigger evil in this conflict which is what will keep this war and its purpose under HOT debate for decades, easily. Maybe even centuries..
The guy in the photo isn't what upsets me.. It's the fact there's gotta be thousands like him, right now, feeling the same pain or worse. >_<
Same.
Well at least you show some compassion for the dead, Weirdo.
Don't take that as an insult, I'm just replying to you before Jimro can accuse me of deliberately attacking him and him alone.
Quote:
You cannot deny that Saddam had to be taken out alright
Actually, you can deny it easily.
Saddam Hussein may have been a despot, he may have been a tyrant, he may have been a brutal, corrupt, powermad, abusive, and (as far as most people are concerned) 'evil' leader, but it is simple fact that under Saddam the different Iraqi tribes were kept in line. Under Saddam, Iraqi security was far better. Under Saddam, active terrorism was not rife. Under Saddam, Iraq had something that barely resembled standard services that we in the West take for granted.
Under Saddam Iraq was better off.
And besides, who the hell are we (the USA and Britain) to decide who is evil and who is good? What divine powers do we possess to make that judgement? Why, if it was right and just to remove Saddam Hussein from power, do we not not now show intent or action to remove Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe from power? Why do we continue to have strong trade links with China, who's government has time and time again proven itself a brutal and tyranical rgime? What about North Korea, who actually do have WMD's?
You can't remove a man from power and say it was about human rights while plain ignoring another country that's just as bad and having a healthy trade with a country that's known to abuse human rights. That's plain hypocrisy.
Why is it that the suspicion of WMD's in Iraq led to war and yet no one suggests taking North Korea out when they parade their WMD's on the streets and shoot rockets off over Japan, one of your most loyal allies?
But even if action was taken against all these 'tyrants' and 'potential threats', where would it stop? Where would the line between an 'evil tyrant' and a 'good leader' be drawn? And again, just who are we to judge that?
If that responsibility belongs to anyone, it is the United Nations, not the United States of America. And there's no point being part of the United Nations when you see fit to pick and choose when you will listen to what they have to say.
Oh, and don't start on how the UN doesn't have an army and therefore can't enforce anything on anyone, I'm well aware of that. However, I would see it as the duty of the UN's members to do their very best to make the UN work by cooperating with it, not outright defying any ruling you disagree with.
There's no point to the UN if countries like the USA (which should be setting an example to other members) insist on single-mindedly doing what they want, rather than what the UN has agreed to be the right thing to do.
Anyway, go Nader!
All good points, except for saying that Saddam shouldn't have been deposed.
If the USA listened to the UN on occasion, instead of whenever it felt like it, we wouldn't be in this infernal pile of crap right now.
And anyway, even if the UN doesn't work, it's still better to sit around a table and glare at each other suspiciously than it is to thumb large buttons labelled 'NUKE'.
Quote:
All good points, except for saying that Saddam shouldn't have been deposed.
You think? I won't agree with deposing Saddam Hussein until the people responsible for it show intent to also remove other abusive dictators (like Mugabe, who is worse than Saddam in some ways) or at least state that said dictators should be removed. I wouldn't be surprised if Bush couldn't even locate Zimbabwe on a world map, but Tony Blair at least could do more than @#%$-foot over whether the England cricket team should play in Zimbabwe or not.
But even then, I wouldn't agree with removing Saddam Hussein from power. He was not removed because of being a tyrant. He was removed as the result of a series of lies and misinformation pushed forward by a maniacal cowboy who was intent on starting a war with Iraq before he even got into office.
I don'y even know why the war was fought anymore, but I strongly suspect that it was partly to do with oil and partly to do with distracting the American people from the USA's failure to capture the man responsible for 9/11, Osama bin Laden.
And since the Republicans didn't even mention Afghanistan once in their recent New York convention, I think that plan has worked.
We're still not certain that Osama was involved in 9/11. That's a popular assumption without definite proof. But hey, he's a big hand in Al Quaeda (or whatever) so it is a good idea to catch him. Al Quaeda is not going to topple if he's caught, no matter what people think, but it won't have much funding. It would be like breaking a soldier's leg and sending him into battle with just a few clips of ammo.
Saddam's gone (good) his horrible sons are mostly dead (very good, since they would probably have started a civil war dividing the country when he died) and there's a democatic government in power (though it's having a little trouble, a proportional amount of people prefer it to Saddam).
Afganistan. You'd think Bush would have the sense to mention how well it's doing after the help from the USA. Idiot.
Oil. Oh yes, that's what this is about. Getting a western-friendly government to sell the last of the oil cheap, preferably to America.
And Saddam was taking most of that money (not that the world cared so long as the price was reasonable) so that's good too, now the money might just go to some good use.
Quote:
Afganistan. You'd think Bush would have the sense to mention how well it's doing after the help from the USA. Idiot.
Actually, I know I did agree with that originally, Harley, but I've been thinking that Bush probably hasn't bothered mentioning Afghanistan because it might just remind the Americans that Osama still's loose. Sure, Afghanistan is far better off without the Taliban n(even though the Taliban themselves aren't terrorists and aren't responsible for 9/11) and had democratic elections on Saturday. And, yes, the British and Amercan soldiers there are much more well-received than in Iraq. But it would probably be political suicide to risk reminding America of who was actually behind 9/11 at this critical stage in Bush's career.
Osama is the leader of al-Quaeda and, from what I can gather, the instigator of 9/11. And if not, he's being a complete moron by claiming to be in every video he's made since. So he does deserve to be brought to justice.
Al-Quaeda operates in scattered cells worldwide, so it's true that getting rid of Osama wouldn't finish them off. In fact I'm pretty sure that there's no forced solution that will ever finish them off. But either way, Osama should be brought to justice, because he committed a brutal, unforgiveable act of mass murder. Yet, it doesn't look like we're any closer to catching Osama now than were three years ago.
Yet another failure on Bush's part that makes him unfit to lead the USA.
Hmm.
Don't forget Sudan, my friends.
How is it that we can cooperate with THIS government that has killed millions? How about Rwanda?
Explain that to us, Jimro. Why aren't we bombing Sudan, and Zimbabwe, and these other places?
Who will win?? Personally I want Bush to win!! I know you all think I am crazy but Bush is my man! Everybody says that Bush has destroyed America but look around, there are more jobs now, and the Iraq citizens are free!! Kerry on the otherhand, he is a good man but gosh he is sayin he is going to lower the taxes but you know he isnt. He is also using stem cells as a way to get people to switch to his side. He is also going to draft. He says he is going to draft but he's gonna get them all home by September next year! Thats a bunch of crap! Kerry isnt going to make America better any more then Bush has!!!
Under Bush, the economy is going down the sink hole, he's doing nothing about the oil crisis, andthe gap between rich and poor grows ever wider.
And also, the allowance for freedom of speech grows narrower. It's harder and harder to say what you think without being called unpatriotic, and if you walk around with your hands in your coat pockets in NY, well, you'd better have a bullet proof vest on underneath.
Who are you to say the failing economy was because of Bush? Unless you are an economist, I will have my doubts. Please name examples of how Bush killed the economy. I don't trust Kerry's economic plan because it's the same as all of the Democratic domestic ideas and it really doesn't work. 9/11 certainly killed the economy and caused the airline industry to go into a tailspin, which affected other businesses.
Changing presidents in the middle of war=BAD idea. A change of guard would mean new generals, basically new everything including a change of policy that will take months to implement? Do you want to embroiled in a worse quaigmire?
Anyone who uses the example that Dems are better for minorities and women...first of all, affirmative action ain't cuttin it, especially for blacks here. The immigrants of Africa are passing us by because of good old hard work. Women here are very well off compared with the rest of the world...affirmative action is often a crutch to those who are too darn LAZY to get off their sorry drunken and drugged up hides and work hard. The state of Black America is sadder than sad. Even Latinos are better off than us.
Cut the pork projects. Both parties need to acknowledge it and put an end to those pet projects that really aren't doing anything but wasting taxpayer money. Than we can give out some real tax rebates!
Stop accepting hush money from big business. That is why Enron took so long to go down...politicians. We need leaders not people who think about what will the people think.
That is the reason why Kerry is not a good choice for president. A politician worries what the people will think, hence his constant flip flopping (I will use this term with a passion). A leader will make a sound decision and stand by his decision and acknowledge his mistake. Of course Bush has failed to do that but here is another point.
Several of the Supreme Court justices are up for retirement. Whoever we elect will pick those replacements for the next 40-60 years. And the liberals can stop whining about Bush turning back civil rights and instating the draft.
Cooki,
Very good show on the history channel the other night, "Soldiers for Hire". It showed how 300 mercenaries drove out the RUF, and since they were so effective the international community made them leave, then sent in 17,500 UN peacekeepers that couldn't stop the murdering from starting up again.
Africa is a bloodbath waiting to happen.
The US has no interests in sub Saharan africa. No terrorist training camps we know of, no major terrorist funding sources.
When it is in our best interest (or appears to be) then you can expect US action. Until then, don't hold your breath.
Harley,
Innocent people die. Sometimes just from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guilty people die, sometimes because precision weapons were dropped from a US warplane. Sometimes from cancer.
Feel bad if you want to, but know that you sleep safe in your bed each night because there are men and women willing to push the button to drop the bombs on the bad men who hate you because you aren't a fundamentalist muslim. People ready to pull the trigger to kill a 13 year old boy shooting an AK-47 or RPG at Iraqi police headquarters.
Feel for that man if you want to, it won't do anyone any good. There will always be sorrow enough to go around.
Jimro
Jimro,
Actually, I sleep safe in my bed because I don't think about such things. If I did, I think I'd worry more about the USA's 12,000+ weapons than some terrorist group which has at the best some rapid-fire weaponry.
Pfft. Don't try to glorify the job of soldiers in this issue, Jimro. Iraq was not a threat. We are no safer now than we were before the attack started so we owe you (or rather your pals out there actually fighting the war rather than sitting comfortably at home) nothing.
Quote:
The US has no interests in sub Saharan africa. No terrorist training camps we know of, no major terrorist funding sources.
When it is in our best interest (or appears to be) then you can expect US action. Until then, don't hold your breath.
Well, I knew that. The USA will only do anything in its own interests (like when they can get cheap oil out of it). But since you see fit to finally admit that that is the case then don't you dare claim that any war America fights is a selfless act to defend human rights ever again.
You've done that before. You claimed the Iraq War was always about human rights and that that was only brought to the fore when it turned out the USA wasn't going to find Saddam's non-existant weapons.
Well, you've gone and contradicted yourself right now.
So, America won't show the slightest interest in other countries worldwide where human rights are being abused, those same rights you claim are given by God and are intrisic and inalienable, unless it's in America's interests to do so. And yet, you want me and Harley to show gratitude to the American army for acting in AMERICA's interest in a country that was even less of a threat to Britain than it was to the USA?
Let me think...
How about no?
Karl Rove must have put George W. Bush in a world of hurt after his strange performance during the first debate. In Miami Bush was caught on camera smirking, grimacing, swaying from side to side, and molesting his podium. This time he was clearly under strict orders to show no emotion whatsoever while John Kerry was speaking. It worked pretty well. Apart from the frantic blinking and teethgrinding - which, to be fair, could be left over from his cokehead years - Dubya managed to stay relatively composed. For a while.
Unfortunately, at the first debate Bush also ended up looking like a wimp, stammering, pausing, and staring blankly at the camera for several seconds before answering questions. So this time he was also under orders to be more forceful while speaking - to look more like a "leader" than he did during the first debate, where frankly he looked like a tranked-out sock-puppet.
Of course, when you give George W. Bush two conflicting instructions, you know there are going to be problems.
Bush started strongly, but as the debate progressed and John Kerry's barbs hit home, he gradually became angrier and angrier. And... angrier. After a few questions Bush could barely restrain himself, practically leaping from his stool as soon as Kerry had finished speaking. And his "furity" culminated in a bizarre attack on moderator Charlie Gibson.
After a question on the possibility of a military draft, Bush flew to his feet, yelling over Gibson who was in the process of offering him a 60 second response.
GIBSON: Mr. President, let's extend for a minute...
BUSH: Let me just - I've got to answer this.
GIBSON: Exactly. And with Reservists being held on duty...
(CROSSTALK)
BUSH: Let me answer what he just said, about around the world.
As the president glared at him, Gibson looked startled. And then Bush started yelling. "You tell Tony Blair we're going alone!" he barked. "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone! Tell Silvio Berlusconi we're going alone! Tell Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland we're going alone!"
I mean, jeez. I know Bush doesn't like it when people forget Poland, but there's no need to shout about it.
So which George W. Bush will turn up for the third debate? Spaced-out Robot George? Or Unstable Maniac George? Or will we see something else entirely? I can't wait to find out!
If you thought Bush was bad on foreign policy, wait till you see what he can do with domestic stuff. The very first question on domestic issues was about prescription drug imports, specifically, "Mr. President, why did you block the reimportation of safer and inexpensive drugs from Canada which would have cut 40 to 60 percent off of the cost?"
"I haven't yet," responded the president. "Just want to make sure they're safe. When a drug comes in from Canada, I want to make sure it cures you and doesn't kill you."
Wow! Watch out for those dangerous Canadian drugs! I mean, this is that third-world nation Canada we're talking about here. Absolutely no health standards whatsoever. And damn, we just hate you guys for your freedoms - maybe we'll put razor blades in your Viagra! Mind you, I guess since the president's "Iraqi nuclear bombs are going to kill you" line has fallen flat, "Canadian drugs are going to kill you" will have to do. Yes folks, watch out -- Canadian drugs are an imminent threat.
Hang on a minute though - since the question was about the reimportation of drugs, Bush is actually talking about drugs which are manufactured in America, exported to Canada, and then brought back over the border by elderly American smugglers who can't afford to buy them in their own country. Traitors! How dare they not be able to afford the ridiculous prices set by Bush's fat-cat buddies in the pharmaceutical industry? Something will have to be done about these evil-doers.
Feel bad if you want to, but know that you sleep safe in your bed each night because there are men and women willing to push the button to drop the bombs on the bad men who hate you because you aren't a fundamentalist muslim.
Actually, my belief has always been that I sleep safe in my bed each night because my government doesn't go out of its way to start wars and disrupt peace.
But wouldn't it be in American interests to ensure that Africa doesn't turn into a bloodbath, which you have implied it will become?
Your stance on U.S. interests is totally hypocritical. Everything is a double standard to you. It's ok to start a war in a place which has been proven to have not only not been the biggest threat to the US.S, but has actually escalated hate in the Middle East towards us, but yet its not in American interests to prevent one? Especially when certain African countries are conducting ethnic cleansing and genoside to a scale that could make Milosovic's campaigns look like a game of tag in comparison?
And actually, to say its a bloodbath waiting to happen is a lie, as well as saying we have not been involved in Africa. For example, who orchestrated the rise of power for a certain Mobutu of Zaire back in the 1960's? We did, by kidnapping their (democratically elected!) president and assasinating him in the dead of night....and then blaming Communists. Then, we funded the Mobuturegime for thirty years. A regime that robbed the country blind of natural resources, killed millions, imprisoned just as many because Mobutu turned out to be a megalomaniac who declared war on his neighbors, and used US money to build personal palaces and lavish mansions situated all around the world.
BUT, after communism fell, we decided to stop assassinating people (also after we imposed a state-sponsored assassination ban - which, I might add, Bush has been trying to lift). So then, of course, we have the situation in Rwanda, and what does the U.S. do? Nothing. Nada. Zip.
Oh, you could say "But what about Somalia?" But wait, Somalia has links to Al-Qaeda, so automatically, that's an important place.
...Oh yeah, there's no Muslim terro camps in Somalia despite the fact its overlords are financially connected to Al-Qaeda? Wow, Jimro, where were you last year when people were contemplating about Somalia after we "won" in Iraq?
Forget the fact that a TB/AIDS outbreak is killing millions because leaders (ours among them) aren't allowing needed medicine to flow into Africa. Forget that fact that Muslim Nigeria is ALSO ethnically cleansing itself of Christians.
But aren't we on a crusade, according to our beloved president and several others in the government and military, Jimro, to save Christians from the horrible Muslim threat? Or is it just not important to save those black people because they don't have oil to help their case?
Took the words right out of my mouth, Cooki. Well said.
But aren't we on a crusade, according to our beloved president and several others in the government and military, Jimro, to save Christians from the horrible Muslim threat?
Don't forget Jews!
Actually, I think that Bush would conveniently forget Jews, annoying yet another huge ethnic group.
There are good peace leaders, and good war leaders. Churchill was a good war leader, but crap in peace times. But he didn't start another war to stay in power.
Tony Blair is a good peacetime leader, or at least the best of a bad lot, which generally consists of conservatives. But he kind of sucks at wars, and isn't too brilliant at standing alone.
Bush couldn't lead in peacetime, and he can't lead in wartime.
Do none of you remember basic politics? I have explained this before.
Rule number one:
Nations always act in their own best interest.
Rule number two:
Nations don't have friends, only interests.
It is in our best interest to have a stable and democratic Iraq. Because it will help stablize the middle east. Having a govt. in the middle east that respects human rights is in our best interest. We get out of it a reduced chance of terror attacks hitting our soil.
Ousting Saddam wasn't just about deposing a brutal dictator, it was about giving freedom to the Iraqi people. Hence the mission's name, "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Not a whole lot of educated and enfranchised suicide bombers.
Altruism does not exist in the real world. People/Nations always have a reason of their own for doing something. Their reason can be as simple as it makes them feel good to help others or to plots as complicated as any Shakespeare tragedy.
Our main concern was WMD's.
Complain about the lack of WMD's all you want. It doesn't matter a lick to you that the UN was looking for those same weapons. To you it doesn't matter that the best intelligence agencies of multiple governments agreed that Saddam had WMD's. No matter what the evidence, you will say that we rushed into war recklessly. There are those who believe that war is never worth the cost.
You may not appreciate the soldier who defends your liberties, or the policeman who works diligently to ensure your safety, nor the intel analyst who tirelessly neutralizes threats before you are aware of them. That's fine, it is your freedom.
You may believe that the highest state of existence is to sit around complaining about the US. Parisian coffee houses are a good place to meet like minded individuals.
Jimro
How interesting that you completely avoided what I said like the plague, not even answering my question about Africa.
And, as a matter of fact, I do appreciate the soldier. My father was a major in the Marine Corp for half my life, and still works for the USMC as a military contractor. I know for a fact my father was probably involved in certain secret ops which, if anyone knew about, would totally horrify people. He's protected presidents. He's been banned from going into certain countries. He's even admitted to killing people. But I don't disrespect him for that. It was his job, he loves his country.
It's what the higher ups made him do that angers me. A LOT of what my father had to do may not have been neccessary at all. My father agrees that defending our nation is a must, and even frowns down on me when I grumble about the government (though it is the administration, and not the institution I disagree with). Yet even he says (and I'm putting words in his mouth, but to illustrate my point) that going to Iraq for WMDs is pretty much the equivalent of going to Utah to find a hooker. You aren't going to find them.
You may believe that the highest state of existence is to sit around complaining about the US. Parisian coffee houses are a good place to meet like minded individuals.
Me siento, pero no hablo frances.
Likening us to whiny cowards doesn't help your case.
Oh cookie. New flash, thats how Jimro discusses. He's right and the points you made vanish. Besides, he's trying to turn everything said into a neat little, "You hate soldiers" thing. I.E. same thing he did before.
I find it hilarious how about of probably 14 soldiers I know at Ft. Sill, Jimro, all think Bush is.. well.. they use rather coarse language there but their views on his handling of the "needed war" are similar to the majority of the people here.
I take offense you'd generalize all the statements made as "not respecting soldiers" I agree most of the points made and my serrogate brother is one of the ones out there. It was so bad at one point, as he couldn't contact me, I was forced to drop out of college due to a nervous breakdown. If someone else has a loved one there as well and you callously used that line I can only imagine how they'd feel. I'm not going to discuss it with you so don't bother snipping at this, as its ridiculous to listen to someone that refuses to listen to you. I'm just reminding you to think of others before posting. It's flamebait to post generalizations like that, in a topic like this.
Oh look Jimro you just contradicted yourself, there goes your arguement.
Quote:
Nations always act in their own best interest.
and...
Quote:
Ousting Saddam wasn't just about deposing a brutal dictator, it was about giving freedom to the Iraqi people.
There goes your arguement.
EDIT: Oh and Cooki, I think you mean "Je ne parle francais! 
Cooki,
You must feel left out, don't, I always get around to you.
Africa. The reason the US did not send troops into Rwanda in 1994 was because the last UN mission we participated in was Somalia and the events chronicled in "Black Hawk Down". Another deployment so quickly would not have been popular with the American public, and Bill Clinton was always a popular president.
However, since 1994 the US has tried to stay out of Africa because it really is a no win situation for us.
Who is going to pay for the AIDS drugs? Spend money one dieing people? That takes money away from those still living. Who is going to distribute, prescribe, and administer them? It is a catch 22 situation. Not enough docs to make drugs effective, not enough drugs to make docs effective. Are you going to take docs from the US and force them to practice medicine in Africa?
Christians are being killed the world over, not just in Africa. Burma, Indonesia, Phillipines, etc. Generally places with a muslim majority. Hate that statement if you want to, it is only the truth.
Now as for propping up governments in the Cold War? It was in our best interest at the time. Remember the phrase, "He may be a dirty rotten dictator, but he's OUR dirty rotten dictator!" ?
Well lets just say that the spread of communism wasn't in the US's best interest. Propping up governments to oppose their communist neighbors was quite the hobby of the US for a long time. We even helped Iraq because the USSR was helping Iran. That's why we thought Iraq still had chemical weapons.
You can complain all you want, attack my words from some supposed moral high ground, but it doesn't change the truth, and it doesn't change reality.
Please tell your father I thank him for serving. I haven't met many Marines I didn't like.
Jimro
